Apple's Old iPhone, The iPhone 4S, Outsells Samsung's Top Of The Line Galaxy S3

[Steve Williams]

By Jay Yarow | Business Insider

Apple's year-old iPhone, the iPhone 4S was the second best selling phone in the world during the fourth quarter, according to new data from research firm Strategy Analytics.
The iPhone 5 was the best selling phone in the world for the quarter. The Samsung S3 was the third best selling phone.
This is an important data point for anyone paying close attention to the tech news lately.
Samsung is out-innovating Apple, according to some in the tech press. Others in the tech press claim that Apple's is blowing it by not offering a smartphone with a bigger screen.
The fact that Apple's iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 are outselling Samsung's top of the line smartphone suggests that consumers don't think Apple is getting out-innovated. Consumers also don't seem to care about the size of the screen.
What people want are iPhones. What stops Apple from competing with Samsung isn't screen size or features, it's price and distribution. That's why just about every single sell-side analyst is pounding the table for Apple to release an inexpensive iPhone to compete in developing markets.

 

[Orb]

Hmm,
I read a recent market size report showing Apple stalling while Samsung was increasing in smartphone sales for last quarter.
If I see it again will link.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I've read some of his stuff....he's most definitely pro-Apple. This piece therefore comes as no surprise.

FWIW...I think he's dead wrong about consumers not seeming to care about screen size.

 

[mep]

I am not a power user of smart phones by any stretch. I have an Apple IPhone 4S and I'm quite happy with it. Where I live, I can't even get 3G service. Where I work, we aren't allowed to bring our phones in from our cars.

 

[JackD201]

I've read some of his stuff....he's most definitely pro-Apple. This piece therefore comes as no surprise.

FWIW...I think he's dead wrong about consumers not seeming to care about screen size.

Definitely. For every guy that want's bigger, there's someone who wants smaller. As a non-briefcase or messenger bag carrying guy, phablets are not appealing to me. One of my brothers who always seems to forget his glasses loves the big galaxy.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I recently upgraded my work phone from a Blackberry to an iPhone. When I called in the order they offered a 5 for $199 or a 4S for $49.99. It's not even my money and I chose the 4S. I think Apple already has its affordable phone for developing markets and I think the market it's developing is one of people who want a good smart phone but don't care about having whatever is "the latest."

What constitutes a "good smartphone?" I suspect that for the overwhelming majority that's a phone that has and runs the apps they need, easyily to the point of fun, and is intuitive enough in its basic operation that even new apps are accessible, and seem familiar. I suspect the "technological superiority" is judged by use-ability, by the human interface, and by the applications, not by engineers' hardware specifications. And I suspect that the bigger screen is a mixed blessing, maybe even a negative on balance. Except for the failed Blackberry, smartphones are all screen, so a bigger screen = a bigger phone.

I own an iPad. I'm interested in the iPad Mini. I don't want to try to carry either of them in my pocket.

Tim

 

[carolkoh]

I've got the iPad2 and iPad3. Thinking of selling them both and buying the iPad Mini myself. I like the form factor. Quite a bit.

 

[Orb]

Karma would be BMW suing apple using Mini in their name as it is a brand name owned by BMW
I agree it would be petty and a technicality, but it seems Apple likes suing everyone else or blocking their products on such technicalities.

Come on BMW!!! Even if it only annoys them for a brief while take them to court
Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Karma would be BMW suing apple using Mini in their name as it is a brand name owned by BMW
I agree it would be petty and a technicality, but it seems Apple likes suing everyone else or blocking their products on such technicalities.

Come on BMW!!! Even if it only annoys them for a brief while take them to court
Cheers
Orb

It's highly unlikely that BMW has an enforceable trademark on anything as generic as Mini, that extends beyond the automotive category. It sounds like fun, but BMW's lawyers would just roll their eyes at the marketing guy who suggested that one.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Yeah agreed,
only Apple would try something like that even if only to stall competitors for 3-6months.
And Apple had the cheek to moan about Microsoft in the past.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Keith_W]

Karma would be BMW suing apple using Mini in their name as it is a brand name owned by BMW
I agree it would be petty and a technicality, but it seems Apple likes suing everyone else or blocking their products on such technicalities.

No kidding. Apple tried to block Woolworths (an Australian grocery chain) from using their new logo. Story here.

 

[Orb]

How many freaking lawyers (and slightly separate patent officers) do Apple employ
Strange how Microsoft were always seen as the bad boys and the crud Apple gets away with; still cannot understand how Microsoft is forced to open up their solutions and yet Ipod and associated store-cloud is a closed environment that Apple has been abusing (from a market position-licensing-sales-etc) for quite some time.
Thanks for the link, that really is pushing it but then so was the fact some of the case against Samsung.
I think I read one of the patents used against Samsung by Apple in their court case was actually turned down by the patent office; amazing they sue Samsung and want to block competition probably knowing they would not get certain patents in the 1st place.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Patents, copyrights, litigation...they're all quills in the corporate arsenal. You'd almost conclude that the corp with the best lawyers wins, but it just doesn't work out that way. Microsoft wasn't considered the bad guys because Windows looked like OSX which looked like Star, or even because they used their near-operating system monopoly to force out competitive browsers (this is the very definition of anti-competitive practices). They were considered the bad guys because they used their dominang market share as an excuse to put out crappy products and expect us to just enjoy them. For years, it was only the second or third release of every major OS version that was stable. Core product. Bad performance. That was their problem.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Heh not according to committees/circuit courts from various US and Europe legislators, not only heavily fined but also forced to either open up product code/certain access or remove certain software and business practices.
Apple has always been treated as if they are a small company in comparison even though they actually bully more than MS in terms of patents-copyrights-litigation.
Personally I thought the amount MS were being fined a day by European central court was shocking, and on top of this the US courts were also looking to fine and penalise MS competitiveness.
Cheers
Orb

 

[amirm]

How many freaking lawyers (and slightly separate patent officers) do Apple employ
Strange how Microsoft were always seen as the bad boys and the crud Apple gets away with; still cannot understand how Microsoft is forced to open up their solutions and yet Ipod and associated store-cloud is a closed environment that Apple has been abusing (from a market position-licensing-sales-etc) for quite some time.
Cheers
Orb

Nothing would be more pro-consumer than forcing Apple to a more open system. Alas, that is never going to happen, ironically due to success of Android. All they have to do is show thriving competition and the argument of monopoly power goes out the window.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Nothing would be more pro-consumer than forcing Apple to a more open system. Alas, that is never going to happen, ironically due to success of Android. All they have to do is show thriving competition and the argument of monopoly power goes out the window.

It's not just an argument, it's a reality. The purpose of the anti-trust laws is not to make companies "pro-consumer," it is to prevent monopolies and the anti-competitive behavior that results from them. And what is "pro-consumer" is determined by consumers, not the courts. I don't think you'd want to try to support your argument with consumer research comparing the satisfaction, enthusiasm and loyalty of Apple's customers to Windows home users. You'd take a very bad beating on that one.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Heh not according to committees/circuit courts from various US and Europe legislators, not only heavily fined but also forced to either open up product code/certain access or remove certain software and business practices.
Apple has always been treated as if they are a small company in comparison even though they actually bully more than MS in terms of patents-copyrights-litigation.
Personally I thought the amount MS were being fined a day by European central court was shocking, and on top of this the US courts were also looking to fine and penalise MS competitiveness.
Cheers
Orb

I would add an "anti" before competitiveness above, myself. But yes, U.S. courts sought sanctions and lost. This was a period - it still is - in which enforcment of anti-trust laws in the U.S. was at one of its lowest points in the history of such laws. It comes as no surprise that the prosecution of Microsoft's behavior was much more successful in Europe than it was here.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Yes but "anti" competitiveness is more what Apple does than what MS ever did.
Hence why I decided to omit it
Cheers
Orb

 

[amirm]

It's not just an argument, it's a reality. The purpose of the anti-trust laws is not to make companies "pro-consumer," it is to prevent monopolies and the anti-competitive behavior that results from them. And what is "pro-consumer" is determined by consumers, not the courts. I don't think you'd want to try to support your argument with consumer research comparing the satisfaction, enthusiasm and loyalty of Apple's customers to Windows home users. You'd take a very bad beating on that one.

Tim

Take a beating? Windows didn't become popular because no one was satisfied or loyal. It got there because it had those qualities. To wit, there was no riots in the street asking for IE and WMP to get unbundled from Windows. But government took that position anyway persumably to serve the consumers. In the case of Apple, the "crime" is worse. In Windows, I can easily install competing browsers. Microsoft never had a say in that. With apple controlling the app ecosystem, they get to have a say. In some sense then it would have been good for Android to have had its success later so that the government could go after Apple to fix that. Right when I thought that would happen, Android share jumped up and we no longer have that option.

So no, I don't think there is satisfaction and enthusiasm there when Apple does things unilaterally like change the mapping function from Google to its own....

 

[Steve Williams]

Take a beating? Windows didn't become popular because no one was satisfied or loyal. It got there because it had those qualities. To wit, there was no riots in the street asking for IE and WMP to get unbundled from Windows. But government took that position anyway persumably to serve the consumers. In the case of Apple, the "crime" is worse. In Windows, I can easily install competing browsers. Microsoft never had a say in that. With apple controlling the app ecosystem, they get to have a say. In some sense then it would have been good for Android to have had its success later so that the government could go after Apple to fix that. Right when I thought that would happen, Android share jumped up and we no longer have that option.

So no, I don't think there is satisfaction and enthusiasm there when Apple does things unilaterally like change the mapping function from Google to its own....

you can use Chrome with the iPhone and iPad as well as Safari which is the default browser.