Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

petepro t1_jbdtdvb wrote

LOL android fans are in denial in this thread. EDIT: Some don't even know what's the different between a news article and a press release. LOL

−2

Trippler2 t1_jbg4vr8 wrote

And Apple fanboys don't even realize this list is meaningless. Apple produces like 3 models a year therefore their individual sales are higher than those from other manufacturers. Samsung, Xiaomi, etc produce a million different models so their individual sales are lower.

> The top-10 list contributed 19% of the total global smartphone sales in 2022

Oh look, 81% of global sales are pretty much all Android. Apple with its limited choices couldn't even come close to Android.

If Mercedes produced a single model and sold 2 million of it, while BMW produced 20 models and sold 1 million per model, Mercedes would claim being "the top model" while BMW would actually be selling 10 times more.

That's your Apple fanboy fallacy. Claiming leadership while android has more than 72% market share. Apple's models are individually at the top only because Apple produces so few models.

/u/GMW-5610 come defend your incoherent logic here too.

2

[deleted] OP t1_jbg6m7w wrote

Why do you describe fragmentation and make it pass as a good thing? Thank fucking God Apple makes only 4 models a year! As long as they rake in 80% of the profits I bet they're happy.

The main takeaway of the list is, if people are willing to spend a gran on smartphone chances are they're gonna buy an iPhone, and that Android flagship are pretty much pointless vanity projects.

1

Trippler2 t1_jbg9nfz wrote

> As long as they rake in 80% of the profits I bet they're happy.

First of all, it's about 60%. But more importantly, that's not the brag you think it is. It means Apple sells 20% of all phones with 60% of all profits. This directly means their profit margin per phone is incredibly high compared to other companies. Which directly means they are overpriced pieces of shit that Apple fanboys are willing to pay 3x their actual worth.

You are bragging about being chumps.

You wouldn't defend ANY OTHER COMPANY doing exactly that. If Coca Cola sold 1000 cans and made a profit of $1000 ($1 per can) , while Pepsi sold 2000 cans and made a profit of $500 ($0.25 per can), you wouldn't come here and brag about paying more for Coca Cola than it's worth, while 80% of everyone else enjoyed Pepsi.

Apple is sucking your wallets dry and you are defending their profits. You are an excellent soldier of abusive capitalism.

> if people are willing to spend a gran on smartphone chances are they're gonna buy an iPhone

No, suckers spend $1000 on an iPhone which is actually worth $300 (remember the record profits for Apple) while smart people pay $500 for a $300 phone (that's how other brands sell more units and make less profit per unit).

The numbers don't lie. Apple makes more profit per device, which means they are worth a lot less than what you are paying. And you are defending it here 😅

2

[deleted] OP t1_jbgbyop wrote

> which is actually worth $300 (remember the record profits for Apple)

The Bills of Materials alone is 500$. This doesn't include of course R&D, software and assembly.

You know costs tend to levitate a bit when you have an army of 6 figures wage developers working on your updates for 8 years. Surely more costly than some Indian community member on some forum cooking a ROM update in his basement.

You are a pretty uninformed armchair analyst.

3

Trippler2 t1_jbgdxu8 wrote

> The Bills of Materials alone is 500$. This doesn't include of course R&D, software and assembly.

You don't know the concept of an illustrative example, do you? Android phones don't cost $300 either. Pepsi doesn't sell 1000 cans and make $0.25 per can. Those are example figures for your feeble mind to recognize mathematical concepts.

But who am I talking to, an apple fanboy. Logic isn't applicable here. If you believe Samsung and Google don't have 6 figure wage developers but instead use community ROMs, then you are far more ignorant than i initially assumed.

−1