Xiaomi

Apple increases production by 21%

TrendForce’s latest figures reveal that global smartphone production reached around 284 million units in the first quarter of 2026, marking a 1.7% YoY decline. Despite a sharp rise in memory prices since the second half of 2025, the effect on production was minimal because brands still held inventories of cheaper memory components. Additionally, consumer expectations of higher prices in the future have helped sustain short-term demand, cushioning the impact of rising memory costs on production during the quarter.

However, as low-cost memory supplies are gradually exhausted and significant ongoing increases in memory prices reduce profits, most smartphone brands have begun adjusting production in the second quarter.

Looking ahead, TrendForce forecasts global smartphone production to decline approximately 16.2% YoY to 1.051 billion units in 2026. Under a more severe scenario, the annual decline could become even more pronounced if memory price increases remain elevated and brands are forced to raise retail prices repeatedly.

TrendForce notes that Samsung is relatively well-positioned to withstand the current cost inflation cycle thanks to strong financial backing from the broader Samsung Group and a sizable premium product portfolio. Nevertheless, its significant exposure to lower-end models remains a concern—particularly amid weakening consumer sentiment—making end-market demand a key factor to monitor.

Apple ranked second with its production of approximately 60.2 million units during the quarter. In addition to ongoing production ramp-up for new iPhone models, output was supported by the launch of the iPhone 17e, resulting in 19.7% YoY growth.

Compared with competitors that have already entered a margin-protection phase, Apple remains better positioned to absorb higher memory costs while maintaining profitability. TrendForce believes Apple is more likely to prioritize market share expansion during the current downturn as it lays the groundwork for future growth in recurring software and services revenue.

Xiaomi, Oppo, and Vivo focus on preserving profitability as production plans face greater uncertainty

First quarter production declined seasonally among the major Chinese smartphone brands, including Oppo (29.5 million units), Xiaomi (26 million units), and Vivo (22 million units). These three brands ranked third through fifth globally by production volume.

While all three delivered strong market share gains in previous years, surging memory costs are now weighing heavily on profitability, creating significant uncertainty around their 2026 production plans. As a result, production targets may be revised downward if cost pressures persist.

Transsion produced approximately 19.8 million units in 1Q26, roughly flat compared with the same period last year, placing sixth among global smartphone brands.

The brand has been particularly vulnerable during the current memory price supercycle given its smartphone portfolio is heavily concentrated in entry-level and budget segments—where profit margins are already thin. Limited access to low-cost component inventories has further amplified the impact.

Source: TrendForce

NB: Counterpoint tracks sales, Trendforce tracks production. The production data may include inventory build-up not shown in sales while sales may include drawdowns not shown in production. The two analyses however agree on a market under significant supply-side stress. Profitability is a big concern and availability of components is critical. As noted previously in response to Counterpoint reports, the 2026 full year volumes will probably show the worst decline in decades.

Market contraction expected for second half of year.

Omdia reports that Europe (ex. Russia) smartphone market grew 2% to 33 million units in 1Q26.

Key vendor highlights from 1Q26 include

Samsung was Europe’s largest vendor as it grew 3% to 12.6 million units. Effective discounting of the Galaxy A16 4G helped Samsung boost volume, offsetting declines related to the delayed launch of the Galaxy S26, A57 and A37.

Apple grew 9% to 8.8 million iPhones, driven by robust iPhone 17 series demand in addition to benefiting from a wider mid-range coverage from the iPhone 15 and iPhone 16e. Noticeably, Apple’s strong results came despite lower and fewer discounts than in previous years.

Xiaomi retained third place despite declining 15% to 4.5 million units, as it was more immediately impacted by supply-side difficulties. However, Xiaomi’s ASP grew 21% compared with 1Q25, boosted by a record-strong Xiaomi 17 and 15T series performance, which drove year-on-year value growth despite the shipment decline. Premium sales were particularly strong in France, Germany, and Spain.

Motorola grew 17% to 1.9 million units, driven by rapid expansion in Spain and Portugal, alongside continued progress in France and Italy.

OPPO grew 9% to 1.3 million units, largely driven by its comeback in France alongside growth in Romania and Poland. With both realme and OnePlus now under its umbrella, OPPO is restructuring to optimize its portfolio and strategy with ambitions to strengthen its European position.

HONOR, ranking sixth, was the fastest-growing vendor among the largest players, with shipments increasing more than 60% compared to 1Q25. HONOR’s growth is underpinned by its portfolio being expanded further down the price-tiers.

Source: Yahoo Finance

"The average-selling-price (ASP) of smartphones in Europe surged to a record-high level of €580 in 1Q26," added Bjorhovde. "This was largely caused by lower availability of devices costing less than €200, which made up an all-time low of just 25% of shipments. Additionally, the high-end remained resilient thanks to Apple’s growth. The focus from both vendors and channel partners has shifted from volume to value to deliver results and operational sustainability. Many vendors who normally focus on the mass market segments are increasingly concentrating on the mid-to-high-end, hoping to benefit from less price-sensitive and upgrade-willing buyers."

[My emphasis]

"The first quarter of 2026 delivered beyond expectations, but the outlook remains bearish as the rapidly escalating memory bottleneck worsens," commented Bjorhovde. "Omdia forecasts shipments into Europe to decline 12% in 2026, but the majority of this will come in the second half of the year.

Applying average pricing per vendor and average gross margins gives the following picture of the market:

Apple currently captures 26% of unit volume, 43% of ...

31% growth in a flat market

The Latin American smartphone market grew 3% year over year in 1Q 2026 to 34.8 million units, supported by proactive inventory accumulation and the delayed pass-through of rising memory costs. Omdia analyzes the market’s uneven vendor performance, as Samsung and Xiaomi strengthened their leading positions, while HONOR and Apple saw sharp growth supported by entry-level and premium demand, respectively.

Samsung led the region, shipping 12.9 million units (+9% YoY) and lifting share to 37%, its highest quarterly level since 1Q 2023, supported by strong performance of A‑series models across low‑end and mid‑high segments. Xiaomi held second, marking a sixth consecutive quarter of growth with 6.0 million units and 17% share, driven by double‑digit gains in Central America and Peru and solid traction of the Redmi Note 15 series in the mid‑high range. Motorola ranked third, contracting 5% YoY to 4.9 million units and 14% share, largely reflecting a 37% drop in shipments of US$100–US$200 devices, where G06 and G17 are key models. HONOR consolidated in fourth with 30% YoY growth to 3.4 million units and a 10% share, propelled by its Play 10 in the entry segment (below US$100), which approached half a million units sold for the first time.

Apple completed the top five with a 31% YoY increase, supported by an exceptional performance in Mexico (+80% YoY) and robust reception of the iPhone 17 series.

Source: Omdia

NB: Apart from Nubia(?) with 1% share, Apple was the fastest growing vendor in a flat market. Note the price points…

Samsung's smartphone ascent was breathtaking. From having essentially zero market share in the category in late 2010 to becoming the largest vendor took less than two years. In doing so it grew to become the largest phone vendor, smart or not--a goal which eluded them during the previous decade of effort. Samsung went on to capture not only the lion's share of unit volumes, they also took almost all the profits in the Android mobile phone market.

And in a market filled with competitors. Literally hundreds of vendors and thousands of products were available at every conceivable price point. Samsung did away with HTC, LG, and Motorola. HTC, the first Android vendor (and first to market with Windows Mobile), Motorola, Google's launch partner in the US and "Droid" brand partner (and future owner).  Google's own Nexus products. Samsung Galaxy ruled them all.

Galaxy swamped the Chinese market and the Indian market, the largest in the world. They were so powerful that they were singled out both by Microsoft and Apple for IP royalties.

All within two years or the average life-span of one smartphone.

But something went wrong in 2014. Growth in shipments suddenly stopped. This was not a problem with the overall market, which kept growing. The slowdown did not affect other vendors, especially the up-and-coming Lenovo and Xiaomi and the second and third tier vendors whose names are  known only in the local markets they serve.

The result of this slowdown is shown in the following graphs:

<>

Note how the wobble in units shipped was foretold by slowing revenues and an even more profound effect in profits. Peak revenues and profit occurred in Q3 2013 while volumes continued to grow until Q1 2014. Even in the last quarter, shipments are at near year-ago levels. Profits however have dropped to 2011 levels.

At the same time, Apple shipments continue to grow as do those of Lenovo, Huawei and Xiaomi. Xiaomi in fact is growing in a trajectory eerily parallel to that of Samsung from 2010. It just hit the same level of volume that Samsung had in Q2 2011. And Samsung had been making phones for decades while Xiaomi is barely two years old.

Having seen a boom/bust rise/fall pattern with other vendors (e.g. Nokia and Blackberry) it should behoove us to ask what are the causes of success and failure in this business. Samsung management suggests that they perceive speed of action, product mix/portfolio choices and hardware experimentation are the keys to their success.

However, competitors which are rising rapidly (at the expense of Samsung) are not acting in the same way. Xiaomi is patterned as a Chinese Apple, offering design, brand, attention to detail and software as differentiation. Lenovo is building on its computing roots and expanding with acquisition. Huawei and ZTE leverage networking business and operator relationships.

The crisper answer to causality may be that the market is bifurcating into an "upper" market where new jobs-to-be-done are being explored with integrated offerings (Apple and Xiaomi) and a "lower" market which is in the throes of low-end disruption. Both are competing with non-consumption though the upper market is service non-consumption and the lower market is feature non-consumption.

Samsung is stuck right in the middle ((Just like Nokia was.)) It defines itself on the basis of what exists. It competes only within a defined market and positions itself agains existing products. They claim to be "better" than the competition and make the point loudly with their advertising. However, being better is never a solid foundation. At some point you'll be either good enough or someone more agile will be faster than you.

At some point the fast follower exposes themselves to being faster followed. Better to find new lands to conquer.

ABI Research estimates that AOSP (or forked Android) is the fastest growing mobile operating system with a total share of units shipped of about 20%. This is not surprising considering that most Chinese vendors don't include standard Android into their products. Indeed the current leader in China, Xiaomi has its own take on Android and includes a unique UI and set of services. This is also not a new pattern, Amazon's fork of Android has been in development for many years and powers the second most used tablet in the US.

If one looks at the volumes of smartphones shipped by vendor, the most rapidly growing (Huawei, Lenovo, Xiaomi, ZTE, Coolpad and "others") are likely to be using forked versions of Android.

The reasons for this are many: a reluctance to deal with Google's obligations,  Microsoft's IP licensing costs ((which even Samsung seems to be eschewing)) , potential litigation, politics (including bans on Google services in certain markets), etc. But the most likely reason is flexibility. Vendors competing on price and localization are looking to move quickly against each other and can't wait for blessings from above. Belonging to some "Alliance" and all that it entails is just too much to ask for companies that are, so to say, delicate.

The result is that the "more open" version of Android is beginning to threaten the "less open" version of Android. China is already lost to OHA but India where penetration is still very low is up for grabs. Into this fray Google launched "One" a more low-end friendly version of sanctioned Android, hoping to retain opportunity.

The value of a singular Android version is not just being Google-friendly but also being better managed and more BOM-friendly. Google is trying to solve the control issue with ease of use, but still retaining control There will be alternatives however which are both easy and "open" ((or Free as in speech)). It seems that there is an opportunity for a hardware-independent vendor to take AOSP and provide a complete solution to local phone brands so they don't need to expend efforts on integration. A non-Google One, so to speak.

Why it's likely is that openness in software makes sense when parts of the stack become commoditized. Google took advantage of the commoditization of operating systems (i.e. Linux) to deliver non-open services on top. However, it's inevitable that some of those very services will also be commoditized and therefore that the portions of the stack which sustain Google will be forked as well.