How many smartphones did Samsung ship in Q2?

50.2 million.

That’s the estimate from IDC. So why bother asking?

Because that is an estimate. Of the 104 million Android phones shipped in the quarter (itself an estimate from another, possibly different methodology), I could only account for 7 million actually reported. That figure comes from a close reading of an investor presentation from Sony. HTC does not report their shipment numbers. It stopped some time late last year. Neither does Motorola now that it’s a part of Google. Huawei is silent except for setting targets and ZTE published a press release citing IDC’s estimate of its own shipments.

But most glaring of all is the absence of any mention by Samsung of its performance. The company stopped reporting any data on either overall phone shipments or of smartphones within that total since Q3 2011. We may have been able to estimate Samsung if we had more competitor actuals, allowing us to back into a figure. But we don’t.[1]

Which leaves us with IDC’s estimate[2]. But the problem is that since the industry is growing so quickly it is very sensitive to assumptions. Consider how difficult it is for consensus estimates for Apple’s iPhone shipments to come near the actuals–and that’s for one quarter, and knowing all the previous quarters with precision. The absence of visibility into the assumptions made by market analysts (or their methods) should lower confidence in the results.

Consider that IDC specifies 50.2 million Samsung smartphones, implying an accuracy down to 100,000 units. Is this accuracy believable?

There is reason for doubt.

I start with the following graph:

It shows the estimates for Samsung global shipments (latter four quarters are estimates without the benefit of company reports.) I separated the component of shipments that Samsung reported as part of its submission to the Samsung v. Apple trial in California. Note that this (orange) segment consists of most US smartphone shipments. It’s not all US Samsung shipments. It notably excludes the Note, the latest Nexus and the Galaxy SIII.

Without these “non-accused” phones, it would appear that Samsung’s US volumes dropped to 4% of global totals from a 10% average[3]. In order to return to 10%, the US totals would need to be adjusted as shown below:


I added 1.5 million units in Q1 and 4 million units in Q2 (to account for Galaxy SIII).

So far this seems consistent with the total estimated global shipments of 50.2 million from IDC. US units would result in 12% of global shipments.

However, there is more data we can test against. First, we are also given pricing for the US phone portfolio, or at least we have revenue per unit sold. This allows us to get an idea of what revenues can be obtained for the smartphones in the US, and possibly world-wide[4]. Knowing prices for smartphones and knowing global sales (which Samsung reports) and finally knowing global total phone shipments allows us to price the average non-smart phone.

Excluding the non-accused smartphones, the average revenue per smartphone in the US for Samsung in Q2 was $339. Adding in the estimated Galaxy SIII (4 million) at an average price of $470 gives a new “ASP” of $413.

This is where the analysis goes off the rails.

If we assume the global ASP is equal to the US ASP and knowing everything else about the mix of smartphones (54% of total) and revenues (as reported) yields a negative ASP for feature phones. Assuming the revenue figure is correct, either the number of smartphones is wrong (50.2 million) or the global ASP ($413) is wrong. The total phone number is also an analyst estimate which can be called into question.

There are many assumptions being multiplied here so I have very low confidence in the result, but we should ask “what do you need to believe” in order for the 50.2 million figure to be real. The following scenario for example has to be true:

  1. Global Samsung phone shipments total 93 million units (which means 42.8 million feature phones sold as well as the 50.2 million smartphones).
  2. 6 million smartphones shipped into the US, equivalent to about 50% increase y/y, roughly in-line with market growth
  3. 4 million Galaxy SIII shipped (but not necessarily sold through) at an ASP of $450. This results in a US total smartphone ASP of $413
  4. The global smartphone ASP is significantly lower (at 80% of the US or $330)
  5. Global revenues of $18.14 billion is essentially all from phones
  6. Global feature phones will have an average price of $36

If these conditions are met then it’s possible that 50.2 million Samsung smartphones did ship.

The figure for feature phone ASP is difficult to accept as it would be lower than Nokia’s. Also, the low global smartphone ASP is also difficult to accept but it might be possible to find a scenario with the above variables which makes the 50.2 million figure believable.

Unfortunately this is an unsatisfying analysis. I could propose another figure to answer the question in the title, based perhaps on more “believable” assumptions. But I have no means to defend my assumptions. The only option I have remaining is to caution that the total smartphones shipment estimate for Samsung remains precarious. The new evidence from the US trial places more doubt on it but it is not enough to disqualify it entirely.


  1. This cone of silence over 93% of the most popular mobile platform is somewhat puzzling in contrast to the perfect information we are used to having about iOS, BlackBerry and even Symbian. It seems that the more open a platform, the less is revealed about its market performance. This extends to the licensed Windows Phone whose shipments are only revealed through Nokia’s reporting of Lumia shipments.
  2. In the PC market, vendors also selectively publish their units. The norm is, however, not to. As a result IDC et. al. are the only sources for global market data. However, the PC market can be sampled more easily than the phone market. PC retail measurement methods are more reliable compared with all the points of sale for phones.
  3. Note that Apple sells about 30% of iPhones in the US.
  4. Apple’s pricing world-wide is very consistent with pricing in the US which makes sense from a channel management point of view. One would not want to create incentives for cross-border arbitrage of phones.
  • BC2009

    My sentiments exactly! Thank you for posting this Horace.

  • I have no problem believing Samsung’s non-US smartphone ASP is far lower than its US smartphone ASP. After all, Samsung literally knocked out HTC from Brazil by introducing a series of dirt-cheap devices at or below 5’000 reals. In India, Samsung is also diving close to 7’000 rupees with its low-end smartphones, even though the Galaxy S3 costs 39’000 rupees. The US phone subsidy policies distort the market pretty severely – the high-end Galaxy S3 is just $200. I think the high-end smartphone market is far narrower in Latin America and Asia, where Samsung is on a volume growth tear.

    • BC2009

      But then are we comparing sales of Harley Davidson motorcycles against electric scooters? Are we talking about real smartphones? That’s what investors and developers care about. I could sell computers running recycled 486 motherboards for dirt cheap in huge volumes in third-world nations and nobody would care about that relative to the actual PC market.

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        Yes, but you need to be specific – are we talking 486 SX 25MHz (like my family’s first PC) , or is it the more advanced DX2 50MHz (that I lusted after but couldn’t afford)?

      • Rybak

        In most cases smartphones are defined in terms of operating system that is used by the device not the actual spec or price of the device. In that definition (and I’m pretty sure IDC is using it) all Android phones are smartphones, and so are Galaxy Y, Galaxy Ace and Galaxy Mini.
        Sure, they don’t generate as much revenue or profits as Galaxy Note or SIII but in context of this article (which is about number of smartphones sold) their sales are as meaningful as those of high-end devices.

    • Rybak

      I agree, this is actually strange to me that the author finds this assumption (that Samsung ASPs are lower outside of US) unplausible.
      Most parts of the world are much poorer than US and the fact that they would buy cheaper phones than people in US is not only easy to belive but actually seem pretty obvious to me.

      • John

        No, they are not. Why would you assume that?

        In many countries the ASP of smartphones is probably even higher than in the US. I used to live in Denmark and now I live in Dubai. In Scandinavia iPhone penetration is very high (40%+ for most carriers) and in the UAE the Blackberries are extremely popular (mainly due to tradition and the less technological developed infrastructure). I truly believe that the percentage of the overall public that can afford expensive smartphones are higher than in the US. Sure, the absolute numbers are a lot higher in the US but the relative numbers are not. That also translates into higher ASP.

        Have you been outside the US? 🙂 I have traveled in US a lot in the last few years and it never ceased to amaze me how many poor and homeless people you have over there. But the rate of US citizens and the national pride that pretty much translates into “how great the US is and how poor the rest of the world is” is almost vomiting.

        Thanks, and try to travel outside the US when you have a chance. Or maybe you cannot afford it? 🙂

      • Rybak

        I am not sure what you want to prove with GDP table that i think proves my point. Sure, there are few countries that are above US but those are relativelly small countries that doesn’t have big share in world smartphone market. There are some more significant regions, especially EU and Japan (which are not as rich as US anyway) but much more people live China or India than in those regions.
        You can actually look at the list you provided: the average World GDP per capita is 11,489 while US is 48,387, more than 4 times more than World’s average.

        Sure, Scandinavia is quite rich and maybe many people there can afford expensive phones but there are around 25 milion people in Scandinavia and around 1.3 bln in China. Which one is more important? (and actually only Norway is richer than US)

        Thanks for travelling tips but actually I have never been to US. I live in Poland.

      • John

        You are really missing the point here. We are talking about ASP – not absolute numbers. I cannot follow your logic here. Because only a few countries are above the US on the list your logic says that all the others below or close to the US are irrelevant and “much poorer”?

      • Rybak

        I haven’t said that that “others below or close to the US are irrevelant”.
        Bascially what I am saying is that small countries are less meaningfull and the size (population) does matter.
        If lets say we have 1 mln smartphones sold in China for average price of 100 USD and 10 thousands in Norway for 500 USD average, than ASP for those 2 countries will be 104 USD (100*10^6+500*10^4)/(10^6+10^4) so much closer to China’s ASP than Norway. So obviously Samsung ASP will be “weighted down” more by a big countries (that happens to be relatively poor) than few small rich ones.

      • John

        First of all we need to agree that a market is not “all people in a given country”. A market is the buyers and potential buyers. Just because 1 billion lives in China it doesn’t mean that the smartphone market is 1 billion. Many markets are very saturated and the ASP is quite high. Most poorer countries are far less saturated in terms of smartphone penetration and therefore not very relevant to the analysis. India is one example.

        I think that Horace’s ASP assumptions are quite accurate.

      • See footnote #4. Also, having worked in the industry for 8 years, I never saw the same product priced differently in different regions. It leads to channel conflict and resellers begin to pick up inventory and move it around, destroying relationships with distributors. What can happen is a shift in mix where cheaper phones get sold in higher proportion in lower income countries and vice versa. What I noted about the Samsung data however was that there was a large portfolio available in the US so already there is a healthy mix of high, mid and low-end product in the channel. It’s also clear that they are selling that mix. The resulting blended ASP includes the entire portfolio. Having said that I don’t find it implausible that the global ASP is lower. The question is by how much. I suggested that you would need to believe 80% of US, which is significant.

  • r.d

    If 50 million shipment is unbelievable then so is 100 million activation
    number that Google gave out.

    • r.d

      here is quote from q4 2011.

      “In all, it pulled in 47.3 trillion won ($42 billion) in sales, thanks in no small part to the over 300 million phones Sammy sold last year. While mobile accounted for roughly 40 percent of company sales and half of its operating profit (2.6 trillion won, or $2.3 billion), its semiconductor business did almost as well, raking in 2.3 trillion won ($2 billion) in profit over the same period. Samsung’s Display Panel business outperformed 2010 — buoyed by strong sales in LED televisions — as sales were up almost 20 percent, to 8.55 trillion won ($7.6 billion).”

      • Walt French

        Got a source/link on this? When we’re trying to analyze credibility and accuracy, we need that.

      • r.d

        tried pasting the link but comment is not appearing so
        just search for

        Samsung 2011 Q4 earnings official: $42 billion in sales, $4.7 billion operating profit”
        in engadet dot com

      • Samsung gave shipment numbers for the first half of 2011. They do offer sales figures every quarter. Search “Samsung investor relations” and download the presentations (slides in PDF format).

      • BC2009

        Can you explain how last year IDC estimated 17.3M smartphone units in Q2 with Samsung showing a 75% YoY increase in mobile revenue jives with a 172% increase in smartphone sales for Samsung? A 75% increase in units would have put us at 30.3M units.

        Is this a function feature phone share being replaced by smartphone share in their overall mobile phone sales? If so, do we know which models that Samsung considers to be “smartphones” versus “feature phones” for accounting purposes?

      • I track all this data. If the IDC estimates are correct then indeed the average selling price remains low while the proportion of smartphones in the mix increases. Samsung is moving an increasing portion of its portfolio to smartphones without changing the pricing structure (much).

      • BC2009


        Samsung reported an increase in ASP for smartphones in one of their recent quarters, but again they did not say how much. It must be incredibly frustrating for analysts with how much they keep unsaid.

    • Google gives daily activation rates which reached 1 million per day during the quarter. I don’t think they offered total activations for the quarter.

      • breakfast

        fair enough, but if we extend the old rate of 1 million a day (considering the softness of the market in Q2 we can pretend that rate is constant) at 90 days we get 90 million. Subtract 8 million for tablets in Q2 and the number comes to … 82 million android smartphones. (note i have resources to measure the tablet market with sufficient accuracy to use here). IDC has this number as 104.8 ( )
        Sooo to make IDC’s statement close to true, we would have to see an android activation rate of 112.8 million in Q2 or 1.25 million a day.

        Now…comparing this to your chart ( with just my eyes of course 😉 it looks to be that your February forecast would have Android daily activation reaching 1.2 million by December 2012.

        So we have three possibilities
        1. Android activations are accelerating and Google didn’t bring this up due to its legal battles with Apple
        2. IDC is overestimating and counting some devices that do not get properly activated (although i would guess this number to be around 3 million tops, including amazon tablets)
        3. Your drew the wrong trend line in your chart (not likely in my opinion)

        I do not call this hard proof, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for a civil case here 😉

      • Tatil_S

        Google counts only some activations as “Android”, for example Amazon Fire does not count, but IDC likely counts all tablets with an Android kernel regardless of whether they are compatible with Google Play.

    • Dan Andersen

      I agree–it isn’t believable.

  • B Loftus

    I think there mobile sales numbers also include tablets sales. This makes the IDC numbers look even worse.

  • poke

    These figures don’t look good for Samsung. Their high-end Android smartphones do not appear to be competitive with iPhone. Instead, it looks like they’re doing well in emerging markets. That’s a very different story than the one analysts have been telling us.

    • EXACTLY. The point is that it is Nokia that should be worried by Samsung, not Apple.

  • Walt French

    There is a similar disconnect between IDC’s estimates for Samsung tablets and the numbers that Samsung reported to the court. In that case, one was required to assume that 98.5% (IIRC; sorry that I don’t recall source) of their tablets sales were non-US.

    With such “unsatisfactory” conflicts, I have already looked at resolving the differences by looking for what data or inferences are softest. The Samsung devices are perceived as relatively premium devices in the US, so it seems unlikely that their sales would’ve shifted dramatically to lower-income markets. Their counsel would face extreme sanctions if they presented false data to the court (and Apple hasn’t contested it). And IDC has an utterly opaque methodology for estimating shipments/sales in the absence of any direct corroboration being possible, while the OEMs have a strong incentive to seem to be doing better.

    Historically, IDC-type firms would run their estimates by the firms, who would give a soft characterization about their own data (e.g., “looks about right, maybe soft in tablets”), as a quid pro quo for getting similar competitive data. But the game seems to have changed, with Samsung unconcerned about Motorola, HTC, Sony-Ericcson and others’ unreported data; but a strong need to suggest success, the better to enjoy developer- and customer-driven network effects.

    This line of reasoning seems the best supported by industry practices and logic.

    • Tatil_S

      Those US tablet numbers do not include any 7” models or the Tab2 models that came out in the same quarter that “infringing” Tab[1] model sales took a nose dive. With a few assumptions about how many Tab2’s and 7” tablets Samsung may have sold in Q2, you can get far more than 1.5% of global sales to take place in the US.

      • I think those tablets are included in the Galaxy Tab “catch all” line item. Includes all variants that were product refreshes since 2010. The reason sales for the small Samsung Tabs declined so much in recent quarters was due competition from cheap $199 tablets from AMZN & RIMM.

      • Tatil_S

        I may be mistaken in missing 7” variants, but I doubt it has Tab2. They were released very recently, so were S3, so Apple cannot include them in this trial. The big collapse (going from 156k to 37k) happened in the same quarter with Tab2 release. That timing sounds more relevant than the 2 quarters after Fire release and 1 year after RIM’s Playbook.

      • Yeah, you may be right. There was only 1K units of the 10 tab sold in Q2. But, I don’t think sales that could be missing would total more than 100-200K units, at most. So, the percentage non-US would only fall to 90-95%

      • Tatil_S

        Yeah, I would not expect more than that, either. My yardstick is whether I see them on flights or in cafes. I do see some occasionally, but not often, definitely far less often than iPads, similar to how frequently SanDisk and Zune media players I used to see and less often than PSP and Nintendo DS. 200k a quarter sounds about right. By that measure though, I see a lot of Android phones.

    • DrewBear2
    • davel

      Yes it is interesting how a large multinational company is served best by having its sales numbers estimated by a company with no corroboration.

      This is the same with Google which produces similar opaque statements of how many Android devices are out there. They have been saying x number of Android devices are activated per day. Without doing any math on these statements I figure every man woman and child on the planet should have one device by now.

      • davel

        Need I remind everyone that Samsung has lied about how many of a product it sold. I think the redaction happened in an investor call where they had to clarify an official public statement.

      • Walt French

        I’d appreciate any other readers’ more documented recollections.

  • gprovida

    I applaud checking the numbers that have had a lot of precision but little accuracy. To compound the problem there are no error bars in the analysists data.

    My suspicion is what qualifies as a feature vs smart phone allowing a lot of wiggle room by Samsung in their reports. This is a competitive message similar on reporting 4S, 4, and 3GS.

  • Ittiam


    S3 sells at $690 in India. Any reason to estimate low figure of $470 for US S3?

    I think the ASP of smartphone globally should be much lower than that of US.

    Flipkart is a very popular online store in India. Luckily it lists phones based on popularity. So if we take only Samsung Android smartphones, here are top 8 in order of popularity

    1. Y – $130
    2. Ace – $ 200
    3. Y – $130
    4. Y duos – $160
    5. Y – $130
    6. Ace – $200
    7. S3 – $690
    8. Note – $595

    I am not sure whether these data points will help you better estimate.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if worldwide ASP for android smartphones is below $250 for Samsung
    (Assumed Rs55 a dollar for calculations)

  • quote:
    ” It seems that the more open a platform, the less is revealed about its market performance.”

    I would rewrite this sentence as:

    “It seems that the less successful a platform, the less is revealed about its market performance.”

    • The widely accepted theory is that the Samsung Galaxy S III is outselling every model iPhone by about a bazillion to one. Everyone seems comfortable with that figure so let’s go with it. Hence all the articles of why Apple seems to be losing its polish since the death of Steve Jobs and whether the next iPhone can even come close to the feature set of the top-selling Galaxy S III. Most articles on the internet indicate that Apple is in desperation due to lost smartphone market share and that’s why the company is pursuing lawsuits against Samsung.


      • Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda of the Third Reich said: “Lie, lie, lie. Always something remains.”

        If those “tellings in the internet” are true… Why they do not show the numbers?

        And wishful thinking do not help either… “Everything know now will be trashed out by Windows XX or Samsung ZZ.”

        Show me the numbers, with credible sustain (like Apple’s shareholders meeting truth) and I may believe you. (Please, do not take this as personal.)

      • Tatil_S

        /s => sarcasm

  • Pricing recorded by Samsung would be price to channel. The retail price in India includes taxes, customs, and retail mark-up as well as any adjustment for additional country level costs. I used $470 based on the pricing of the other high-end versions of the SII product.

    • Ittiam

      ok… Thanks for the reply

  • Tatil_S

    Horace, I think back when RIM was doing well, it was publishing ASPs for US and non-US sales. Was there a big difference between the two? Can we use that as a guide for the possibility of non-US Samsung ASPs being lower?

  • nizy

    1) This is why I tend to take these reports from IDG, Nielson and co with a grain of salt. As soon as you make assumptions, or rely on a relatively small sample your bound by be wrong. Or as 1 of my lecturers at university put it, “assumption is the mother of all f***ups”.
    2) I think you should change your wording of non-accused. Not accused at this moment in time would be more accurate, but even that isn’t true. For instance, Apple has alreday won a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus in the same California court. That has since been stayed for the duration of a fast track appeal. Prior to the trial Apple also asked about adding the S3 to the case but didn’t as they were told it would delay the trial. The only reason these products aren’t included is that the court process is slow and these products weren’t even announced when Apple started the case.

  • How many they ship is irrelevant. How many the SELL is what matters. If for every 10 they ship they only sell 2, of what value is that number 10?

    • Tatil_S

      So what? They sell the remaining 8 next quarter. Shipping vs selling may skew the numbers for a quarter or two, but over a longer time period selling catches up with shipping unless you expect them to write off massive amounts of inventory.

      • AdamChew

        Reread and try understand what Turley Muller had written.

      • Tatil_S

        Oh, get off your high horse. My reply was to Mr Kraig, not Muller, who posted his after I did.

        What is your great point anyways? Some commenters have been taking issue with shipped vs. sold aspect throughout the many quarters during which Samsung’s estimated shipment numbers have been growing rapidly. Are you arguing that Samsung’s inventory levels have been rising all this time? You can check Samsung financial reports to check for that. Or that everything was going swimmingly until this quarter all of a sudden? Sure, the latter is quite possible. Afterall, iPhone sales were also lower than expected, but nothing in the comments or the original blog post points to anything special about this quarter. Rather, the discussion is about the accuracy of IDC estimates in light of the data that came out during the patent trial.

    • Shipments are relevant. Because shipments have to convert to sales to end-users or you get an overstocked channel which leads to lower future shipments.

      Motorola sold (shipped) 700K XOOM tablets at launch, but only sold (shipped) less than 100K in the next quarter. Actual sales to end-users, or sell-through was much lower than 700K resulting in excess retail inventory. That’s why sales (shipments) imploded in the next quarter. However, sales to end users was considerably higher than the 100K as channel inventory was reduced to more accurately match the rate of sell-through. In short, shipments have to calibrate to sell-through in time.

      The value of that 10 shipped when only 2 are sold-through is meaningful because it would imply that future shipments will fall dramatically because excess channel inventory. If 10 were shipped and 10, or even 12 were sold, that would imply shipments could grow since inventory has fallen and is below adequate operating levels

  • Tim F.

    The first footnote isn’t a footnote. It’s the most important idea presented in the post.

  • 태훈 김

    Samsung does mention mobile phone shipments in their conference calls, although only in ranges(eg market shipment growth low single digits, our growth similar to market)

    • I’ve read these comments but they are not helpful because we don’t know the previous period’s data. It’s a matter of multiplying numbers with increasing variance. Every time, the error gets bigger to the point where it swamps the whole estimate. How many “low single digits” multiplied together can yield believable estimates. As a growth figure it’s helpful (very slightly) but as a way of estimating the value of shipments that can be compared to other companies, it’s not.

  • xue

    I can’t estimate the volume of samsung’s smartphones shipped, but according to the datas released by IDC and samsung’s Q1,Q2 financial report ,it’s possible to prove that the IDC’s estimates is inconsistent with its previous one and samsung’s fiancial performance.( the reliability of samsung’s report precedes IDC)
    Here is datas and facts from IDC and samsung:
    1,IDC estimate that samsung shipped 93.7million phones in Q1(42.2million smartphones),and 97.8 million phones in Q2(50.2million smart ones) ;
    2,Samsung’ s financial report shows that the revenue of mobile phone segment increased by 8.6% quartly
    3,samsung claimed in Q2 report that the asp is increasing dui to gsIII and gs note; the volume of smartphones is increasing while the feature phones down;

    well, here’s some anlyse from me
    In us dollor’s value , samsung mobile ‘s revenue increased by 6.7% quartly(korea won devalued by about 2%, euro remains stable with us dollar)
    the asp of total phones is about 190 us dollars.
    around half of the total volume is smart/feature phones.(IDC: in Q1, feature phone is bigger and in Q2 smart phone is bigger)
    we can estimate the asp of feature/smart phones aparts from 190dollar at a same distance, 60 vs 320 is reasonable relatively, which means the revenue from smart phones can acquire 5/6 of the total revenue.
    as the feature phone contirbure a relatively small part of the total revenue ,we make it remaing stable.

    conclude all these facts and analyses, a 6.7% growth rate in revenue require a 6.7*6/5=8% ‘s increase of smartphones shipment. IDC ‘s estimate shows a 20% increase quartly. it’s no wonder that the IDC exaggerate the volume of samsung’s smartphon volume.

    • Tae-Huhn Kim

      Samsung’s mobile division sales is not made up of just mobile phones. The mobile division also includes sales of network equipments, which happened to be quite large in Q1 but negligent in Q2

  • oases

    Consumer surveys rule. P.S. re your fourth footnote, isn’t the Indian 3GS an arbitrage opportunity? I’m expecting them to appear on

  • BC2009

    What I want to know…. Which of its phones does Samsung count as “smartphones” for accounting purposes? Do they tell us that information anywhere?

    • Any phone running Windows Phone, Bada or Android (and any Android-like OS). I believe that’s what they are ranging currently.

  • “It seems that the more open a platform, the less is revealed about its market performance.”
    I nominate this for the Geek Witticism of the Year!

    I think we should all make a concerted attempt to memeify it. Every Android vs iOS flamewar you stumble across, there will probably arise an opportunity to throw in this phrase. If nothing else, by making this common knowledge, we may be able to get a number of the relevant players to report better numbers.

  • One of the Samsung inventory tricks I have heard from Japanese resellers is Samsung will swap out left over inventory with new product and while the older unsold inventory gets repackaged for another country. Samsung, however, reports this repackaged product as new shipments.

  • Pingback: Aktuelles 15. August 2012 —

  • Pingback: スマートフォンの売り上げ:いろいろな数字 at バイオの買物.com 制作者の頭の中()