Samsung smartphones outsell Apple

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Kids always love it when their moms cook them a variety of eats daily. Instead of serving up Brocolli and mashed potatoes every single day because it's easier to produce and troubleshoot something when its the only thing you cook

[Kevin8or]

Does Samsung sell, uh, "dumbphones" as well as smartphones? I'm wondering the sales figures are a smartphone to smartphone comparison, or if some (a lot?) of the Samsung units are similar to what you'd buy several years ago.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

Does Samsung sell, uh, "dumbphones" as well as smartphones? I'm wondering the sales figures are a smartphone to smartphone comparison, or if some (a lot?) of the Samsung units are similar to what you'd buy several years ago.

Samsung still does. They make a bunch of different models. My current and previous dumb phones have been Samsungs. My next dumb phone will more than likely be a Samsung.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

Does Samsung sell, uh, "dumbphones" as well as smartphones? I'm wondering the sales figures are a smartphone to smartphone comparison, or if some (a lot?) of the Samsung units are similar to what you'd buy several years ago.

The total sales volume for all Samsung phones is over 100 million, but over 27 million of those are smart phones. That is the figure they are comparing.

[Kevin8or]

Thanks. That's a lot of phones.

[kartu]

Originally Posted by emellaich

I thought cheap was a fair and accurate description.

Not sure what that means. How "cheap" is 450 Euros for a phone, if "expensive" one starts at about 480?

However, I'm not sure all consumers are looking for top of the line stuff, or even understand the differences.

GS I Plus still has amazing screen and even a better sound chip, than GSII. And could be bought for about 300 Euro.

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

Thanks. That's a lot of phones.

Note that more than 10 Million of those are GSII's. Not sure how many are GS I.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

They do. They bought Intrinsity (a chip design firm) so they can design chips in house.

Now that they bought a company that can do it, they also "do", right.

Maybe it's because AMOLED screens (particularly those with pentile) are not devastatingly superior?

Nope. They are DEVASTATINGLY superior. "Uhm, what, are you seriously comparing those!?!?!?" kind of superior. Anyone who's seen them, would agree.

And regarding the article you've posted, it takes a moron to state "gamut is too high", for starters it's called "wider" and calling it a disadvantage is like saying Porshe is a lesser car, because it CAN drive much faster. Insane that this idiotic article is the first google result. But very typical for "Apple vs..." sea of FUD.

Major AMOLED disadvantages are (were):
1) Lower max brightness
2) Lifespan
3) Price

They got 1) to more than acceptable levels, and 2) is more of a problem for TVs, not for smartphones that got replaced every couple of years.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by kartu

Now that they bought a company that can do it, they also "do", right.

Yes. That's what happens when you buy a company. It becomes part of your company. The same thing is true of Siri. The same is true of Google Maps, for that matter (Google bought the company responsible for it in 2004).

Nope. They are DEVASTATINGLY superior. "Uhm, what, are you seriously comparing those!?!?!?" kind of superior. Anyone who's seen them, would agree.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

And regarding the article you've posted, it takes a moron to state "gamut is too high", for starters it's called "wider" and calling it a disadvantage is like saying Porshe is a lesser car, because it CAN drive much faster. Insane that this idiotic article is the first google result. But very typical for "Apple vs..." sea of FUD.

Where's your evidence? Repeatedly stating that the AMOLED display is devastatingly superior isn't evidence. Writing it in all caps doesn't make it evidence.

From a recent review of the DroidRazr:

The RAZR's screen is a major disappointment


While the RAZR is the first device to ever ship with a 4.3-inch qHD 960 x 540 Super AMOLED display, it’s not quite the achievement Motorola made it out to be at launch. First, the Samsung Galaxy Nexus features a higher-resolution 720p HD Super AMOLED display, and second, the RAZR’s screen looks pretty bad. Super AMOLED panels use the inferior PenTile pixel arrangement, and the RAZR’s 256dpi pixel density doesn’t hide it — in fact, it seems to make it worse. Not only are individual pixels readily apparent, but text looks jaggy, there’s red fringing around vertical lines, and images seem to de-res when scrolling in the browser.

Compared to Motorola’s excellent qHD LCD displays in devices like the Bionic and Droid X2 and Apple’s industry-leading iPhone 4 / 4S Retina Display, the RAZR is a major disappointment — and that’s before even taking into account AMOLED’s inherent love-it-or-hate-it hypersaturation and consistent off-axis blue color shift.

According to Motorola, choosing Super AMOLED helped make the RAZR thinner — AMOLED displays don’t need external backlights like traditional LCD displays. It’s just unfortunate Motorola had to sacrifice display quality as well.

Link: http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/7/25...id-razr-review

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Yes. That's what happens when you buy a company. It becomes part of your company. The same thing is true of Siri. The same is true of Google Maps, for that matter (Google bought the company responsible for it in 2004).

And Android, for that matter. http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0949_tc024.htm

[kartu]

Yes. That's what happens when you buy a company. It becomes part of your company.

It's fine for Google to buy such company. They aren't into that business. It's a shame when "tech company" that sells "in house developed" hardware to have to do it.

There is more to it. Not all of R&D could be done by startups. There is a kind of research that requires huge investments. Now huge company can play it safe and semi-parasite. Or do a lot of R&D in house, like IBM or Samsung or Sony (lately not that much ).

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I don't think what I said could be misunderstood, regardless of whether native English speakers use the word this way.

Where's your evidence?

My eyes is "my evidence". I was talking about personal experience, if you've forgotten. I just happened to compare Galaxy S Plus to friends' iPhone, HTC. And it was, wow, guys at Samsung do know how to create great screens.

This video could somewhat hint at what I'm talking about:



As for numeric evidence, there is plenty. Wider gamut, deeper blacks, faster. Wikipedia is your friend.

From a recent review of the DroidRazr

Not sure what that thing is. Not the models I'm talking about anyway. I was talking about very successful Galaxy line of phones by #1 smartphone manufacturer, Samsung.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kartu

It's fine for Google to buy such company. They aren't into that business. It's a shame when "tech company" that sells "in house developed" hardware to have to do it.

Or, to simplify your post: Google good, Apple bad.

[kartu]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Or, to simplify your post: Google good, Apple bad.

Uhm, no?
We already know google is a better company, who would argue about that?
It's about what a joke company that has to buy other companies to do its CORE BUSINESS is.
Motorola sues Apple for using stuff like antennas, Apple sues Motorola for... having multi-touch (good luck suing for that in EU)... which they bought...
Samsung sues Apple for using its 3G technology without paying them, Apple sues Samsung for using "rectangular shape, with rounded corners"...

Oh, but that's not enough, the also "reinvented" magnetic lock. Know how that works? You find an existing patent (this one is about 20 years old) slap "on mobile devices" on it, and viola...

PS
Oh, it seems that there is another "shameless thief", that stole Apple's intellectual property, the rounded corner thing:

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kartu

It's about what a joke company that has to buy other companies to do its CORE BUSINESS is.

Try taking a look at this list.

There is nothing wrong with expanding through acquisition. Except, it would seem, when Apple do it.

[tubemonkey]

Long live Google

Spoiler:

[covfam]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Try taking a look at this list.

There is nothing wrong with expanding through acquisition. Except, it would seem, when Apple do it.

Murraypaul Google has only accuired 104 companies in the last 10 years its obviously all apples fault and that makes apple evil.. google aquired 104 companies to further thier own buisness but that further proves that steve jobs is the anti-christ

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by covfam

Murraypaul Google has only accuired 104 companies in the last 10 years its obviously all apples fault and that makes apple evil.. google aquired 104 companies to further thier own buisness but that further proves that steve jobs is the anti-christ

Obviously they are both evil!