3 ms·

But if the total volume of iPhones still includes the three year old 3GS, would it be fair to exclude Samsung's entry line?

nilliams 14y ago
In the UK it's £319 for a 3GS. That's still a very expensive phone and you certainly couldn't describe it as entry level. Samsung sells Android phones from around £89.99 [1] (probably cheaper, that was just a quick search). Depending on how you define 'smartphone' this article could also be including even cheaper (non-android) models at around the £50 mark [2]. [1] http://shop.orange.co.uk/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-mini-steel-grey http://shop.orange.co.uk/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-mini-s... [2] http://www.tesco.com/direct/tesco-mobile-samsung-cht-335-metaillic-black/211-2148.prd?skuId=211-2148&pageLevel= http://www.tesco.com/direct/tesco-mobile-samsung-cht-335-met...
- Schlaefer 14y ago
  That's true. And there are really cheap ones. But it's not only the Galaxy S and the rest is £90 crap. There are price points and models in between. If we compare notebook sales between Apple and let's say Dell, do we only count the 1000+ models just because Apple does not sell their notebooks below 1000? We can argue if the 1100 MacBook is as "good" as the 600 Dell, but who cares? If people buy smartphones for 190 which may be crappy by your/mine/our standard and are happy, so be it. Let's count them.
  - nilliams 14y ago
    Yes, what I'm saying is that there is an implication here that Samsung is winning against the iPhone. In reality they are simply selling handsets at price points Apple is not even competing for. The example you give of Dell vs Apple is a perfect example. Nobody would make the Apple/Dell comparison because it would not be news that more Dell laptops are sold than Apple ones. Whereas this article is trying to make news out of Samsung vs iPhone, due to the fact Samsung has an 'iPhone-like-product'. It is misleading. Not if you read every word, sit back, process, go all hacker-analytic on it... and consequently realise it's not really news. But if you read the article in the way it appears to have been editorialised, picture of S III, focus on the newer models... the fact the somewhat spurious comparison is even being drawn to begin with, you could be inclined to believe this article is saying 'S III et al are beating the iPhone'. It's subtle sure, but it ultimately is not an accurate title for the article, and is very easy to misconstrue. A fairer title would be something like: "Samsung is selling handsets to a broader market spectrum than Apple, will this lead to greater profits in the long-run?" - boring title, granted.
    - moe 14y ago
      Yes, what I'm saying is that there is an implication here that Samsung is winning against the iPhone. In reality they are simply selling handsets at price points Apple is not even competing for. What an absurd way to frame it... Companies care about units sold (market share) and profit. Samsung is winning on units sold, Apple on profit. Nobody cares about one individual model "winning" over some other, you can't measure that anyway. How many people would have bought an iphone if there was no roughly equivalent $300 samsung available? How many wouldn't have bought a smartphone at all if there was no $300 samsung?
      - nilliams 14y ago
        Sure, it is an absurd notion, notice my italics. But that's how people think, they want to know 'which is better'... or argue about it. >> Nobody cares about one individual model "winning" over some other The Internet begs to differ.
- Tichy 14y ago
  And what percentage of the sales are the cheap phones vs the expensive ones? You seem to imply that people mostly buy the cheap phones. Perhaps Apple is simply overpriced, ever thought of that? Prices for electronics are always falling, there is no law of nature that demands high end phones have to cost 800$.

nilliams 14y ago

In the UK it's £319 for a 3GS. That's still a very expensive phone and you certainly couldn't describe it as entry level. Samsung sells Android phones from around £89.99 [1] (probably cheaper, that was just a quick search). Depending on how you define 'smartphone' this article could also be including even cheaper (non-android) models at around the £50 mark [2]. [1] http://shop.orange.co.uk/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-mini-steel-grey http://shop.orange.co.uk/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-mini-s... [2] http://www.tesco.com/direct/tesco-mobile-samsung-cht-335-metaillic-black/211-2148.prd?skuId=211-2148&pageLevel= http://www.tesco.com/direct/tesco-mobile-samsung-cht-335-met...

Schlaefer 14y ago
That's true. And there are really cheap ones. But it's not only the Galaxy S and the rest is £90 crap. There are price points and models in between. If we compare notebook sales between Apple and let's say Dell, do we only count the 1000+ models just because Apple does not sell their notebooks below 1000? We can argue if the 1100 MacBook is as "good" as the 600 Dell, but who cares? If people buy smartphones for 190 which may be crappy by your/mine/our standard and are happy, so be it. Let's count them.
- nilliams 14y ago
  Yes, what I'm saying is that there is an implication here that Samsung is winning against the iPhone. In reality they are simply selling handsets at price points Apple is not even competing for. The example you give of Dell vs Apple is a perfect example. Nobody would make the Apple/Dell comparison because it would not be news that more Dell laptops are sold than Apple ones. Whereas this article is trying to make news out of Samsung vs iPhone, due to the fact Samsung has an 'iPhone-like-product'. It is misleading. Not if you read every word, sit back, process, go all hacker-analytic on it... and consequently realise it's not really news. But if you read the article in the way it appears to have been editorialised, picture of S III, focus on the newer models... the fact the somewhat spurious comparison is even being drawn to begin with, you could be inclined to believe this article is saying 'S III et al are beating the iPhone'. It's subtle sure, but it ultimately is not an accurate title for the article, and is very easy to misconstrue. A fairer title would be something like: "Samsung is selling handsets to a broader market spectrum than Apple, will this lead to greater profits in the long-run?" - boring title, granted.
  - moe 14y ago
    Yes, what I'm saying is that there is an implication here that Samsung is winning against the iPhone. In reality they are simply selling handsets at price points Apple is not even competing for. What an absurd way to frame it... Companies care about units sold (market share) and profit. Samsung is winning on units sold, Apple on profit. Nobody cares about one individual model "winning" over some other, you can't measure that anyway. How many people would have bought an iphone if there was no roughly equivalent $300 samsung available? How many wouldn't have bought a smartphone at all if there was no $300 samsung?
    - nilliams 14y ago
      Sure, it is an absurd notion, notice my italics. But that's how people think, they want to know 'which is better'... or argue about it. >> Nobody cares about one individual model "winning" over some other The Internet begs to differ.
Tichy 14y ago
And what percentage of the sales are the cheap phones vs the expensive ones? You seem to imply that people mostly buy the cheap phones. Perhaps Apple is simply overpriced, ever thought of that? Prices for electronics are always falling, there is no law of nature that demands high end phones have to cost 800$.