4 ms·

So much for all those who said that Android is "only Samsung". In China there is an explosion of local brands which sell Android, and they're eroding Samsung in

So much for all those who said that Android is "only Samsung". In China there is an explosion of local brands which sell Android, and they're eroding Samsung in a still booming market. That's the fact.

digi_owl 12y ago
Basically Samsung is getting eaten from the bottom much like they did to Nokia a decade ago.
- adventured 12y ago
  Effectively the same thing Samsung did to Sony.
megablast 12y ago
When people said it, it was true. Even now Samsung make the majority of money in the Android world.
- danmaz74 12y ago
  Yes, but the argument IIRC was that Samsung had attained an unassailable position, so Android being open wasn't really making any difference. Instead, in the latest ads that came to my mailbox (snail mail in Italy), I was struck by the fact that most of the advertised phones were from Chinese brands I had never heard of before...
  - 72deluxe 12y ago
    I too see many cheap Android devices for sale from noname Chinese brands. But are you tempted into buying them?
    - danmaz74 12y ago
      Considering I'm a poor startupper... yes :)
  - _nedR 12y ago
    Are the brands you are referring to, by any chance Xiaomi and Huawei? Here in India at least, these Chinese brands along with Lenovo have pretty much become household names in respect to mobile phones. And they do make good, solid, innovative products at half the cost of their Korean counterparts. From an Indian perspective, It is no surprise that Samsung is bleeding to these (at least in the low and mid segments). What is truly amazing to me is the pace with which the reputation of these mobile companies were built. It took years and even decades for the Koreans (Samsung and LG in electronics, and Hyundai in cars) to be taken in the same respect as the Japanese. The trust and reputation of the chinese brands (in the mobile space at least) were built almost overnight (and sooner in cases like OnePlus). There is certainly a Tom Sawyer effect in play with use of marketing tactics such as invite-only and flash sales.
    - castell 12y ago
      The OnePlus invite-only marketing tactics was very successful, from what I heard. Even their reputation seem to be good. Though 5.5" is very big. Most chinese built smartphones are 5" or bigger. There are only three high end flagship smartphones that are below 5" (ca. 4.5"): Apple iPhone6, Sony Xperia Z3 Compact and Samsung Alpha.
      - tw04 12y ago
        Their reputation is good because they spam the internet as part of their marketing ploy. They've got very real, and very serious touchscreen issues that basically every phone will suffer from at some point. And they either don't know how to fix it, or know how to fix it and aren't willing to spend the money to do so. Do a google search of "oneplus touchscreen issue" and let the light of reality shine on your head.
        castell 11y ago
        Good to know. A workmate owns one. I don't get the huge screen size trend anyway. About 4.5" (iPhone, Samsung Alpha, Sony XPeria Z3 Compact, etc.) is already the physical limit to fit comfortable in many pockets and is certainly big enough. Tell that to most manufactures who produce the mass of 5.5" phones.
- josteink 12y ago
  > Even now Samsung make the majority of money in the Android world Making the majority of money is completely irrelevant to actual market-share. Who makes the majority of devices?
  - jfb 12y ago
    Why would market share numbers be interesting when the switching costs are so low? You live by the commodity market, you die by the commodity market.
    - josteink 11y ago
      As a customer and consumer I prefer a diverse market full of smaller actors, than a market dominated by one Giant actor doing whatever the fuck it likes, just because it can. This should be the natural state of any market. Why do you prefer monopolies charging you more than they need to? What do you find better or more "interesting" about that?
      - jfb 11y ago
        The point is that in saying that Samsung derives benefit from market share, you have to acknowledge that that benefit is reduced because there's no good way for Samsung to use that market share advantage to keep people attached to their platform, because they don't have control over their platform.
  - equoid 11y ago
    Making money is the only significant metric. They may have a large market share but if they're not making money from it who cares?
    - josteink 11y ago
      As a non-stock-holder in said companies, I couldn't give a rats ass in who makes the most money. Having a dozen companies each making a little money represents a much healthier market than one giga-corp taking the lions-share. What we're seeing in China is the market moving to a healthier, more natural and sustainable state. I find that much more important. As a consumer/customer that benefits me. Whose interest do you have in mind?
saturdaysaint 12y ago
This is like celebrating that the Windows PC market is no longer "Dell" and "Gateway" circa 2000. True, but eMachines and similar low-margin makers don't necessarily portend a healthy, innovating market. The Chinese upstarts look promising, but with razor-thin margins, there will be strong incentive to include crapware and cut corners (RAM, sourcing internals from spotty suppliers to save a few cents,etc). Without an Android high end, it will be a lot harder for anyone to fast follow Apple features and accessories.
- soylentcola 12y ago
  This is what really bums me out about Motorola. I couldn't stand Motorola when they were making those "DRROOOOIIIIDDD" phones for Verizon. They always seemed slow, unreliable, and overpriced. Then when Google took over they really nailed it with the Moto X and the unusually capable budget models like the Moto G. My Moto X wasn't quite as cheap as my Nexus 5 ($450 vs $350) but it still wasn't the $650-800 of the usual higher-end Galaxies and iPhones. The build quality is excellent, the customizations are subtle and unobtrusive (active display, etc), and I've been on Kitkat since shortly after it was released. But more recently, I'm not as confident that they'll keep it up post-Google. I had to deal with their support team for an issue with another device and it was maddening. I really hope that isn't indicative of things to come, especially since Google seems to be positioning Nexus as more of a competitor in the contract/subsidy market with $650+ phones and deals with carriers. I really like having a company that makes more reasonably priced (and still not crappy) options but I think I'll still choose paying more over ever going back to Samsung again. With them, you pay top prices but get mediocre results at best.

digi_owl 12y ago

Basically Samsung is getting eaten from the bottom much like they did to Nokia a decade ago.

adventured 12y ago
Effectively the same thing Samsung did to Sony.

megablast 12y ago

When people said it, it was true. Even now Samsung make the majority of money in the Android world.

danmaz74 12y ago
Yes, but the argument IIRC was that Samsung had attained an unassailable position, so Android being open wasn't really making any difference. Instead, in the latest ads that came to my mailbox (snail mail in Italy), I was struck by the fact that most of the advertised phones were from Chinese brands I had never heard of before...
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  I too see many cheap Android devices for sale from noname Chinese brands. But are you tempted into buying them?
  - danmaz74 12y ago
    Considering I'm a poor startupper... yes :)
- _nedR 12y ago
  Are the brands you are referring to, by any chance Xiaomi and Huawei? Here in India at least, these Chinese brands along with Lenovo have pretty much become household names in respect to mobile phones. And they do make good, solid, innovative products at half the cost of their Korean counterparts. From an Indian perspective, It is no surprise that Samsung is bleeding to these (at least in the low and mid segments). What is truly amazing to me is the pace with which the reputation of these mobile companies were built. It took years and even decades for the Koreans (Samsung and LG in electronics, and Hyundai in cars) to be taken in the same respect as the Japanese. The trust and reputation of the chinese brands (in the mobile space at least) were built almost overnight (and sooner in cases like OnePlus). There is certainly a Tom Sawyer effect in play with use of marketing tactics such as invite-only and flash sales.
  - castell 12y ago
    The OnePlus invite-only marketing tactics was very successful, from what I heard. Even their reputation seem to be good. Though 5.5" is very big. Most chinese built smartphones are 5" or bigger. There are only three high end flagship smartphones that are below 5" (ca. 4.5"): Apple iPhone6, Sony Xperia Z3 Compact and Samsung Alpha.
    - tw04 12y ago
      Their reputation is good because they spam the internet as part of their marketing ploy. They've got very real, and very serious touchscreen issues that basically every phone will suffer from at some point. And they either don't know how to fix it, or know how to fix it and aren't willing to spend the money to do so. Do a google search of "oneplus touchscreen issue" and let the light of reality shine on your head.
      - castell 11y ago
        Good to know. A workmate owns one. I don't get the huge screen size trend anyway. About 4.5" (iPhone, Samsung Alpha, Sony XPeria Z3 Compact, etc.) is already the physical limit to fit comfortable in many pockets and is certainly big enough. Tell that to most manufactures who produce the mass of 5.5" phones.
josteink 12y ago
> Even now Samsung make the majority of money in the Android world Making the majority of money is completely irrelevant to actual market-share. Who makes the majority of devices?
- jfb 12y ago
  Why would market share numbers be interesting when the switching costs are so low? You live by the commodity market, you die by the commodity market.
  - josteink 11y ago
    As a customer and consumer I prefer a diverse market full of smaller actors, than a market dominated by one Giant actor doing whatever the fuck it likes, just because it can. This should be the natural state of any market. Why do you prefer monopolies charging you more than they need to? What do you find better or more "interesting" about that?
    - jfb 11y ago
      The point is that in saying that Samsung derives benefit from market share, you have to acknowledge that that benefit is reduced because there's no good way for Samsung to use that market share advantage to keep people attached to their platform, because they don't have control over their platform.
- equoid 11y ago
  Making money is the only significant metric. They may have a large market share but if they're not making money from it who cares?
  - josteink 11y ago
    As a non-stock-holder in said companies, I couldn't give a rats ass in who makes the most money. Having a dozen companies each making a little money represents a much healthier market than one giga-corp taking the lions-share. What we're seeing in China is the market moving to a healthier, more natural and sustainable state. I find that much more important. As a consumer/customer that benefits me. Whose interest do you have in mind?

saturdaysaint 12y ago

This is like celebrating that the Windows PC market is no longer "Dell" and "Gateway" circa 2000. True, but eMachines and similar low-margin makers don't necessarily portend a healthy, innovating market. The Chinese upstarts look promising, but with razor-thin margins, there will be strong incentive to include crapware and cut corners (RAM, sourcing internals from spotty suppliers to save a few cents,etc). Without an Android high end, it will be a lot harder for anyone to fast follow Apple features and accessories.

soylentcola 12y ago
This is what really bums me out about Motorola. I couldn't stand Motorola when they were making those "DRROOOOIIIIDDD" phones for Verizon. They always seemed slow, unreliable, and overpriced. Then when Google took over they really nailed it with the Moto X and the unusually capable budget models like the Moto G. My Moto X wasn't quite as cheap as my Nexus 5 ($450 vs $350) but it still wasn't the $650-800 of the usual higher-end Galaxies and iPhones. The build quality is excellent, the customizations are subtle and unobtrusive (active display, etc), and I've been on Kitkat since shortly after it was released. But more recently, I'm not as confident that they'll keep it up post-Google. I had to deal with their support team for an issue with another device and it was maddening. I really hope that isn't indicative of things to come, especially since Google seems to be positioning Nexus as more of a competitor in the contract/subsidy market with $650+ phones and deals with carriers. I really like having a company that makes more reasonably priced (and still not crappy) options but I think I'll still choose paying more over ever going back to Samsung again. With them, you pay top prices but get mediocre results at best.