Hacker News Reader

Comment by megablast | Hacker News Reader

When people said it, it was true. Even now Samsung make the majority of money in the Android world.

Yes, but the argument IIRC was that Samsung had attained an unassailable position, so Android being open wasn't really making any difference.

Instead, in the latest ads that came to my mailbox (snail mail in Italy), I was struck by the fact that most of the advertised phones were from Chinese brands I had never heard of before...

Are the brands you are referring to, by any chance Xiaomi and Huawei?

Here in India at least, these Chinese brands along with Lenovo have pretty much become household names in respect to mobile phones.

And they do make good, solid, innovative products at half the cost of their Korean counterparts. From an Indian perspective, It is no surprise that Samsung is bleeding to these (at least in the low and mid segments).

What is truly amazing to me is the pace with which the reputation of these mobile companies were built. It took years and even decades for the Koreans (Samsung and LG in electronics, and Hyundai in cars) to be taken in the same respect as the Japanese. The trust and reputation of the chinese brands (in the mobile space at least) were built almost overnight (and sooner in cases like OnePlus). There is certainly a Tom Sawyer effect in play with use of marketing tactics such as invite-only and flash sales.

The OnePlus invite-only marketing tactics was very successful, from what I heard. Even their reputation seem to be good.

Though 5.5" is very big. Most chinese built smartphones are 5" or bigger.

There are only three high end flagship smartphones that are below 5" (ca. 4.5"): Apple iPhone6, Sony Xperia Z3 Compact and Samsung Alpha.

Their reputation is good because they spam the internet as part of their marketing ploy. They've got very real, and very serious touchscreen issues that basically every phone will suffer from at some point.

And they either don't know how to fix it, or know how to fix it and aren't willing to spend the money to do so. Do a google search of "oneplus touchscreen issue" and let the light of reality shine on your head.

Good to know. A workmate owns one.

I don't get the huge screen size trend anyway. About 4.5" (iPhone, Samsung Alpha, Sony XPeria Z3 Compact, etc.) is already the physical limit to fit comfortable in many pockets and is certainly big enough. Tell that to most manufactures who produce the mass of 5.5" phones.

Z3c is by far the best phone I've ever owned. I ended up returning it, however, because Sony's version of android sucks. I want a pure android experience (or close to it), and somewhat quick updates. A Z3c with stock android is literally my dream phone. Perfect size, waterproof, great camera, just an all around awesome phone (other than Sony's poor software).

Actually not, I was very surprised because they weren't either of those - which I already knew, especially Huawei. There were also a couple of Huawei ones, but there were plenty of other ones I had never heard about.

I too see many cheap Android devices for sale from noname Chinese brands. But are you tempted into buying them?

Considering I'm a poor startupper... yes :)

> Even now Samsung make the majority of money in the Android world

Making the majority of money is completely irrelevant to actual market-share. Who makes the majority of devices?

Why would market share numbers be interesting when the switching costs are so low? You live by the commodity market, you die by the commodity market.

As a customer and consumer I prefer a diverse market full of smaller actors, than a market dominated by one Giant actor doing whatever the fuck it likes, just because it can.

This should be the natural state of any market. Why do you prefer monopolies charging you more than they need to? What do you find better or more "interesting" about that?

The point is that in saying that Samsung derives benefit from market share, you have to acknowledge that that benefit is reduced because there's no good way for Samsung to use that market share advantage to keep people attached to their platform, because they don't have control over their platform.

Making money is the only significant metric. They may have a large market share but if they're not making money from it who cares?

As a non-stock-holder in said companies, I couldn't give a rats ass in who makes the most money.

Having a dozen companies each making a little money represents a much healthier market than one giga-corp taking the lions-share. What we're seeing in China is the market moving to a healthier, more natural and sustainable state.

I find that much more important. As a consumer/customer that benefits me.

Whose interest do you have in mind?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com