Samsung

50.2 million.

That's the estimate from IDC. So why bother asking?

Because that is an estimate. Of the 104 million Android phones shipped in the quarter (itself an estimate from another, possibly different methodology), I could only account for 7 million actually reported. That figure comes from a close reading of an investor presentation from Sony. HTC does not report their shipment numbers. It stopped some time late last year. Neither does Motorola now that it's a part of Google. Huawei is silent except for setting targets and ZTE published a press release citing IDC's estimate of its own shipments.

But most glaring of all is the absence of any mention by Samsung of its performance. The company stopped reporting any data on either overall phone shipments or of smartphones within that total since Q3 2011. We may have been able to estimate Samsung if we had more competitor actuals, allowing us to back into a figure. But we don't.[1]

Which leaves us with IDC's estimate[2]. But the problem is that since the industry is growing so quickly it is very sensitive to assumptions. Consider how difficult it is for consensus estimates for Apple's iPhone shipments to come near the actuals--and that's for one quarter, and knowing all the previous quarters with precision. The absence of visibility into the assumptions made by market analysts (or their methods) should lower confidence in the results.

Consider that IDC specifies 50.2 million Samsung smartphones, implying an accuracy down to 100,000 units. Is this accuracy believable?

There is reason for doubt.

I start with the following graph:

It shows the estimates for Samsung global shipments (latter four quarters are estimates without the benefit of company reports.) I separated the component of shipments that Samsung reported as part of its submission to the Samsung v. Apple trial in California. Note that this (orange) segment consists of most US smartphone shipments. It's not all US Samsung shipments. It notably excludes the Note, the latest Nexus and the Galaxy SIII.

Without these "non-accused" phones, it would appear that Samsung's US volumes dropped to 4% of global totals from a 10% average[3]. In order to return to 10%, the US totals would need to be adjusted as shown below:

 

I added 1.5 million units in Q1 and 4 million units in Q2 (to account for Galaxy SIII).

So far this seems consistent with the total estimated global shipments of 50.2 million from IDC. US units would result in 12% of global shipments.

However, there is more data we can test against. First, we are also given pricing for the US phone portfolio, or at least we have revenue per unit sold. This allows us to get an idea of what revenues can be obtained for the smartphones in the US, and possibly world-wide[4]. Knowing prices for smartphones and knowing global sales (which Samsung reports) and finally knowing global total phone shipments allows us to price the average non-smart phone.

Excluding the non-accused smartphones, the average revenue per smartphone in the US for Samsung in Q2 was $339. Adding in the estimated Galaxy SIII (4 million) at an average price of $470 gives a new "ASP" of $413.

This is where the analysis goes off the rails.

If we assume the global ASP is equal to the US ASP and knowing everything else about the mix of smartphones (54% of total) and revenues (as reported) yields a negative ASP for feature phones. Assuming the revenue figure is correct, either the number of smartphones is wrong (50.2 million) or the global ASP ($413) is wrong. The total phone number is also an analyst estimate which can be called into question.

There are many assumptions being multiplied here so I have very low confidence in the result, but we should ask "what do you need to believe" in order for the 50.2 million figure to be real. The following scenario for example has to be true:

1. Global Samsung phone shipments total 93 million units (which means 42.8 million feature phones sold as well as the 50.2 million smartphones).
2. 6 million smartphones shipped into the US, equivalent to about 50% increase y/y, roughly in-line with market growth
3. 4 million Galaxy SIII shipped (but not necessarily sold through) at an ASP of $450. This results in a US total smartphone ASP of $413
4. The global smartphone ASP is significantly lower (at 80% of the US or $330)
5. Global revenues of $18.14 billion is essentially all from phones
6. Global feature phones will have an average price of $36

If these conditions are met then it's possible that 50.2 million Samsung smartphones did ship.

The figure for feature phone ASP is difficult to accept as it would be lower than Nokia's. Also, the low global smartphone ASP is also difficult to accept but it might be possible to find a scenario with the above variables which makes the 50.2 million figure believable.

Unfortunately this is an unsatisfying analysis. I could propose another figure to answer the question in the title, based perhaps on more "believable" assumptions. But I have no means to defend my assumptions. The only option I have remaining is to caution that the total smartphones shipment estimate for Samsung remains precarious. The new evidence from the US trial places more doubt on it but it is not enough to disqualify it entirely.

---

Notes:

1. This cone of silence over 93% of the most popular mobile platform is somewhat puzzling in contrast to the perfect information we are used to having about iOS, BlackBerry and even Symbian. It seems that the more open a platform, the less is revealed about its market performance. This extends to the licensed Windows Phone whose shipments are only revealed through Nokia's reporting of Lumia shipments.
2. In the PC market, vendors also selectively publish their units. The norm is, however, not to. As a result IDC et. al. are the only sources for global market data. However, the PC market can be sampled more easily than the phone market. PC retail measurement methods are more reliable compared with all the points of sale for phones.
3. Note that Apple sells about 30% of iPhones in the US.
4. Apple's pricing world-wide is very consistent with pricing in the US which makes sense from a channel management point of view. One would not want to create incentives for cross-border arbitrage of phones.

Samsung has been selling smartphones for a relatively short time. Although the company sold Windows Mobile, Linux and PalmOS during the last decade, it did not gain significant volumes until it began selling Android phones in 2010 with strong operator support.

That support was substantial in the US. The company crashed the Android party in mid 2010 with its Galaxy brand. Trial evidence reveals that the sales level for Galaxy S1 series phones burst out of the gate taking Samsung from 90k units to 2.5 million units in one quarter.

The following graph shows the unit shipments recorded by Samsung for a set of US smartphones.

Note that the profile of sales volume shows a cyclicality with respect to product launches. Each new generation overlaps with previous generations and "fills in" while the older generation product tails off in sales. This is standard portfolio strategy. It also shows the cycle time of launches is approximately four quarters. As the S1 was four quarters old, the SII launched and the SIII follows after four quarters of SII.

What is surprising is that the overall sales volume is not growing. At least for the products catalogued (which exclude the Note) growth for the last four quarters has been: 5%, 34%, 31%, -53%. These are in stark contrast to the iPhone pattern shown in the outline bars behind Samsung's.

The iPhone ramped slowly in 2007 and 2008 and has been showing remarkable generational growth.

Perhaps it's still early and Samsung SIII product will ramp up as the contemporary iPhones do, but if it doesn't we have entertain the possibility that the iPhone does not compete along the same basis.

What does it mean to compete on a different basis?

The basis of competition is the aspect of an offering for which a customer is willing to pay a premium price. It's hard to know (or to put your finger on) what the basis actually is, but we can test whether it's the same by measuring whether two products capture prices the same way. If one product that seems to resemble another can obtain price advantage consistently, then perhaps it's being bought for a different reason.

To test this, I produced the following chart showing the prices that Samsung's phones have been able to capture through their lifetimes; and the same for the iPhone.

 

I've narrowed the analysis to the first four quarters and summarized the price erosion across all the products as well:

 

[Note: iPhone 4S, Skyrocket, T-Mobile Galaxy SII showing only three quarters]

As mentioned, it's still early perhaps, but the pattern for the iPhone has been different.

Samsung's pattern is not unusual. I've seen similar pattern for almost all Nokia products. Prices drop. It's a standard industry phenomenon.

Therefore the question is not perhaps what is Samsung's basis of competition: it's the same as the overall phone industry. The question is what is the basis of competition for the iPhone.

Thanks to Angel Lamuno for sending me to a dry and boring lecture by Dr. Israel Kirzner from Feburary 1988. It got me thinking again about competition and how confusing it can be.

The lecture was in part about how the word "competition" is used by economists with directly opposing meaning from that of the layman and how that leads to confusion about the role of free markets.

I won't dwell on that, but instead I want to explain how this word can also be contradictory in meaning when applied in everyday usage in business analysis. Nowhere is this more evident than when we argue whether Apple competes with X or Y or Z.

Does Apple compete with Android or Google or Samsung? How could Apple compete with Google and yet cause it to be the default search engine in Safari thus enriching their competitors? How could Apple compete with Samsung and yet select their semiconductors for the heart of its most important and profitable product? And how could the people across the table from Apple agree to terms on these deals while being sued by them?

Some have tried to characterize this situation as "coopetition" or the co-habitation of conflicting strategies for a balanced optimum. I find this characterization uncomfortable and unsatisfying. The balance sought will be very fragile and change daily and no optimization is practically possible. It seems contrived.

Rather, I think about these situations as examples of asymmetric competition. This is competition where companies are rivals but they have different definitions of the basis of competition. In a way, they are like gladiators who have weapons which cannot be brought to bear or wielded effectively to counter the opponent's.

Consider the following question: does the iPhone compete with the Galaxy SIII? Well, obviously it does. The products have similar attributes. If we define competition as rivalry in a market for similar products then, by default, they compete.

But what about non-consumption? What if there aren't enough of either product to go around and people cannot actually face a purchase decision where both products are in front of them at the same time, under identical terms and conditions, waiting for a purchase to be made.

It gets worse. What if there are network effects related to each product such as brand loyalty, platform switching costs, media and data tied to either one that make them impossible to switch? What if advertising spending is skewing the buyer's knowledge of competing products?

If a product is unavailable, invisible or requires burdensome switching, does it really compete? When these exceptions are raised, you'll hear people say that Apple (or Samsung) don't compete with X or Y. They compete with themselves or with products outside the category. There may be many ways of rationalizing that  what appear to be similar products don't compete because of "differentiation" or "positioning".

In fact, jobs-to-be-done theory suggests that the only successful competition is against non-consumption, especially if you're an entrant. Non-consumption is easy to beat (because the alternative is no solution to the job) while an entrenched incumbent is very difficult to beat, and it's often inefficient to even try even if you have the resources. This is what I describe in talks as the "David vs. Goliath" approach vis-à-vis the "Charge of the Light Brigade" approach.

So the theory that competition exists on the de-facto basis of a similar feature set fails a whole series of tests in the real world. Consumers decide based on complex criteria and businesses actually conspire to make the choices as complex as possible reducing the decision to a single option.

But I want to step back and think about the situation from the competitors' point of view. In other words, how should management think about competition? Is it possible to develop a competitive strategy or should one even bother with competitive response?

Let's take a basic question: Does Apple think of Samsung as a competitor? When did it begin to think about it as such? What can it do to win?

Let me answer this by asking another hypothetical question. Assume it's 2008 and Apple is in the process of planning its product roadmap. Whom would they decide to count as competitors? Android devices have not yet shipped and the gorilla in the space is the BlackBerry with Symbian still overhanging the market with a huge volume lead. Should they then build products to compete with RIM and Nokia?

Assume further that their decision will define how developers will build apps and content makers will target your product. They have to account for the time scales that developers think about and they have to match hardware innovation to the rate of OS innovation and API innovation and toolchain innovation, etc.

So did Apple consider Samsung a competitor in 2008? A time when Samsung did not actually make smartphones? It seems hard to believe they did. Now you may answer that things have changed since 2008 and they have. But the decisions made in 2008 regarding the platform remain in place today.

Furthermore if you happen to look at the dozens of hardware designs that are making the rounds today (as evidence for a trial with Samsung) you'll see familiar designs first penned in 2004 or 2006. You quickly realize that the product design process is lengthy and largely isolated from the froth of main street (or mall) sales fistfights.

Few people appreciate the disconnect between the design process and competition. This because few people have spent time in an organization building mass market consumer phones. The time scales are staggering. If your product is a platform product you make decisions six years in advance. If you are a "fast follower" you can make decisions six months in advance. This is maddening, asymmetric competition.

One competitor sees one basis of competition and another sees it completely differently or sees a completely different basis. They are competing with each other but more as a guerrilla fighter competes with a nuclear missile.

Which brings me to another discipline. In military circles asymmetry has been noted as a valid form of warfare for some time. At least since 1975. It was in use long before it was recognized or studied, (e.g. in the American Revolution.) But the situation now exists where it's taken for granted that modern conflicts are almost always asymmetric. Drones vs. insurgents and citizens vs. armor and, the most sinister of all, unarmed-but-tightly-integrated-through-communication protest against established regimes. The impact of this realization is affecting governments around the world.

So it's time to elevate our thinking about business competition along the same lines. Yes, Apple competes with Samsung but it does so asymmetrically (as it does against Google and dozens of others). It's a multi-dimensional rivalry and one which requires a different form of analysis. It is something which I do instinctively but it's not something that is easily explained. Disruption theory helps. It turns out that asymmetric competition is the only form of competition that matters in a rapidly disrupting industry.

It is also why this site is called Asymco.

A year ago I noted that Apple could buy most of the mobile phone industry with cash on hand (excluding Samsung's operations).

Since then Apple's cash has grown significantly and the value of all phone vendors except Samsung has gone down significantly. The following chart shows the year ago and present day estimated market value of the industry participants.

Phone brands other than Samsung and iPhone have seen a reduction in market value of a combined 47%. That's actually being quite generous since I'm valuing Motorola and Sony's businesses at their acquisition prices. The operations of both those companies have continued to stagnate.

Based on the same multiple of estimated earnings Samsung grew its value by 157% and iPhone by 114% (note this excludes iPad).

In absolute terms the iPhone franchise created $244 billion in value while Samsung created $83 billion. The others destroyed $37 billion.

The good news is that the industry has had net value creation--always a healthy sign that innovation is being valued and absorbed.

The bad news is that there is vast income inequality. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting destitute. This is an unhealthy sign. The concentration of power and wealth may indicate a peaking of experimentation and discovery of new opportunities.

Also noteworthy is that almost all the value from the Android ecosystem is concentrated in Samsung. I did not include Google in this analysis since its mobile is so small as to be not visible in its accounting. A separate analysis of Android economics shows that Google's benefit from the platform is modest. In contrast, Samsung, and Samsung alone, is benefitting greatly. It could even be said that today Samsung is the only Android profit engine.

Kenney Ho, a staff reporter from Korean newspaper The Chosunilbo (The Chosun Daily) sent me a set of delightful questions.

According to Kenney, The Chosunilbo "has a history of 90 years, has been the most dominant, and influential paper of all time in Korea. It is the No.1 newspaper company in Korea with more than 1.8 million circulation, firmly holding the largest market possession. The paper is recognized Asianwide, where there are many readers in Japan and China."

-You said "All mobile device vendors experiencing losses are not likely to really recover". Even though, it wouldn't mean that the employees, executives of Nokia has completely nothing in hands for recovery. If you are the CEO of Nokia right now, What are your steps to make Nokia recover its deficits?

My statement was based on the historic data which shows that 14 phone vendors have either exited the business or lost their independence during the last decade. No vendor that has reached a period of prolonged loss making has recovered. These are just observations and it's possible that Nokia may be the first to recover. However, going by the patterns of the past, it would be very unlikely. When I thought about the reasons why companies have not been able to recover I came to the second observation about the way phones are sold. Once a brand reaches a point where it's considered "risky" for distributors and operators to range they tend to defer purchases which leads to a spiral of continuing losses and more damage to the brand. The market amplifies "distress" and recovery becomes impossible.

If I were the CEO of Nokia I would set course for turning the company into a new business. I would approach the market asymmetrically and not try to compete directly with the other vendors. I would look toward services, platforms and software solutions and de-emphasize hardware.

-Many experts say that because Nokia dominated phone making industry in the 2000s, they maintained a corporate culture of complacency, which led them to decline. Do you agree with this? If you agree, Can you point out the examples of Nokia's complacency?

Complacency would mean that Nokia would not invest or try new things. This is not quite right. The company invested in software, services and platforms. It tried many new things and had a large R&D budget. It was the leader in mobile software for many years. There was, however, a culture of arrogance about their position. This meant that they did not think the basis of competition would change. They thought they were too big to fail. They did not challenge the core business model of hardware-first and try to find an internal disruptive business.

-Experts note that Nokia should have reacted directly to Apple's iPhone appearance at 2007. What should have Nokia have done at that time?

The iPhone showed that software and experiences matter more than operator relationships. Nokia did a lot of research on user experiences and software but when the decision came to implement the ideas, the constraints of hardware and logistics and operator preferences took precedence and the software was compromised. What Nokia needed to do is build product around software not software around the hardware and the market.

-Since Apple's iPhone appeared in 2007, Samsung took a Fast-follower tactics which made them successful, which Nokia could not. Do you think Fast-follower have advantage over first-mover?

I don't consider first-mover or fast-follower to be accurate descriptions of strategy. Success follows from innovation and only from innovation. There are various forms of innovation: there is new market creation, new business models, low cost or distribution innovation. Nokia tended to create low cost innovations which opened new, low-end markets. Apple created a new market for browser-based devices and for app-based experiences. These were enabled by an ecosystem that benefited from integration.

Samsung implemented a portfolio strategy with a large number of devices and price points which allowed them to find market niches that could be exploited. This was a distribution innovation. Each strategy has advantages and disadvantages and each strategy is usually linked to company core priorities and processes. There are times during a technology cycle when one strategy is better and another is worse. This is why companies find themselves successful and then fail. Their processes don't match the technology adoption cycle.

For example, in the PC market there is little potential for new experiences tied to an integrated device (except for tablets) and hence there is little growth opportunity for an Apple-like approach. The innovation that matters in the PC market is mostly cost reduction. Nokia was doing cost reduction at a time when voice products were commoditizing. Cost reduction does not work when the basis of competition is new experiences and new business models. As smartphone hardware commoditizes, it's unlikely that Samsung will have an advantage unless is goes to a low-cost approach and enters into direct competition with low-end devices.

-Can you predict the 'Big 5' in handset industry 10years from now? Many people think the list will include Apple, Samsung. Who else might be on the lists?

There is no guarantee that Apple or Samsung will be the top vendors 10 years from now. I expect Chinese brands to become dominant in market volumes. I expect online service companies like Amazon, Baidu, Facebook to create new platforms which and have their own devices, perhaps in large volumes. I expect new input methods (like voice) to create new opportunities and perhaps new platforms and ecosystems. I expect Google may make a lot of money. One thing is for sure, being a hardware-oriented company without software and services and platforms and ecosystems is a sure path to becoming disrupted.

-Nokia was the leading company in Finland. What are the reactions of Finland towards Nokia's downfall?

People tend to blame each other for failures and this is the main discussion topic in Finland: who's to blame. The failure of a company is rooted in complex decision processes which usually take years to run their course. It's quite futile to lay blame on persons, especially since the same persons were celebrated for their wisdom at another point of time. At the same time as Nokia is failing however, another Finnish startup is celebrated world-wide and about to go public: Rovio, the maker of Angry Birds. It will be bigger than Nokia. Finland should make sure there are more Rovios to come.

During the first quarter this year HTC, RIM and Nokia all surprised investors with bad news. The effect is evident in the share price of these companies which, in the case of RIM and Nokia is around book value, and in the case of HTC, neared 12 month lows and a 70% drop from peak.

These "misses" in earnings and expectations are on top of the already woeful news from Sony Ericsson and Motorola, which have not had profits for years and LG, which has been borderline since late 2009.

In combination, this seems to imply a dearth of profits in an industry that is, by all measures, booming. Units are up 7% with smartphones up 47%. Revenues are up 20% and overall profits are up 52%. This are exceptionally strong numbers. Few industries can measure growth in double digits.

So if the industry is booming but the majority of participants in the industry are loss making (and surprisingly so) then what is going on? There are two answers: new market disruption and low end disruption.

The new market disruption is the migration of a large number of demanding customers away from phones-as-voice-products to phones-as-computing-products. The low-end disruption is the migration of a large number of less demanding customers from branded phones to unbranded, commodity phones.

The New Market Disruption

The new market disruption is evidenced by the shift of fortunes to Apple and Samsung and away from every other device maker. Here is the profit picture:

Of the vendors tracked (public companies who report mobile phone divisional performance), Apple obtained 73% of operating profits, Samsung 26% and HTC 1% [1][2].

The "share of profit" picture is potentially misleading because it could imply that the profits available are a constant. They're not. The absolute profits picture below shows how the industry actually expanded available profits by quite a lot. Two years ago the vendors generated profits of $5.3 billion in the first quarter  and last quarter they generated $14.4 billion.

Seen this way, the story isn't so much that Apple "took the profits from the incumbents". Rather, it's that Apple created a vast new pool of profits. And one need not look far to find out where they came from: operators. These profits were mostly carrier premiums for the iPhone 4S.

Before shedding tears for operators, consider that although this does amount to a current transfer of profits from carriers, the decision is a popular one. Hundreds of operators have made it. It's unlikely that they all colluded to be robbed. Indeed, they willingly hand over these premiums because the iPhone ensures a competitive advantage or preserves their customer base from churning. The calculations that go into a decision to range the iPhone are compelling enough that 250 operators made the decision (though, crucially, there are still 250 who have not).

Following this value proposition to its logical conclusion would suggest that the industry is rewarding those who can supply computers-as-phones which preserve the cash flows of what is essentially a trillion dollar data services business. Vendors which cannot offer this solution saw their businesses implode. At least on the high end.

The low end disruption

Simultaneous with this shift of the high end to smartphones-as-app-and-service-platforms came an explosion of growth in unbranded phones. As Apple led and most brands followed the new market, the old market of voice-oriented phones was abandoned to new entrants offering cheap "good enough" phones. Nokia tried to preserve its volumes and margins there but it's becoming increasingly difficult.

The following chart shows how the "Other" vendors have come to make up about 44% of the market.

Note that although this "feature phone" segment is not growing, it is still a large market (250 million units a quarter). The entrants in this market are numerous (perhaps in the thousands) and they are offering white label and unlicensed knock-off products. They are also offering unregulated (i.e. without IMEI numbers) products which are technically illegal and sold mainly in underdeveloped countries which have no incentives to enforce regulations.

This is a consequence of feature phones reaching the point of being "good enough". The feature set and quality are adequate for voice, text, games and even media playback and are priced at $30 or less.

This commoditization of the low end is pressuring what would normally be the fallback cushion under an underperforming smartphone business. The crisis for the incumbents comes from not only being unable to shift to the new market as fast as needed but also from not having cash flows from a low end that was thought to be sustaining.

This combination of two disruptions is why we see an explosively large and growing market failing to reward all but two of the participants.[3]

---

Notes:

1. You can download, view and interact with a motion chart for the industry data here. All data is sourced from company filings except for some estimates where data is missing.
2. Operating profits are sales minus cost of sales minus operational expenses attributed to the business. When not available, opex is estimated as a percent of total in proportion to sales. Note that operational income excludes taxes, depreciation and other capitalized costs.
3. We cannot say that the thousands of low end entrants are unprofitable. They are probably enough profits to sustain them and even to attract more entrants, but we have to also recognize that there are likely to be very low margins.

Sony Ericsson is no more. The company remains but the brand is gone. Now the phones it makes will be sold under the Sony name. Unfortunately, that means we no longer get reports from the company on its volumes, profitability and sales. The units will be part of "Other" from now on.

That vendor's data disappears as did HTC's and Samsung's earlier reporting. Bit by bit, vendors are withdrawing information. RIM stopped reporting its average selling prices some time ago, Motorola may disappear completely and they already stopped reporting tablet sales.

This makes the picture of the market fuzzier each quarter. We have to rely more and more on analysts who publish estimates. I try to pick from the available data the best assumptions but the errors are undoubtedly increasing. Here are the charts showing unit volumes in terms of absolute, share and ranking.

As I wrote previously, Samsung has overtaken Nokia which lost the top spot in unit shipment ranking, a spot it held for 14 years.

Of all the participants, only three brands enjoyed growth this last quarter: Apple, Samsung and ZTE. ZTE, like Apple, is noteworthy for its late entry. The others are in a mess: Motorola -4%, Nokia -24%, RIM -26%, HTC -29%, LG -44% in terms of unit growth y/y. This, while the market managed a modest gain.

It still find it fascinating that such a large market, selling 400 million units every quarter can exhibit such rapid change in participant ranking.

Nokia currently estimates that Devices & Services net sales in the first quarter 2012 were EUR 4.2 billion, comprised of Mobile Phones net sales of EUR 2.3 billion (71 million units), Smart Devices net sales of EUR 1.7 billion (12 million units),

via Nokia lowers Devices & Services first quarter 2012 outlook and provides second quarter 2012 outlook » Nokia – Press.

We don't have the total number of Samsung shipments, however estimates exist. They range between 41 and 44 million smartphones and 44 and 47 million feature phones. The low end of that range would imply Samsung shipped 85 million phones.

Nokia's press release indicates that it shipped 83 million.

This would be the first quarter that Samsung beat Nokia in total phone shipments. It had already overtaken Nokia in sales volume and profitability last year but this is the most cited metric of market performance: being the biggest in volume. Here is the tale of the shipments:

How did this happen?

The answer should become visible when we look at at another set of data. If we split the smartphones from feature phones the charts look like this:

Looking at product mix, Samsung growth is shown to be almost entirely due to smartphones while Nokia's stagnant growth seems to be a failure to have any smartphone traction.

It's even more clear when showing the above mixes of devices as percents of total.

As a percent of total, Nokia has shrunk its smartphone business from a peak of 24% in Q3 2010 to 14% last quarter. In the same time frame Samsung's smartphone share of portfolio has exploded from 10% to nearly 50%.

Note that both companies have seen non-smart device volumes contracting. Samsung's level is approximately the same as it had in late 2007 and Nokia's is lower than at any point in the last six years (perhaps longer).

So the answer to the question of how Samsung beat Nokia is told in the following chart:

Samsung was able to convert its portfolio to smartphones while Nokia failed to do so. This is the sort of transition that can only come about from an explicit strategic intention on the part of management. Market demand can steer you in any number of directions, but a vision of a future should provide the compass for making the big bets.

The bet Nokia made many years ago was that there would be a continuing, substantial business in the "low end". And low end meant feature phones. This strategy was still in evidence last year under the moniker "the next billion" users. The decisions were not driven by whether the products would be hired for different jobs, but that they would hit different price points. In other words, segmentation of customers by their ability to pay for devices rather than categorization of the jobs they hired mobile devices to do.

Perhaps Samsung was no wiser, but they were more pragmatic. Being non-dogmatic meant being flexible. They ran with off-the-shelf technologies and managed a transition to smart devices faster than anyone expected. It may not be a perfect strategy but it beat a bad strategy.

Apple retained its top rank in profitability and regained the top spot in mobile phone revenues.

The relative shares of revenues and profits are shown below:

Individually, Apple's share of units, revenues and profits is chronicled below:

Apple reached 75% of profit share, nearly 40% of revenue share and 9% of units share.

Apple and Samsung combined for about 91% of profits with RIM third at 3.7%, HTC fourth at 3.0% and Nokia last at 1.8% of a $15 billion total for the quarter.

In terms of revenues, Apple had 39% to Samsung's 25%. Third was Nokia with 12.6% and fourth RIM at 8%. HTC only managed 5.5%, Motorola 4%, LG 3.3% and Sony Ericsson 2.7%.

 

Apple reached the third place rank in total units shipped during last quarter. The following chart shows the ascent in rank.

Apple achieved this with a total market share of about 9%. Second place Samsung has 22.6% so there is significantly more room to go before Apple gets to be second. Nevertheless, the climb to third was achieved in less than five years. At the time when Apple entered the market third place was held by Motorola with shipments of 35.5 million units (Q2 2007). Motorola only managed 10.5 million in the last quarter.

To see growth I prepared the following chart showing the fourth quarter's growth by vendor according to four years' compounded, sequential and y/y growth.[1]

On a four year compounded basis, the pattern is that of Apple, HTC and RIM showing significant growth with Samsung showing moderate growth. The other vendors all had negative real volume growth. The list does not include "Others" which had 13% compounded growth.

Projecting Apple's 60% rate of growth and a market growth of 10% leads to Apple obtaining 27% share by the end of 2014. My guess would be that is when we'll be able to write a post about Apple being second.

---

Notes:

1. I don't have HTC data for Q4 2007 so the compounded rate is measured for three years.
2. Additional volume data

The last time I did this comparison (Apple could buy the mobile phone industry | asymco) was in June after the end of the second quarter. The following chart is an updated look.

 

Here is a discussion of the changes since the last analysis:

• Sony Ericsson was valued through its acquisition by Sony. We did not have a way to value the enterprise before as it was not traded independently. Last June I estimated a 14x multiple on its trailing twelve months' profits and got $3.0 billion. Since then half the company changed hands for about €1.05 thus yielding a total company value of $2.8 billion. The enterprise value should be therefore slightly lower but I'll stick with the current transaction value as the EV.
• Motorola Mobility has entered into an agreement to be acquired by Google for $12.5 billion by Google. The company's enterprise value jumped as a result to about $8.6 billion.
• RIM's share price collapsed and it's now also trading at an EV of about 7.3 billion (Yahoo finance).
• Nokia's price has also dropped and it now has an EV of about $13 billion (Yahoo finance).
• HTC recently dropped significantly in price and is now worth about $15 billion EV. (Note that pricing of its equities is subject to suspended trading due to drop limits).
• LG's phone business is still losing money and it's still difficult to value. In November it was revealed that the company was seeking to raise $890 million in capital to fund new initiatives including smartphones. The share price fell by 14%. In June I suggested a nominal value for the phone business of $10 billion. I think that's very generous and with recent events I would place that value at $9 billion today.
• Samsung's fortunes have increased. In June I applied a 14x multiple to their trailing 12 months' operating earnings. Given overall discounting of the sector I applied a multiple of 13 today. That yields a business value of $78 billion. Interestingly, that is larger than the value of all other competitors apart from Apple. That also makes it six times more valuable than Nokia.
• Apple's cash and cash equivalents and investments grew by about $12 billion and were worth about $82 billion as of October.

In summary, in June Apple's cash was about 53% of the sum of competing phone vendor enterprise values. Today it's about 61%. Excluding Samsung, Apple could buy the industry and still have $25 billion left over. This makes the claim that "Apple could buy the industry" even more believable.

This analysis is mainly academic. It does not imply that any such transaction will take place. As the purchase of Motorola shows, control has a premium and individual buyers may be less "rational" than markets. What it does show however is that the entire industry is in a state of crisis. Valuations for phone companies are collapsing and two major brands (Motorola and Sony Ericsson) are being absorbed and could disappear.

At the same time entrants are arriving with completely different business models. Amazon, Facebook, Baidu, Alibaba are intent on selling phones or platforms to be valued as enablers for asymmetric business models rather than as phones. One could argue that what Apple itself sells is more than hardware and that its value-add "on top" of hardware is increasing. This is a sign of commoditization. Certainly the voice business is well beyond that point but it now appears that even the smartphone business is already in an advanced state of value compression.

All the while the overall market is growing. I had separately looked at the profit pool and concluded that the brands are suffering. Summing up the votes from stock markets, the sentiment is even worse. 2012 is looking more and more as a year of inevitable and dramatic industry change.