3 ms·

Firstly, Samsung isn't defeating anyone. Most of the devices they ship are unprofitable low end devices. This makes for a single impressive sounding headline,

by gress 13y ago

Firstly, Samsung isn't defeating anyone. Most of the devices they ship are unprofitable low end devices. This makes for a single impressive sounding headline, but has little to do with their competitive position. Secondly - Samsung was forced to sell bigger screen phones because they couldn't achieve good battery life with smaller devices.

dba7dba 13y ago
First, I NEVER said Samsung was defeating anyone in my post. But come to think of it, Samsung has defeated pretty much every other Android phone makers. But again, I never said Samsung was defeating anyone. Not only that, Samsung was more profitable than apple for 2 consecutive quarters in 2013 before newer iPhones were released. Of course ton of other profits of samsung came from non-phones. http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-is-now-a-more-profitable-company-than-apple-2013-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-is-now-a-more-profita... Second, source on that battery story?
- gress 13y ago
  You may not have said Samsung was defeating anyone in your earlier comment, but you implied it, and now you have said it. Samsung has defeated all old brands that attempted to survive by adopt android, but is now itself being defeated by cheaper new Chinese brands that can steal its low end share while Apple consumes the high end. What is the point of mentioning Samsung's temporary high profits from other sources when we are discussing phone strategy?
  - dba7dba 13y ago
    Well I fell into the same hole as you did. IMO, you don't defeat a company. Because a defeated company can always come back. Apple almost disappeared. Samsung suffered seriously from the Asian financial crisis. But any how, what's your source for this statement: Secondly - Samsung was forced to sell bigger screen phones because they couldn't achieve good battery life with smaller devices.

by gress 13y ago

dba7dba 13y ago

First, I NEVER said Samsung was defeating anyone in my post. But come to think of it, Samsung has defeated pretty much every other Android phone makers. But again, I never said Samsung was defeating anyone. Not only that, Samsung was more profitable than apple for 2 consecutive quarters in 2013 before newer iPhones were released. Of course ton of other profits of samsung came from non-phones. http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-is-now-a-more-profitable-company-than-apple-2013-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-is-now-a-more-profita... Second, source on that battery story?

gress 13y ago
You may not have said Samsung was defeating anyone in your earlier comment, but you implied it, and now you have said it. Samsung has defeated all old brands that attempted to survive by adopt android, but is now itself being defeated by cheaper new Chinese brands that can steal its low end share while Apple consumes the high end. What is the point of mentioning Samsung's temporary high profits from other sources when we are discussing phone strategy?
- dba7dba 13y ago
  Well I fell into the same hole as you did. IMO, you don't defeat a company. Because a defeated company can always come back. Apple almost disappeared. Samsung suffered seriously from the Asian financial crisis. But any how, what's your source for this statement: Secondly - Samsung was forced to sell bigger screen phones because they couldn't achieve good battery life with smaller devices.