IDC: 406 million smartphones were shipped into the channel in Q2’12. Here is the short version of the press release with brand, shipments, market share, and growth:
- Samsung: 50.2M, 32.6%, +172.8% Y/Y
- Apple: 26.0M, 16.9%, +27.5% Y/Y
- Nokia: 10.2M, 6.6%, -38.9% Y/Y
- HTC: 8.8M, 5.7%, -24.1% Y/Y
- ZTE: 8.0M, 5.2%, +300.0% Y/Y
- Others: 50.7M, 32.9%, +29.3% Y/Y
Samsung has pulled ahead! ZTE is going gangbusters! Samsung shipped twice as many smartphones as Apple!
The first thing we need to keep in mind: IDC as well as every other market research firm tracks estimated shipments, as in shipments into the channel, shipments to wholesalers, distributors, retailers, etc. The reason why market research firms estimate shipments into the channel instead of tracking sales to the end user is because smartphone sales to end users on a global basis is impossible to track.
IDC is comparing apples to oranges here. Except for Apple the metric is shipments into the channel. Apple’s number is sales to the end user and sales to the end user is only a subset of shipments. In other words shipment into the channel is a much larger number than sales to the end user. To mix the two is sloppy market research and misleading.
If I were to guess at sales to end user numbers, Samsung would continue to be on top but with a number that is much closer to Apple’s: about 30-35M.
ETNews (Korean) → Ron Mertens:
There’s a report from Korea suggesting that Samsung managed to reach 350 ppi on an OLED display using FMM (Fine Metal Mask). Up until now Samsung focused on LITI to reach such high resolutions […]
If true retina-class OLED displays are coming.
John Paczkowski, AllThingsD:
Below, a sampling of some of Appleâ€™s more compelling points excerpted from its brief.
- In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsungâ€™s â€œP1â€ and â€œP3â€ tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were â€œtoo similarâ€ to the iPad and demanded â€œdistinguishable design vis-Ã -vis the iPad for the P3.â€
Google thought the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 was too similar to the iPad. That’s exactly what Apple thinks. And what I think.
For TNT’s newest crime-solving show Perception we revived a sign technology of yesteryear to create an anagram-finding experience on the streets of New York.
Made of over 40,000 physical dots.
Andy Westlake, DPReview:
We’re not expecting any surprises in terms of image quality; Canon says the EOS M’s stills and video output will be identical to the EOS 650D, which means it should be a close match to anything else in its class.
Update 2012.11.09: Roger Cicala, PetaPixel:
Iâ€™m all about image quality above all other things. This camera gives me great, great image quality in an amazingly small package.
Will it replace an OM-D or SLR for my everyday shooting? Absolutly not: its AF is too slow and there arenâ€™t many native lenses yet.
The EOS M is priced US$799.99. Even if Canon updated the firmware to improve AF speeds and reduced the price to $699.99, I wouldn’t be able to get over the ugly design.
Earth like you’ve never seen before.
Cars. Coffee. And lots of laughs. What a combo. The first episode is out.
Digital Daily (Korean) → The Verge: Samsung will commence production of flexible OLED displays in Q3’12.
Sebastian Anthony, ExtremeTech:
Ori Katz, Eran Small, and Yaron Silberberg of the Weizmann Institute have shown that they can accurately resolve an object thatâ€™s hiding behind nearly opaque obstacles, or around a corner (or in another room, as long as the doorâ€™s open. In both cases, the light is scattered by the obstacle (the frosted glass, the corner wall), creating what appears to be white noise â€” but their camera can take these speckles of noise and enhance them â€œ1000-foldâ€ (the scientistsâ€™ words) to recreate the image with surprising accuracy.
Remember when Rick Deckard in Blade Runner was panning around corners in a digital image? Now we know what technology that was based on: SLM.
Mark Wilson, Co.Design:
Last week, I spent about an hour playing with a system called zSpace, a new display by Infinite Z that makes these sorts of Iron Man interactions a reality. And while I walked into the meeting a skeptic, I walked out realizing that these holographic interfaces arenâ€™t just the future; if you have $6,000 to purchase your own, theyâ€™re today.
Visually enticing, but expensive, and wearing 3D glasses for an extended period of time is not good for your already tired eyes.