Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > Apple, Samsung take 103 percent of 2012 cellphone profits

Apple, Samsung take 103 percent of 2012 cellphone profits
Thread Tools
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 02:13 PM
 
Together Apple and Samsung seized about 103 percent of 2012 cellphone industry profits, and 101 percent in the fourth quarter, according to Canaccord Genuity estimates. Breaking down the 2012 figure, Apple claimed 69 percent, while Samsung took 34. A total greater than 100 is possible because of operating losses at companies like BlackBerry, Motorola, and Nokia.

"We believe Apple's value share of the handset market is even higher than our estimates...considering Apple's dominant market share of the tablet market, as some Android OEMs such as Samsung and HTC include tablet sales in reported smartphone sales and profits," writes Canaccord analyst Michael Walkley. "Given the current competitive dynamics, we believe Apple and Samsung will maintain dominant value share during Q1/13 with share gains for Samsung versus Apple expected in Q1/13." Samsung has quickly become Apple's main competitor, thanks to phones like the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Nexus, and Galaxy Note II. Apple, though, has filed numerous patent cases as a strategic weapon against Samsung and Google's Android platform, on which most Samsung phones are based, viewing them as based on patent infringement and copied designs. Samsung and Google's subsidiary Motorola have also gone this route, but mostly using standards-essential patents as legal weapons to hold some competitors hostage to high royalties. The latter approach has, so far, been less successful and resulted in a number of government investigations.
( Last edited by NewsPoster; Feb 6, 2013 at 06:53 PM. )
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Newport News,VA,USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 02:41 PM
 
"Together Apple and Samsung seized about 103 percent of 2012 cellphone industry profits"
How do you do that? Does someone not know how percentages work? Hopefully it's not me!

Cellphone industry has profits (or losses) they are divided up between the companies making up the industry, the SUM of the profits has to be 100% it can't be bigger.
Beware of geeks bearing Gifs
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by daqman View Post
"Together Apple and Samsung seized about 103 percent of 2012 cellphone industry profits"
How do you do that? Does someone not know how percentages work? Hopefully it's not me!

Cellphone industry has profits (or losses) they are divided up between the companies making up the industry, the SUM of the profits has to be 100% it can't be bigger.
It IS you.
The clue is in the second part of the post, but you're failing to make the connection:

Everybody else actually lost money, so together, Apple and Samsung are making more money than the entire industry is, put together (103% as much, in fact).

(This has been the case for a while now, and it comes up every time the numbers are reported.)
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 03:23 PM
 
A total greater than 100 is possible because of operating losses at companies like BlackBerry, Motorola, and Nokia.

SERIOUSLY -- when people "talk" before "listening" (or "reading"), I just don't get it.

There's the old saying about having 2 ears and 2 eyes versus just 1 mouth because God wanted us to LISTEN and OBSERVE twice as much as we TALK. (Apparently, now that most people "talk" by typing with "2 hands" they think that old logic doesn't apply anymore???)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by BigJayhawk View Post
A total greater than 100 is possible because of operating losses at companies like BlackBerry, Motorola, and Nokia.

SERIOUSLY -- when people "talk" before "listening" (or "reading"), I just don't get it.

There's the old saying about having 2 ears and 2 eyes versus just 1 mouth because God wanted us to LISTEN and OBSERVE twice as much as we TALK. (Apparently, now that most people "talk" by typing with "2 hands" they think that old logic doesn't apply anymore???)
Just to chip away at that high horse:

We spend our school lives being taught that the whole is 100%. It is not immediately obvious how a sum of values can be greater than the entirety of the class.

THINKING before TALKING also applies to dealing with mortal humans who might not have been exposed to counter-intuitive economic concepts before. Happy to see that your command of both hands makes up for your lack of empathy, at least.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by BigJayhawk View Post
A total greater than 100 is possible because of operating losses at companies like BlackBerry, Motorola, and Nokia.

SERIOUSLY -- when people "talk" before "listening" (or "reading"), I just don't get it.

There's the old saying about having 2 ears and 2 eyes versus just 1 mouth because God wanted us to LISTEN and OBSERVE twice as much as we TALK. (Apparently, now that most people "talk" by typing with "2 hands" they think that old logic doesn't apply anymore???)
Quotation mark overload.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 04:03 PM
 
And *another* win for Samsung!! At least, that's how the pundits and analysts will spin it.

     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 04:03 PM
 
As Spheric agrees, this has NOTHING to do with counter-intuitive economic concepts. It has to do with READING an article that clearly explains itself before posting. It's happening more and more and it's ridiculous.

At least there are only a few posts here. Often times when there are very interesting articles that have hundreds or even thousands of comments posted, it is unbearable to read them because half the responses make it clear that the writer did not even spend the time to READ the article!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 04:13 PM
 
No, actually I thought you were being arrogant and overbearing in an inappropriate reply to a perfectly legitimate question about something that isn't immediately obvious.

I think the reason you thought I was agreeing was that I toned down the insult in the latter part to comply with the heavy-handed moderation in the news comments.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by BigJayhawk View Post
At least there are only a few posts here. Often times when there are very interesting articles that have hundreds or even thousands of comments posted, it is unbearable to read them because half the responses make it clear that the writer did not even spend the time to READ the article!
I actually find that the unbearable user comments on websites are the ones attacking other users for reasons that have nothing to do with the original content of the article.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 10:40 PM
 
Seriously, how dense do you have to be not to read the whole first paragraph of the article -- which clearly explains the 103 percent figure -- before commenting? You do yourself no favours there ...
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 05:44 AM
 
To everyone who says that the article "explains" the 103% figure, I disagree. I read the article. The 103% figure is still bogus.

It's bogus because the collective profit of the industry is equal to 100% of the collective profit of the industry, no matter how much acid you take. Period.

If a company lost money, that does not mean that the collective profit of the industry is less. Profit is when you don't. Therefore companies that lost money should not be factored into the "collective profit" figure at all. To factor companies that were NOT profitable into the "collective profit" makes ZERO sense logically and it makes even less sense grammatically and semantically.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 05:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dark Goob View Post
To everyone who says that the article "explains" the 103% figure, I disagree. I read the article. The 103% figure is still bogus.

It's bogus because the collective profit of the industry is equal to 100% of the collective profit of the industry, no matter how much acid you take. Period.

If a company lost money, that does not mean that the collective profit of the industry is less.
Of course it does.

That's exactly what "collective profit" means - the total profit made between ALL companies in a market. If somebody made LESS than zero profit, that figures directly against the positive made elsewhere. Do you perhaps mean "cumulative"? Not that it would make sense not to subtract losses from that number, as well...

This is just one way of looking at it, and it's rather telling. If you wish to say that 100% of the profit made in the market went to Apple and Samsung, that's fine, but that statement contains different (not incorrect) information than the 103% figure.

It's like talking about total profits vs. operating margins — different ways of looking at the same numbers in different context.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 07:12 AM
 
Its no wonder the world gets screwed by banks and financial scandals. Using terms such a negative profit and having a spreadsheet of income figures (no mention of net which is used as a replacement for profit sometimes) and then magically having a title of profit is dishonest IMHO.

Some other figures for Motorola : http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/18/mot...gles-total-q3/
( Last edited by mattyb; Feb 7, 2013 at 07:23 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 07:15 AM
 
See, and that article makes no mention of the fact that all other competitors actually posted losses.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 07:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
See, and that article makes no mention of the fact that all other competitors actually posted losses.
Do you agree that a loss does not equal a profit?

And so the losses of others, would not/should not be counted in the profits of the mobile phone industry as a whole?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 08:28 AM
 
Tha depends on whether they are relevant to what you want to report.

The focus of your link was on the difficulty for Microsoft and Google to find hardware partners, so it was only relevant to state that Apple and Samsung are the only ones turning profits.

The focus of this particular report is on the market as a whole, and it is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the state of the market that the other competitors are not only not making profit, but actually losing money.

You can put that in two sentences or clauses, or you can put it in a single number.

So every time that number is released, there are people confused by it. So what? People are confused about stuff every day, ask about it, Nd have it explained to them.
Where is the problem?
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 12:50 PM
 
Count me in the camp of readers that don't count a loss as a negative profit. A certain amount of money was made in the cellphone industry. Apple and Samsung cannot make more profit than the whole industry of which they are a part.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2013, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Where is the problem?
Originally Posted by mac_in_tosh View Post
Count me in the camp of readers that don't count a loss as a negative profit. A certain amount of money was made in the cellphone industry. Apple and Samsung cannot make more profit than the whole industry of which they are a part.
Me too mac_in_tosh, me too.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:48 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2