Apple, Samsung Control 106% of Handset Industry's Profits

[zakislam]

Technology giants capitalizes on losses by competitors.

Apple, Samsung Control 106% of Handset Industry's Profits : Read more

 

[rebturtle]

106% = Math fail

 

[cats_Paw]

My thoughts exactly

 

[dthx]

Oh ... and I thought that Jean-Claude Van Damme was insane with his 1+1= 11 theory ;-)

 

[JOSHSKORN]

[citation][nom]dthx[/nom]Oh ... and I thought that Jean-Claude Van Damme was insane with his 1+1= 11 theory ;-)[/citation]
Then there's McDonald's 2+2=2 theory. Or was that Burger King? I forget.

 

[ronch79]

I'm not accepting the explanation that the reason why it's 106% is because of other companies' losses. 100% makes up the profits of all earnings, not counting losses, that's why we say 'earnings'. There's no way you could put other companies' losses on top of Samsung's and Apple's earnings and call it 106%.

 

[dthx]

[citation][nom]ronch79[/nom]I'm not accepting the explanation that the reason why it's 106% is because of other companies' losses. 100% makes up the profits of all earnings, not counting losses, that's why we say 'earnings'. There's no way you could put other companies' losses on top of Samsung's and Apple's earnings and call it 106%.[/citation]
It fits perfectly in the Apple way of presenting things:
Processors are always 2x or 4x faster than their predecessors (so the iPad 4 must now be like 128x faster than the first one ;-) ) The new screen is 75% less reflective (how do you measure that? less reflective than what?), and so on... but there needs to be 5 iSomething articles per day on THG.

 

[murzar]

Apple, Samsung Control 106% of Handset Industry's Profits

In the 5th dimension?

 

[ZEPd3Z]

[citation][nom]dthx[/nom]less reflective than what?[/citation]
A Glass mirror.

 

[Guest]

this author need to stop writing all this apple stuff... and should be beaten every time time he starts doing it again

 

[diddo]

Profit - you are doing it right

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]dthx[/nom]Oh ... and I thought that Jean-Claude Van Damme was insane with his 1+1= 11 theory ;-)[/citation]

1+1 can be 11, + represents concatenation

 

[Azimuth01]

Samsung is just baiting Apple into a false scene of security. Just when Apple thinks things are going great, Samsung will stop selling Apple their displays. There's 4 suppliers in the world of flat screen panels? And 2 of them suck so bad that the screens are only found in Chinese rip offs....the other two are Samsung and Sharp.
Good luck getting a retina display from Sharp.....

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]tictictic[/nom]this author need to stop writing all this apple stuff... and should be beaten every time time he starts doing it again[/citation]
I'd imagine he was hired to do the Apple reporting. ...and because the teens here don't like Apple doesn't mean that there is something flawed with his journalism.

 

[greghome]

[citation][nom]dthx[/nom]Oh ... and I thought that Jean-Claude Van Damme was insane with his 1+1= 11 theory ;-)[/citation]

Base 2 numbers?
1+1 = 10 😛

 

[canesin]

This means that they are earning a piece of the debt generated with the loss of other competitors, such as Nokia and Motorola. This is perfectly possible, economy is not high school math.

 

[x3style]

Samsung's Planet has to be twice the size of apple's planet to put things in perspective with accurate numbers.

 

[spookie]

samsung sold more smartphones than Apple and yet they didn't make as much profits...Apple products are clearly over priced

 

[Guest]

more then 100 %. Hey u this is not cpu or gpu performance chart.

 

[gfg]

Example of a scenario
$Millions % entry (+/-) % entry (+)
samsung 10 44% 44%
apple 15 67% 67%
htc -0.5 -2% 0%
sony -0.2 -1% 0%
other… -1.0 -4% 0%
23.2 100% 107%

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]rebturtle[/nom]106% = Math fail[/citation]
Nope.
4 companies profits...

a $120
b $80
c -$20 ( a loss)
d -$30 ( also a loss)

Total profit of the 4 companies = $150 ( 120 + 80 minus the $50 losses)

A therefore has 80% of the total profits ($120 of $150)
B has 53% of the profits ( $80 of $150)

So A and B combined generated 133% of the total profits in this example.

See, it works 🙂

 

[thecolorblue]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Nope.4 companies profits...a $120b $80c -$20 ( a loss)d -$30 ( also a loss)Total profit of the 4 companies = $150 ( 120 + 80 minus the $50 losses)A therefore has 80% of the total profits ($120 of $150)B has 53% of the profits ( $80 of $150)So A and B combined generated 133% of the total profits in this example.See, it works 🙂[/citation]
no

 

[cknobman]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Nope.4 companies profits...a $120b $80c -$20 ( a loss)d -$30 ( also a loss)Total profit of the 4 companies = $150 ( 120 + 80 minus the $50 losses)A therefore has 80% of the total profits ($120 of $150)B has 53% of the profits ( $80 of $150)So A and B combined generated 133% of the total profits in this example.See, it works 🙂[/citation]

Sorry but if you loose money then you cant use that as a calculation in determining total profit. The fact that you LOST MONEY means you have no profit and therefore are not used in calculating PROFIT.

 

[djscribbles]

[citation][nom]dthx[/nom]/* Oh ... and I thought that Jean-Claude Van Damme was insane with his */ "1" + "1" == "11"; // theory ;-)[/citation]

Fixed, should compile fine now.

 

[ivanto]

[citation][nom]rebturtle[/nom]106% = Math fail[/citation]


Reading fail

.
On another note, love how Samsung manages to get 47% of all profits but have consumer perception of an "underdog". Great brand management. Apple should hire whoever manages Samsung's brand.
-IvanTO