#1, so you agree that it is undervalued? #2, Samsung's business is diversified, not vulnerable. During the DRAM glut years ago, the mobile division's higher p

#1, so you agree that it is undervalued? #2, Samsung's business is diversified, not vulnerable. During the DRAM glut years ago, the mobile division's higher profit helped cushion their chip division's lower profit. Now, it's the other way around. Also, unlike Apple's reliance on a single product line, their mobile sales come from many different models, greater than the sales of Apple's in aggregate, but, as individual models, lower than that of Apple iPhone. CNN's comparison likewise is nonsensical. Apple accounts for about ~3 or 4% of Samsung's overall sales last I checked. Apple has significantly cut their reliance on Samsung, especially after the legal battle started in early 2012's, and stopped using Samsung's parts before -- for instance, the earlier iPhone Ax chips were designed and manufactured by Samsung in Texas, USA, but now Apple designs them in-house (after PA-semi and Intrinsity acquisition in 2008 and 2010) and outsources manufacturing to Taiwan/China. That was about 6 years ago and Samsung is still laughing their way to the bank with about $50B in profit last year. #3, I've too noticed that a lot of Apple fanbois are out of touch with the reality at times (is that what you call reality distortion field?). Congrat Apple for achieving such huge milestone and I love my MBP which is 6 years old and still going strong, but surely, no sane mind would believe that Samsung would be out of business (or vulnerable) without Apple.