Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Apr 2013 22:21 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless The reviews are universally positive, and virtually everyone seems to agree: the HTC One is one heck of an Android device, and quite possibly the best phone currently on the market. Outstanding build quality, great design, fast - and just like the One X before it, it looks like to me it's a far better phone than its Galaxy counterparts. Why, then, is no one buying HTC phones?
Thread beginning with comment 558052
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Advertising.
by Tony Swash on Tue 9th Apr 2013 10:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Advertising."
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Over at the excellent Asymco site there is a interview with Rafael Barbosa Barifouse of Redacao Epoca about Samsung. In the interview he puts forward three reasons for Samsung's success compared to companies like HTC.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/07/samsung-vs-google-an-interview-wit...

Here is the relevant excerpt from that interview:


In my opinion it’s [Samungs success] due to three reasons:

Distribution. Success in the phone business depends in having a relationship with a large number of operators. Samsung had these relationships prior to becoming a smartphone vendor [because it sold all other kinds of phones]. Few alternative Android vendors have the level of distribution Samsung has. For comparison Apple has less than half the distribution level of Samsung and most other vendors have less than Apple.

Marketing and promotion. Samsung Electronics spent nearly $12 billion in 2012 on marketing expenses of which $4 billion (est.) was on advertising. Few Android vendors (or any other company) has the resources to match this level of marketing. For comparison, Apple’s 2012 advertising spending was one quarter of Samsung’s.

Supply chain. Samsung can supply the market in large quantities. This is partly due to having their own semiconductor production facilities. Those facilities were in a large part built using Apple contract revenues over the years they supplied iPhone, iPad and iPod components. No Android competitors (except for LG perhaps) had either the capacity to produce components or the signal well in advance to enter the market in volume as Samsung did by being an iPhone supplier.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Advertising.
by gan17 on Tue 9th Apr 2013 12:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Advertising."
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

I'll raise you one on the "supply chain" argument. Not only can they do what that excerpt says, they can also constrain the market for competitors as and when they see fit, be it to dictate pricing or simply stifle competitors. I'm sure they already do it. Any megacorp in their position has certainly done it in the past. Only difference is that Samsung practically runs the government in their home nation, so it's much harder to keep their behavior in check.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Advertising.
by JAlexoid on Tue 9th Apr 2013 12:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Advertising."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You are forgetting one other thing - Samsung has an established brand. For years people did not know that they were buying HTC devices and HTC didn't care(I blame Chinese humility). But Samsung was on your washing machine, dishwasher, dryer, vacuum cleaner and TV.
You know Samsung. You didn't know HTC.

Edited 2013-04-09 12:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4