backtop


Print 26 comment(s) - last by atlmann10.. on Feb 15 at 1:14 PM

Bold prediction: Strong possibility of a Samsung Texas Instruments acquisition by 2013-2014

The Interactive Data Corp. (IDC) just launched [press release] its annual wrap-up of the state of the phone market -- Worldwide Mobile Phone Tracker.  The biggest two stories of the report were smartphones' faster-than expected ascent and the growing war between rival smartphone makers Apple, Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung Electronic, Comp., Ltd. (KS:005930).

I. "The Great War" -- Samsung and Apple Wage International War

Samsung and Apple fought a bitter war in 2011 as both sales rivals [1][2] and legal rivals [1][2][3][4] in what has proven -- thus far -- to be a futile and Pyrrhic two-sided court spat.  

Samsung moved a record 90 million smartphones in 2011, including Q4 2011 shipments of 36.5 million units.  That was good enough to bump Samsung's overall sales up to 300 million (with feature phones included), giving it a second place stake in the market.  Apple narrowly out-sold Samsung, moving 93 million smartphones in 2011 [1][2][3], buoyed by a record-shattering Q4 2011.

i. 2012 Outlook

The competition is expected to heat up in 2012 as Samsung steps up sales of the Galaxy Nexus (4.65-in. display, LTE, Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich") and Galaxy Note (5.3-in. display, LTE, Android 2.3 "Gingerbread"). 
 

Galaxy Nexus
The Galaxy Nexus [Image Source: Samsung]

The Galaxy III smartphone is expected to land sometime in Q2-Q3 2012, while our sources indicate that Samsung is already exploring the possibility of a Galaxy Note 2.0, assuming sales go well of the super-sized smartphone.  Samsung is also exploring, according to the sources, a high-end smaller smartphone to directly counter Apple's 3.5-inch device.

Apple, meanwhile, is expected to launch an A6-equipped iPhone 5.  Word is that the A6 may be Apple's first true built-from-the-ground-up ARM core, versus past cores that were licensed and modified.  Apple is expected to stick with the Retina screen, though some are expecting it to boost the size slightly, to somewhere between 3.7 to 4.0-in (or in a less probable scenario release a larger variant).  

IOS 6.0 is likely going to be a major update, as Apple is lagging behind Google Inc. (GOOG) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in the home screen GUI experience, with iOS 5.0 somewhat the ugly duckling of the smartphone world, until you get inside Apple's strong core apps.  Apple supporters would likely defend this approach as "simplicity at its best", but Apple is likely to be wary of being viewed as anything less than the most stylish smartphone maker, as its brand is heavily image-based.

Dude you're a barista!
Apple's thirst for strong stylish brand image will likely force it to make big changes in iOS 6.
[Image Source: Samsung]

ii. LG v. Samsung in the Display Market

In so much as a smartphone is only as good as its screen, the iPhone vs. Galaxy war is as much LG Display Comp., Ltd. (KS:034220) vs. Samsung as it is Apple vs. Samsung.  Apple's products have always been predicated on sourcing premium parts.  Typically an Apple device contains little in the way of groundbreaking hardware innovation from Apple, but Apple has a strong track record for cornering the market on the most attractive discrete components and bundling them together in slick packages.

In the display space Apple's Retina display is reaching high volumes and boosting sales for both Apple and LG Display.  The Retina display is based on the an advanced version of In-Plane Switching (IPS) technology -- a TFT LCD (thin-film transistor liquid crystal display) technology first developed by Japan's Hitachi, Ltd. (TYO:6501) in 1996.  Hitachi has since sold off much of its own production capability, although it still holds some important patents.

Retina display
The iPad 3 will finally get the LG Retina display. [Image Source: SlashGear]

Meanwhile Samsung uses its own in-house S-LCD ("Super LCD") display technology, which is based on the Patterned Vertical Alignment approach, a rival TFT LCD technology.  Versus IPS, PVA displays enjoy similar rich color and contrast.  They outperform IPS displays in response times, particularly at lower brightness.  However, their viewing angle slightly lags IPS, with slight color distortion when viewing the screen at wide angles.  

Samsung originally developed S-LCD with Japan's Sony Corp. (TYO:6758).  It has since moved, though, to acquire sole ownership of the joint venture.  PVA first popped up in 2005-era Sony televisions, long before the tech hit smartphones -- much as IPS popped up in Hitachi and partners' high-quality color computer monitors -- aimed at art professionals -- before eventually finding a home in smartphones.

iii. Hardware

Samsung is currently using a mix of in-house modified licensed ARM Holdings plc (LON:ARM) CPU cores and Texas Instruments, Inc. (TXN) OMAP cores.  Samsung and TI appear to have a growing partnership in the ARM CPU space.  

This partnership makes sense as TI's OMAP 4000 Series are respected as one of the best ARM core designs on the market, particularly in battery efficiency, but trail in process technology.  Meanwhile Samsung leads all ARM manufacturers in process technology, being the first to hit mass-production of smartphone CPUs at the 28 nm node.

The relationship is also convenient out of pure geography.  Texas Instruments -- as its named implies, is based in Dallas, Texas.  And one of Samsung's largest global facilities outside of South Korea is its massive Austin, Texas chip fab complex, which houses only Samsung's second non-memory chip fab, a sprawling 2.3-million square foot factory that cost $3.6B USD [source] and may total billions more in ongoing upgrade costs.  The site is also home to one of Samsung's biggest memory chip fabs.

Samsung Austin Texas
Samsung's second CPU plant is located in Austin, Tex. near Texas Instruments.
[Image Source: Let's Go Digital]

Texas Instruments is exactly what Samsung needs -- a core designer sourced close to one of its biggest production facilities, in one of its biggest markets.  This is seemingly a match made in heaven, and the first results (the late OMAP4430-based iterations of the Galaxy II and the OMAP4460-based Galaxy Nexus) have appeared to be terrific.

Given TI's strong value proposition to Samsung and relatively low $37.6B USD market cap, we boldly predict that there is a strong possibility of a blockbuster TI acquisition by Samsung sometime in 2013-2014.  Samsung is committed to spending a record $42B USD in 2012, including on acquisitions, so it is possible such a deal could already be in the works.

Meanwhile there's major movement on the Apple chip front as well, according to our sources.  Apple has reportedly transitioned from an ARM core licenser who modifies ARM Holdings' cookie-cutter intellectual property (IP) designs (think decorating sugar cookies out of a tube), to baking its own homemade ARM cores based on an ARM instruction set license (think making homemade chocolate chip cookies).

Like a chocolate chip cookie, Apple's core design for the A6 will be somewhat a product of the instruction set and fundamental RISC design architecture.  In that sense it is likely to resemble other ARM Cortex-A15 (or possibly A9 if it has not yet made the switch) designs.  Apple is likely to add a low power helper core to its dual-core smartphone and quad-core tablet chips, similar to designs being pushed by NVIDIA Corp. (NVDAand Marvell Technologies Group, Ltd. (MRVL).

On the graphics front, Apple and Samsung both have traditionally been committed to Imagination Technologies Group Plc.'s (LON:IMG) PowerVR GPU IP cores, though Samsung has also dabbled with ARM Holdings plc's Mali GPU IP cores.  Looking at 2012, Samsung looks to transition all of its next-gen. dual-core (smartphones) and quad-core (tablet) Exynos chips to ARM Holdings' impressive next-generation Mali 600 series cores.

A (slightly) lower level view of the Mali T658 chip. [Source: ARM Holdings]

The commitment will likely be less than total for Samsung, though, as Texas Instruments is still using PowerVR exclusively, and Samsung's close ties to TI means that there will probably be PowerVR chips in some of its phones in 2012.

II. Other Competitors Remain Hungry

The IDC's report only covered the world's top firms in terms of total shipments, hence it did not cover firms like Taiwan's HTC Corp. (TPE:2498) who exclusively sell smartphones.  Apple was the only company to make the ranks without selling feature phones.

Still, even looking at these dual-mode firms, there's strong hunger among those near the top.

i. Nokia

The IDC report was relatively positive about Nokia Oyj. (HEL:NOK1V), writing, "The company took another step in its storied transition, having officially launched its first Windows Phone-powered Lumia smartphones and its Asha line of smartphone-like feature phones. While both have received positive response from the market, Nokia has been quick to adjust its retail experience, customer engagement, and hardware bug fixes."

Nokia sold only about 16 million more total phones than Samsung in Q4.  The company remains the world's top mobile phone seller.  While Samsung was nipping at its heels in Q4, Nokia remained almost 90 million units ahead of Samsung for full-year sales.

In terms of smartphones, Nokia ultimately is looking to go the same route Samsung did with the Galaxy with its Lumia 900 and supporting cast -- deploy a superphone and rise out of obscurity in international smartphone sales.


The Nokia Lumia 900. [Image Source: Nokia]

Nokia also is eyeing transitioning its feature phone lineup to pseudo-smartphones -- possibly bumping margins.  The IDC cites the launch of Asha 200 and 300 series phones in developing economies such as South America and Southeast Asia as a big reason why Nokia held off a surging Samsung in 2011.
Nokia Asha
The Nokia Asha 200 [Image Source: Nokia]

The Asha series uses Nokia's a refined version own S40 operating system.  While Nokia may be killing Symbian, it is likely to retain S40 for its offerings in developing markets.

Nokia was number one in the world in total mobile sales.

ii. ZTE

Another rising star of the mobile market is China-based ZTE Corp. (SHE:000063).  Fueled by strong sales of both smartphones and feature phones in the world's largest feature phone and smartphone market, ZTE came in fifth place for the year with 17.1m units sold in Q4 and 66.1m sold for the year.

ZTE is growing rapidly and starting to pick up the pace in smartphones with the mass-market Blade and mid-range Skate Android phones and its Tania Windows Phone.

ZTE Blade
"Bladerunner": The ZTE Blade [Image Source: Bonnie Cha/CNET]

The Chinese phonemaker grew over 30 percent in 2011 sales, but saw its growth slow towards the end of the year.  Still, it made it out well ahead of Nokia who shrank.

iii. LG Electronics

...and that brings us to LG Electronics Inc. (KS:066570), who like Nokia also ended 2011 with both seasonal and quarterly market share losses.  LG's marker share losses were far bigger than Nokia's as it plunged 42.2 percent in Q4 to enter into a near-tie with ZTE, with 17.7m units sold.  It plunged 24.5 percent for the year, settling into fourth place in yearly sales, as well.

All of this would sound like game over for LG Electronics, were it not for the fact that the firm is finally profitable and has started to produced the kind of Android superphones that customers are looking for, with its Optimus LTE Android smartphone.

LG Electronics is no Samsung Electronics, but it can aim to be a modest competitor in 2012, though it still feels like a company searching for an identity -- even more so than Nokia.

While overshadowed by the Galaxy Nexus, LG Electronics "Spectrum" -- a high-end $200 smartphone -- is earning positive reviews.  With a full 1280x720 pixel HD 4.5-inch display, 1.5 GHz dual-core CPU Snapdragon S3 (Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM)), and LTE, the phone has the pixels to look good, the processing power to fuel them, and the modem speeds to slurp down good content.  The phone has earned some positive reviews.  E-Week praises, "It's certainly LG's best Android phone to date, and should be even better when its gets the update to Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich this year."

LG Spectrum
The LG Spectrum LTE [Image Source: TechRadar]

The Spectrum has the advantage of retailing in the U.S. on America's largest network, Verizon Wireless -- the joint venture between Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (LON:VOD).  It should see some pretty good sales given the positive buzz and top shelf hardware.

As an added bonus for LG, regardless of its smartphone fortunes, its sister company in the conglomerate -- LG Display -- is going to town in terms of display sales, thanks to the iPhone's record-shattering year end.

iv. Overall Market

The IDC had predicted severe slowdown in phone growth as feature-phone purchases slowed.  The IDC predicted an anemic 4.4 percent growth in Q4.  As it was, this pessimistic prediction fell slightly short as 6.1 percent more phone units moved.

The deciding factor that kept the situation from deteriorating further in terms of unit sales was faster than expected smartphone adoption.  

Ramon Llamas, senior research analyst with IDC's Mobile Phone Technology and Trends team says that feature phones still play a key role in this changing market.  He comments, "Feature phones accounted for a majority of shipments from four of the five market leaders during the quarter.  Even though their proportion is eroding, feature phones maintain their appeal on the basis of price and ease of use."

But he acknowledges that they are being assimilated a la the Borg, themselves becoming pseudo-smartphone, thanks to new media features.  He remarks, "At the same time, feature phones are fighting to maintain their market share.  To meet the challenge, feature phones are becoming more like smartphones, incorporating mobile internet and third-party applications. While this may not stem the smartphone tide, it should slow down the rate at which smartphones are selected over feature phones."

Feature phones go dinosaur
Feature phones are set to become twentieth century dinosaurs of the consumer electronics world. [Image Source: Xanga]

One weakness of IDC's analysis in its press release is that it misses the big picture.  The smartphone versus feature phone battle is not a level playing field.  One smartphone can earn an OEM 5 to 10 times the profit of one feature phone.  Thus if companies like Nokia and LG see their sales drop, but manage to push more smartphones into the market, their shareholders should be cheering, rather than bemoaning the sad fate of the feature phone.

Source: IDC [press release]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Reactions should be fun
By Commodus on 2/2/2012 8:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
The results from the fall have been fun, because it's rubbing a lot of overly sensitive Android fans (not all of them, thankfully) the wrong way. The ones who assumed that a Google monopoly on smartphone platforms was not only inevitable, but desirable. Before you ask: yes, I've heard from people who genuinely think this way.

It's like the quintessential moment in The Empire Strikes Back, when Luke learns Vader is his father. "That's not true, that's impossible!" And yet...




RE: Reactions should be fun
By lightmessiah on 2/2/2012 8:58:06 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder how much of the iPhone's popularity is due to being smaller that comparable Android phones. If you want a smaller phone that can take HD video for example, I think the iPhone is pretty much the only option (here in Australia at least).


RE: Reactions should be fun
By mattclary on 2/3/2012 9:02:45 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much of it's sales can be attributed to its uptake as a corporate standard. My company just issued me one (I had a Samsung Infuse before) and I don't care for it. I'm ticked off the iPhone doesn't have a reject list or the ability to merge duplicate contacts.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By lightfoot on 2/2/2012 11:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ones who assumed that a Google monopoly on smartphone platforms was not only inevitable, but desirable.

Huh? That mentality seems to be an Apple mentality, not an Android mentality. Even the late Steve Jobs swore to "Destroy Android." It was Apple who sought to ban competitor's products from being sold. Not Google. Not Samsung. Apple.

Android competes, even with its self. Apple doesn't compete, it sues.

Android doesn't have a monopoly in ANY market. Apple has a monopoly in TWO markets - MP3 players and Tablets.

Apple's monopolistic behavior is the problem. To say that Android, or Google, or Android fans want an Android monopoly is laughable at best.

One easy way to tell how competitive a market is, is by looking at the profit margins of the products sold. If margins are exceedingly high, it is clear that the market is not sufficiently competitive. One company has profit margins that are consistently higher than any of their competitors. Apple.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By Commodus on 2/3/2012 12:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
Trust me, there's Android fans who think that Google will (and should) control every device category if given time. I had someone swear up and down that in a year the iPad would have a tiny amount of share next to Android tablets, as it rightfully "deserved."

I don't think it's that serious, but there are a lot of complaints now that Google is exhibiting monopolistic behavior by price dumping, i.e. using a monopoly in one area (search ads) to give away for free what competitors have to charge for in other markets (mobile platforms and so on). Google was just fined by a French court for allegedly doing that with Google Maps. A bit ridiculous, but not entirely illogical.

Also, you really haven't been following Apple at all if you think its margins are monopolistic. It has always charged high profit margins, even when it was the mid-1990s and Microsoft was crushing it. It does this so it has money to reinvest into other areas. So it has a cushion. So the company has the financial incentive to give you good technical support instead of, say, making you spend two hours on the phone with India.

Apple very much competes, and saying it just sues is making a overly simplistic argument that treats Google as saintlike and Apple as the font of all evil. I wouldn't have started a legal campaign myself, but Steve Jobs genuinely believed that Google had set out to copy the iPhone and was prepared to burn through billions of dollars to prove it (see the biography). For at least him, it was ideological, not cynical.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By retrospooty on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Reactions should be fun
By mellomonk on 2/3/2012 9:22:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All Apple did was take a Palm Treo and marry it with a large screen like Palm handheld and add the slick OS with multitouch UI.

So despite doing all of that, their actions still fit your definition of 'copying'? really? That is like saying that author 'copied' me for he took some of the same words I once wrote, re-arranged them so they took on a different meaning, and then bound them into book form. Give me a break. Apple love or hate beside, in 2007 the iPhone was a paradigm shift. Everything is built on the shoulders of what comes before, but occasionally we all can clearly see a breakthrough and know that it signals a change in what will come afterword. That was one of those products.

I would not go as far as to say the Android OS and it's partners phone design was 'copied', but it is clearly 'inspired' by the iOS. And some of the skins and phones (cough Samsung) were a little to 'inspired' by Apple's design. I am not going to hold Apple's feet to the fire for being a little defensive when facing dozens of manufactures who are using a free OS, OEM chips, and have very little R&D invested in comparison. You can be pissed off all you want, but that is what you have to do. Defend your ideas so as to force your competitors to out think and innovate you. Look at Windows Phone 7 for an example. Still follows the paradigm but with some truly new and different features. One of their most truly original products in years. It would be interesting to see some of these unoriginal Android phone manufactures adopt this OS in a way to compete with out risking a costly legal battle with Apple.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By retrospooty on 2/3/2012 11:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
"So despite doing all of that, their actions still fit your definition of 'copying'?"

As much as anything in the industry, yes. I am not saying its a problem. Apple copied Palm, Google copied Apple, and Apple copies google, and Samsung. ALL companies do it, and its perfectly normal... The only thing that is a problem is Apple suing about it as if they arent doing the same exact thing.

"I would not go as far as to say the Android OS and it's partners phone design was 'copied', but it is clearly 'inspired' by the iOS"

Parts of it surely are, and parts of it are greater than IOS. Psrts of IOS6 will integrate parts of Android 4. I bet my left nut IOS6 has "eye candy" upgrades in the UI to keep up with the competition, becasue IOS is hte oldest looking UI of the major players now... Its totally normal


RE: Reactions should be fun
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 1:18:21 PM , Rating: 3
iOS doesn't even have widgets so I don't know how people can claim Android was "stolen". Android has ALWAYS looked better than iOS and has been a unique product in the way the homepage interfaces with apps via widgets.

Live backgrounds, another Android innovation, only came to the iPhone in iOS v5. Gee I wonder where they got that idea? Oh I forgot, they call it "live wallpapers" so that means it's different and unique to Apple I guess.

If anyone is stealing it's Microsoft who's blatantly ripping off the look and feel of Android AND iOS. WP7 is iOS with Android widgets called "live tiles". The term Microsoft uses is "minimalistic". That's a fancy way of saying you can't change color schemes and backgrounds, because we had to make this look as much like iOS as possible without making it look TOO much like Android at the same time.

It's funny that everyone talks as if Android is a derivative OS, but it's the only one that's been innovating and evolving.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By retrospooty on 2/3/2012 2:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
"Live backgrounds, another Android innovation, only came to the iPhone in iOS v5. Gee I wonder where they got that idea? Oh I forgot, they call it "live wallpapers" so that means it's different and unique to Apple I guess."

Exactly. A total double standard. If Apple copies it, or comes out with a very similar offering they name it differently and act like they came up with it in house. If another company comes out with a very similar offering Apple sues.

Think Different I guess. They think they should be judged on a different system of rules than everyone else.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By Commodus on 2/3/2012 3:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
You don't really know what you're talking about.

For one thing: there are no live backgrounds in iOS 5. Apple added home screen (not just lock screen) wallpapers in iOS 4.

Android most definitely didn't look better than iOS for most of its history. Ever see a T-Mobile G1 or HTC Magic? Up until about Android 2.0, and in some cases until 2.3, Android was extremely plain.

Apple's argument on theft is perhaps oversimplified, but it's the concept of a full-screen grid of icons (even if not automatically ordered like iOS), a status bar up top, and common tasks at the bottom, all in a touch-first interface.

And Android as the "only one that's been innovating?" Wow, that's a level of ignorance that even most Google fans would say goes too far. See what Android looked like in 2007 versus 2008. One looked like the BlackBerry, the other looked like the iPhone. Quite literally, the platform owes much of its popularity (and a few design elements) to iOS, even if it's been more aggressive on features in some areas.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 3:47:28 PM , Rating: 1
lol what do you expect, a text interface and a command prompt? I love how anything with icons MUST be an iOS ripoff.

By this logic iOS stole from the Windows operating system.

quote:
And Android as the "only one that's been innovating?" Wow, that's a level of ignorance that even most Google fans would say goes too far.


Really? Than why does iOS look virtually exactly the same as it did in 2007? You have to jailbreak your phone just to get a fresh look!


RE: Reactions should be fun
By retrospooty on 2/3/2012 3:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
" it's the concept of a full-screen grid of icons (even if not automatically ordered like iOS), a status bar up top, and common tasks at the bottom, all in a touch-first interface."

Remove the last part "touch-first interface" and you have a Palm Treo (or more specifically a Palm handheld from the 90's).

Again, fine for Apple to copy, but not anyone else.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By someguy123 on 2/3/2012 12:51:24 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure you're the type of person he's referring to. The type that evangelizes google. Google is actually in the same league as Apple in profit margin. By using free license software as a base, and aggregating content created by others, they've been able to profit greatly with advertising/datamining, all while putting microsoft's licensing bill on OEMs. They don't actually produce much considering their massive size.

I don't really see google as a positive competitive entity. A bulk of their income relies on content created/driven by others and FOSS software, with the profit being indirect, allowing them to forgo licensing issues and deliver products at "no cost". Innovating in google's markets isn't all that stimulating when google can, at any time, take the idea, implant ads and distribute it for free globally. If apple didn't have a cult-like following, android would be a virtual monopoly on smartphones. You could argue that free software is proconsumer, but it's hard to justify financing similar projects and could impact commercial software development.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By lightfoot on 2/3/2012 1:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretty sure you're the type of person he's referring to. The type that evangelizes google.

I don't evangelize Google. I demonize Apple. There is a major difference.

I don't want ANY one company to dominate the market. And because Android is open source, I don't see it as a major monopoly threat. The dozens of variants of Android (I believe iFans call it "fragmentation") compete with each other as well as with Apple, RIM, Microsoft and others.

You simply can't say that Apple doesn't dominate the market. They do, and it's bad. If Google dominated the market that too would be bad. And YES, they are BOTH monopolies, just in different markets. And they are BOTH using that dominant position to gain advantage in other markets. It doesn't mean Apple is good and Google is bad, nor the other way around. THEY ARE BOTH BAD.

Monopolies are bad, mmkay?


RE: Reactions should be fun
By testerguy on 2/3/2012 3:08:48 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't evangelize Google. I demonize Apple. There is a major difference.


In a two horse race, does it matter whether your bias is driven by hatred of horse A or love of horse B? No, you're still biased, and you still want horse B to succeed and horse A to fail.

quote:
I don't want ANY one company to dominate the market. And because Android is open source, I don't see it as a major monopoly threat


The source code to the previous version of Android was never even released, it's always at Google's discretion. Phone manufacturers have to pay Google GAPPS fees to license things like access to the app store and gmail. Furthermore, due to the number of patents infringed upon, license fees have to be paid to an ever growing number of 'owners' eg Microsoft. To think that just because it's Open Source means it can't be a monopoly threat is failed logic on many levels. In fact, it goes against the very logic behind Google building it in the first place. The custom variations of Android run the risk of not being supported in the future and ultimately nobody will be able to keep up with the development path Google takes - meaning they will always come back to the 'main' Android version, the source code to which may or may not be released.

quote:
Huh? That mentality seems to be an Apple mentality, not an Android mentality. Even the late Steve Jobs swore to "Destroy Android." It was Apple who sought to ban competitor's products from being sold. Not Google. Not Samsung. Apple.


It could not be more ridiculous and illogical to compare what the CEO of a company wants with what 'Apple fans' want. Any CEO of any company, and this includes your 'open source' and therefore 'innocent and sweet Google' want to outsell all their competitors and get rid of them. That's their job. That means nothing about what their customers want.

quote:
Android competes, even with its self. Apple doesn't compete, it sues.


So if Samsung Galaxy 2 outsells the Galaxy Note, you will say that Android phones are not very good because they got outsold? Please. Whichever sells, people who compare Android to iOS don't care. Android isn't even a company. Only the phone manufacturers compete (and they are all massively losing) - but they aren't Android, and it's the handset parts which compete, not the operating system (for the most part).

quote:
Android doesn't have a monopoly in ANY market. Apple has a monopoly in TWO markets - MP3 players and Tablets.


How is that relevant? Both are clearly AIMING for having a monopoly. The only reason Apple has the 'monopoly' at the moment is because the worlds population believes their products are superior. It is not justification to dislike a company because they are doing something well.

quote:
Apple's monopolistic behavior is the problem. To say that Android, or Google, or Android fans want an Android monopoly is laughable at best.


This is a ridiculous statement from a sell-confessed bias idiot who says 'I demonize Apple'. Putting aside the pathetic bitter insecurity that one would require to make such a ridiculous statement, clearly therefore you would want Android to massively outsell Apples products, and therefore meet YOUR definition of a monopoly. The only difference is so far Android has failed to monopolise the market.

quote:
One easy way to tell how competitive a market is, is by looking at the profit margins of the products sold. If margins are exceedingly high, it is clear that the market is not sufficiently competitive. One company has profit margins that are consistently higher than any of their competitors. Apple.


This is ABSOLUTELY right. Except you failed to realise that Android and iOS are ONE market - the smartphone market. And I absolutely agree that right now Android isn't at all competitive, producing second rate slower hardware handsets with more freezing issues, less device support, fewer apps, less battery life. It's no wonder Apple, in having produced a far, far superior product range, is laughing all the way to the bank and is able to charge a much higher premium. Of course, it isn't necessarily just this that is the reason behind Apple being more successful, it has a higher volume of specific parts as it has a less fragmented product base, meaning better economies of scale. It's whole infrastructure means it's able to offer superior hardware and software at basically a similar price. That's what makes them so successful right now.

quote:
Apple doesn't compete, it sues.


Correction - Samsung doesn't compete, it copies (blatantly, did you even see the packaging of the Galaxy Tab, or the fact the Samsung lawyers couldn't tell them apart?), forcing it's innovative competitor (Apple) to sue to protect their IP. Samsung then retaliates by suing based on FRAND patents, is rejected, and is now under investigation. Now which company should we 'demonize'..... lol.


RE: Reactions should be fun
By TakinYourPoints on 2/3/12, Rating: -1
By TakinYourPoints on 2/4/2012 12:44:21 AM , Rating: 1
Haha, hard facts are hard to deal with for some people here, apparently


RE: Reactions should be fun
By Tony Swash on 2/3/2012 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
What is a monopoly?

Seems a simple question. The term gets used a lot to describe a very large market share. Is a very large market share the same as monopoly?

The dictionary says a monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service" and I think the key words there are 'possesion' and 'control'.

Merely having a very large market share doesn't mean possessing control of the supply or trade of a product category if the very large market share does not erect barriers to others entering the same market, a very large market share could just mean that consumers overwhelmingly prefer one company's products to all others even though those other companies products can compete equally and fairly for consumer attention and choice.

Another way to look at it is to ask if a particular product or service has a significantly greater value as a result of having a very large market share and as a consequence does the producer of that product actively pursue having a very large market share as an explicit business goal in order to enhance the value of its product.

Using that way of looking at things it seems clear that although Amazon and Apple would both be happy to secure a very large market shares of tablets neither companies tablet strategies are predicated on having a very large market share. Apple could for example have, say, 30% of the tablet market and if the tablet market were to have grown to ten times it's current size (a distinct possibility over the next few years) then Apple would be selling far more iPads than they are now and making lots more money. This would be analogous to Apple's position in the smart phone market where although it has a minority portion of the total market it's smart phone business is very healthy and growing. Apple don't have to have a large market share to prospers it is not a core essential to their product strategy and product value and Apple seems to have never pursued market share as a goal in and of itself, for most of existence Apple has always been a minority player in terms of market share.

Compare Amazon's and Apple's tablet strategies to Microsoft's software business in relation to operating systems and productivity software in the 1990. where it was clear that Microsoft having the overwhelming share of both markets was a core aim of the company, that Microsoft feared competing on a level playing field. If Office had had only a 30% of the productivity market would it have been able to be sold at such large margins and have competed successfully against other software products? If Office file formats had not become the standard document format through dominant market share would Office have have had the same value for the majority of customers and businesses?

Similarly could Google secure its advertising profits if it only had 30% of search? Bing can't. It seems to me that Google's core business strategy is dependent on being able to collect data on the bulk of web activity including search and that Google's business model might not work at all if it could only collect data on say 30% of users. Hence Google's drive to insert it's services in all online activity, hence Android and Google+, hence its relentless moves into any sphere of activity which is generating user data that it is not already collecting.


Huh?
By Dorkyman on 2/3/2012 11:11:46 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe it's because I haven't had much coffee so far this morning, but why is the headline relevant?

Apple is the ONLY company to see an iPhone. Samsung is one of a dozen companies that sell an Android smartphone. All thet stats are saying is that Apple slightly outsold just one of the Android phone makers. This is news?

For better or worse, Android is inexorably overtaking Apple in the smartphone sector. This is mirroring what happened in the PC arena 20 years ago.




RE: Huh?
By Dorkyman on 2/3/2012 1:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
"Sell," not "see."

"The," not "thet."

Damn. And I've got a spell checker, too.


RE: Huh?
By testerguy on 2/7/2012 10:35:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you are right, Android is overtaking iOS, but this article isn't about Android vs iOS - it's about Smartphone manufacturers.

By 'Android' you actually mean numerous manufacturers, not just one. You're basically saying that Apple isn't beating the rest of the manufacturers put together - not much of a statement, you wouldn't ever really expect a company to do that.

The point is that no one company is outselling Apple, or making anywhere near as much profit as them. That's a big, relevant fact, IMO.

iOS vs Android is another matter entirely, and iOS has closed the gap in the last quarter and now has almost as many activations as Android - but is still behind. However, are those people are buying the Android handsets because it's Android, or because it has a big screen, or it's cheaper? It's not so much a battle of iOS vs Android, as a battle of iOS + iPhone + iPad vs Android + 100 devices.


By quiksilvr on 2/2/2012 7:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty much melted at this point. Imagine that with a frigging PHONE, you can wirelessly stream 1080p to your television WITH SURROUND SOUND, pick up a controller, and play Dead Space....

http://playstationeu.i.lithium.com/t5/image/server...




Can no one else see..
By ballist1x on 2/3/2012 6:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
...a time in the not so distant future when tablets are the form factor of choice and actually the growing size of the smart phone will receed and go back to being a pocket phone?

I have a galaxy s2, but honestly the best 'phone phone' would be the walkman sony ericson i was using. if i had a tablet i wouldnt need to compromise my phone by having one which is excessively large just so that the screen is large enough to be able to browse the web..but actually id prefer a larger screen to browse the web and a smaller flip phone that did the true phone functions much slicker...?




Ok let me get this straight
By atlmann10 on 2/15/2012 1:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
Apple beat 1 of the makers of Android phones. OK well there are at least 7 most likely 9-11 I think, heck it is probably more than that. So Apple beat Samsung and the first 10% of HTC's gross ate the rest of what they sold above the platform, the LG, NEC, Sony, and on, and on beat Apple by that reasoning right!




Plus
By atlmann10 on 2/15/2012 1:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
Now Apple has to fight Gootorola as it was approved in America and Europe Monday Gootorola= Google/motorola if you were catching on that!




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki