Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 09:00 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Like LG, Sony's smartphone division is now also doing quite well:

In the three months between April and June of this year, Sony saw both a "significant increase in unit sales" of its Android smartphones and an improved average selling price per handset. That's at the heart of the company's improved profitability.

The common parlance that only Samsung is profiting off Android is, as I've said before, simply no longer true. All it took for companies like LG and Sony to become profitable with Android is to, you know, stop making crap phones, and start producing good ones.

Shocker.

Thread beginning with comment 568607
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by acobar on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

I wouldn't be convinced that Samsung's success is a direct result of Android -- rather than manufacturing, resources, marketing, and strategic causes


Following your reasoning, how could Samsung compete without a good (enough?) mobile OS to use? Do you think should it pick MS mobile OS, and selling the volume they do, would Microsoft ask a little as it does now? I don't think so, and it, very probably, would have a big impact on Samsung net profit. I am not implying you, somehow, left this scenario tacit, it was only to illustrate one possible alternative and to leave, beforehand, an argument to the ones that fall toward this.


the data is very much clear that Android has had essentially no positive impact whatsoever on any company's success (excepting the possibility of Samsung). 99.9% of mobile manufacturers are still generating losses, barely breaking even, or occasionally posting inconsequential profits


I think it is clear to everybody that carriers have a large impact on what is available to consumers and that Samsung has a very good business relationship with most of them (read incentives and availability), together with their product quality, it make consumers very inclined to get them. The first is precisely what small manufactures lack (may lack quality too) and the last is what some known brands did not have for some time (and would lack the "proximity" Samsung has too). It is really a big game and Samsung has the quality and the resources to play it well.


If anything, we can look at a few companies who have fared worse as a result of Android (HTC, for example)


And how it can tracked to Android on this case and not on HTC business practices?


It seems to me that only now the big manufacturers companies that can play this game are getting their acts straight, i.e. Sony, LG and some others and we will see a more competitive fight for sell.

Also, I very much doubt that carriers and manufactures would like to repeat the scenario we had with PC computers where only Microsoft was making "good" money while everyone else were retorting to whatsoever they could to improve their profits. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

This is what makes me astonished by Nokia move. They had the quality, the presence, the relationship and the brand, yet they opted to play a risk game. Not a wise choice if you ask me. Again, I am not saying that they should not produce phones with MS OS, only that putting all its eggs on one basket is rarely a smart move, even more if you take account on MS business practice history.

Edited 2013-08-01 14:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Thu 1st Aug 2013 14:43 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Do you think should it pick MS mobile OS...


Did you actually read my comment above? Clearly not...

My point being: whether or not Android did exist, they would likely tower over every other OEM excepting Apple. Android might benefit Samsung in relationship to competing with Apple, but that benefit may or may not exceed the benefits of their manufacturing prowess, component integration, cost efficiencies, carrier relationships, massive product lines covering all possible needs, markets, and costs, massive advertising budget that dwarfs virtually any other across all industries, and innumerable dirty tricks. Might. However, the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever that anyone else is actually benefitting at all (potentially or demonstrably) rather than being in the same poor shape, or even worse, doesn't turn those mights into a demonstration that Android is the source of benefit to the market place.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by acobar on Thu 1st Aug 2013 16:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Did you actually read my comment above? Clearly not...


If you read the whole paragraph you would see that I did.

Anyway, my point was, if not for Android, most of "wanna be" smartphone manufactures would not exist today (but would in future if the other projects mature enough).

Also, I said that the success of Samsung can not be derived of Android factor only as also can not the lack of it by other manufactures. Success is a combination of opportunity and competence at right time and most of the competitors were not ready when the smartphone boom started.

Edited 2013-08-01 16:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4