Posted on 07/28/2016 4:42:17 PM PDT by Shanghai Dan
The data is the data. The point was that the error is about the differences about smartphone definitions.
1st calendar quarters sales of smartphones were what they were. Samsung cannot have suddenly had "smartphone" sales jump from what they claimed in the first three months of 2016 to the huge numbers in the second quarter of 2016 unless Samsung RECLASSIFIED their FEATURE PHONES to be Smartphones.
My point in posting this article is to point out the data from the first calendar quarter (Apple's 2nd FISCAL quarter) where Samsung's own numbers are so much smaller than what is claimed in the second calendar quarter.
Your confusion comes from the fact that Apple's FIRST FISCAL QUARTER runs from the last Saturday of September at 5PM until the last Saturday of December at 5PM. . . it is not a calendar quarter. in fact, Apple's Fiscal quarters don't quite coincide at all with any calendar quarter. The 1st Calendar quarter is actually close to Apple's 2nd Fiscal Quarter, the 2nd Calendar Quarter is close to Apple's 3rd Fiscal Quarter, and so on. You are not understanding that disconnect of calendar and fiscal quarters.
You apparently do not understand economics, do you? In economics, the price of any product is what a willing buyer and a willing seller agree the product is worth in a free transaction, absent any coercive forces on either party.
Since Apple is able to sell every single iPhone they can make with very few left over (in fact, the evidence is that Apple is having trouble meeting demand), the price that Apple iPhones are selling for is exactly what they should be selling for. i.e. willing buyers and a willing seller are exchanging cash for the product and both are happy with the exchange.
On the other hand, Samsung runs into problems selling their products and has to reduce the price they are willing to accept to find wiling buyers who will pay their asking price to be happy to take that product off their hands. When they find an acceptable, agreeable price, then the exchange takes place. The price is established.
Samsung's products are price deprecated quite quickly soon after introduction into the market. Apple's products are not.
In fact, you frequently see resellers offering two, or even three, for one sales on Samsung flagship phones just two and three months after introduction to attract consumers. But, on the other hand, that never is seen for Apple phones. Consumers are willing to pay the full price for Apple's iPhones, and even years later Apple products command high prices for used ones. Not so much for used Samsung phones. That's your daily lesson in economics. . ., Dan. . . and yes, I am an Economist, who has taught Economics in the past.
Huh. The W2016 has TWO screens, both just under 4” in dimension. But you claim that’s too small so it cannot be a smartphone.
Wait a minute... Are you saying that the industry standard means the iPhones up through and including the iPhone 4 variants are not smartphones, but feature phones? Inquiring minds want to know!
PS: the W2016 runs the Chrome browser (and can look at all websites), has WIFI (b/g/n), and on screen (touch) as well as ten key pad input (which is actually faster for a lot of Asian character-based languages).
The iPhone's market share is falling, slowly but surely. It's profit is still high. Samsung's profits are low, but they continue to pull away from Apple in terms of the number of units sold (as Android gains overall). Samsung is playing for long-term domination of the market. Trade off some profits now for market share, and own the future.
If you understood economics, you would have never asked the question you did above. Since you did, You demonstrate you really don't have a grasp of economics. Merely asserting you do doesn't gain you any points. . . nor does your claims about market share show you know anything when what is important is PROFIT SHARE. Your claims that Samsung is sacrificing profit share to gain market for profits later has not been working for them. . . and it certainly is not working for the other Android phone makers who are posting LOSSES. Selling high quantities at a loss does not ever turn into profits. Selling commodity hardware by competing on price in a chase to the bottom doesn't win for any of the racers. Ever. They all go bankrupt.
Yep, you don’t get it!
Apple wins in the short term. In another 3 years, when iOS is down to less than 10% of the smartphone market, it becomes irrelevant and fades away - the iPhone sales slump accelerates. Then others start picking it up and win the long-term fight.
Same thing happened to Apple with computers. Shrinking marketshare led to irrelevancy led to others rising and owning the market and overall profits.
But hey, the short term game looks good, doesn’t it!
What is a “feature phone” with android? It’s a smart phone.
You might want to check that overall profits theory of yours in the personal computer market. Apple, a single company, takes home better than 40% of all personal computer profit share from ALL personal computers made. In 2013, Apple took home 54% of ALL PC profits. That is not irrelevancy.
Again, chasing competition to the bottom by competing on lowest price is a sure way to NOT win for any of those running in that race. There is always someone who thinks they can gain market share by undercutting the competition on price by cutting corners on quality and features. The only finish line they will eventually cross is bankruptcy or assimilation by others.
I still have a question for you: do you consider the iPhones prior to the iPhone 5 as feature phones? After all, you’ve claimed that a sub-4” screen is a feature phone... Or do you want to “walk back” that claim?
Or will you just dodge it?
No, I don’t. I was going by what Samsung themselves was advertising in their categories. Just because a phone has an Android OS does not make it a smartphone category phone. If the manufacturer categorizes it as a Feature phone, that’s what it is. When those iPhones were being made, they WERE premium smartphones. Give it a rest in stead of trying to play “gotcha.” We get it, you are an Android partisan. . . And obviously a Samsung proponent.
And you’re an iOS partisan... And obviously an Apple proponent.
That is all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.