[The Big Picture]

Cheap?

Please name me one BB10 device with:

Water and Dust Resistance
A camera sensor that is larger than 1/3.06
The latest Snapdragon chip
A HD1080P display
3GB RAM
With 4K video

Seems you haven't a clue what quality is, ever used a Sony Xperia Z2, HTC One, Xperia Z1 Compact, Galaxy Note 3, Galaxy S5 or Xperia Z Ultra? They crap on any BB in terms of HW quality and SW quality, not to mention functionality. Can you even name one BB that comes close to the Xperia Z2?

Oh believe me I think I know more about those devices than you do.

Quality is not about specs. Its about the over all package and it encompasses not only hardware but after sales support, build quality, usability, tactility, design and so many other factors.

And please stay on topic. Im talking about cheap chinese branded android phones not the japanese or korean or taiwanese phones. Read please.

If you think these android phones have the best package in terms of hardware and software then what are you doing on forum?

BTW android OS is in no way superior to BlackBerry 10. Again you're in the wrong place.



Differentiate or Die

[Tre Lawrence]

Oh believe me I think I know more about those devices than you do.

Quality is not about specs. Its about the over all package and it encompasses not only hardware but after sales support, build quality, usability, tactility, design and so many other factors.

And please stay on topic. Im talking about cheap chinese branded android phones not the japanese or korean or taiwanese phones. Read please.

If you think these android phones have the best package in terms of hardware and software then what are you doing on forum?

BTW android OS is in no way superior to BlackBerry 10. Again you're in the wrong place.



Differentiate or Die

LOL. You're exact words were:

In other words if you are cheap, go for android.

If you dont mind spending on quality go for BlackBerry or Apple.

Android (like Apple and BBRY) offers different devices at different price points. BBRY's problem (IMHO) is that it cannot provide the same overall value that the others do while attempting to sell some hardware at high end prices.

And, with all do respect, no one (you, me or other visitors outside the site owners and designated agents) has the right to tell anyone they are in the wrong place. Thinking BBOS/BB10 is the "best" is not a requirement for ownership.

[badiyee]

Isnt hua wei into telecommunications infrastructure, setting up transmission towers, satellites and etc? Part of the broadband and fiber optic infrastructure in Malaysia was contracted to them no?

By the way I value your input, I know you know your stuff. And im Malaysian too!

Differentiate or Die

I'm the same guy with the same avatar in LYN (you should know what I mean), but even people call me a "cultist" or "hardliner".

Huawei dabbles in a lot of things, but the way they do their handsets, its basically the same as OnePlus and Xiaomi. Detestably "sell, dump and forget". Exact same modus operandi, just different name. They got backing from the government of China.

Even their lines of accessories such as their headphones are a rip off of other's tech.

There is a reason why big vendors are not playing nice with Xiaomi (and Samsung is now not selling them their battery cells for power banks for good reasons) despite how hyped the company is.

And yes, how Xiaomi cheapened things out, and people praise them. Kind of ironic. Laughable, when you look at the SEA community still figuring out how to disable certain frameworks from tracking them for advertising purposes.

[MarsupilamiX]

Oh believe me I think I know more about those devices than you do.

Quality is not about specs. Its about the over all package and it encompasses not only hardware but after sales support, build quality, usability, tactility, design and so many other factors.

And please stay on topic. Im talking about cheap chinese branded android phones not the japanese or korean or taiwanese phones. Read please.

If you think these android phones have the best package in terms of hardware and software then what are you doing on forum?

BTW android OS is in no way superior to BlackBerry 10. Again you're in the wrong place.

Differentiate or Die

I have the feeling that your knowledge about the mobile phone market is VERY limited.
http://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2014/0...d-range-price/
"The Mi 3 is a solid Android smartphone that performs excellently ? way beyond what people assume its price tag of $332 can buy you ? and it makes me wonder why companies like Samsung, HTC and LG are tooting their horns for smartphones that come in at double to triple the price when the performance of the Mi 3 seems to be largely on par with their flagship devices. However, one bit that the Mi 3 is severely lacking is support for 4G LTE, which could put off consumers used to having such a speedy network and propel them to opt for other devices instead."

That's just one example.
Chinese manufacturers are starting to get known for one thing, internationally: High end specs with very solid build quality, but with mid-range prices.

Posted via CB10

[badiyee]

I have the feeling that your knowledge about the mobile phone market is VERY limited.
Review: Xiaomi's Flagship Mi-3 Android Smartphone
"The Mi 3 is a solid Android smartphone that performs excellently ? way beyond what people assume its price tag of $332 can buy you ? and it makes me wonder why companies like Samsung, HTC and LG are tooting their horns for smartphones that come in at double to triple the price when the performance of the Mi 3 seems to be largely on par with their flagship devices. However, one bit that the Mi 3 is severely lacking is support for 4G LTE, which could put off consumers used to having such a speedy network and propel them to opt for other devices instead."

That's just one example.
Chinese manufacturers are starting to get known for one thing, internationally: High end specs with very solid build quality, but with mid-range prices.

Posted via CB10

With all due respect, Xiaomi sells the device for razor thin margins. The bulk of the cost is paid to the very companies you mentioned, Samsung and LG.

LOL

for every Xiaomi Sold, (except for the MTK chip variants), Samsung and LG DOES make big money off Xiaomi

[MarsupilamiX]

Huawei dabbles in a lot of things, but the way they do their handsets, its basically the same as OnePlus and Xiaomi. Detestably "sell, dump and forget". Exact same modus operandi, just different name. They got backing from the government of China.

And the next one...
Omg..
Every well known Android manufacturer still sells phone with the exact same modus operandi.
If you don't buy high-end, don't expect updates.
And even then, at least expect delays.

Also, remember the PlayBook?
Or OS6? Or every BlackBerry you couldn't upgrade because of hardware limitations, even though BlackBerry already knew that they will upgrade the hardware requirements for the next OS, when they launched the device?

Even their lines of accessories such as their headphones are a rip off of other's tech.

That's called competition.
And that happens on the market place.

You can compete on the basis a lot of things.
If it's not innovation, then price is a good way to do it.
Or do you think that every product you see in the supermarket is a rip off of one another, and that they shouldn't even exist?
(if yes, I'll give you hint of why you couldn't be more wrong: competition means better prices. Simple as that).

There is a reason why big vendors are not playing nice with Xiaomi (and Samsung is now not selling them their battery cells for power banks for good reasons) despite how hyped the company is.

See point above.
It's called competition.

And Samsung through not selling their tech to a competing market player, are able to stifle competition.
They are therefore able to sell their handsets at a higher price.
Not selling their tech, is necessary for them if they don't want to compete on price.
Because Samsung knows what most tech journalists start to understand: Chinese manufacturers sell you a Samsung S5 for 300$.

In other words, Samsung fears Xiaomi and doesn't want to compete on price.

And yes, how Xiaomi cheapened things out, and people praise them. Kind of ironic.

So you like to pay more, for the same thing?
That's ironic.
Everyone who is on the side of the consumer, instead of big tech corporations should applaud Xiaomi/Huawei/ZTE/Micromax.

They make handsets cheap.
They drive mass adoption even forward.
They drive technological progress forward, through making it cheap and available to the masses.

You don't always have to innovate, to be useful for the marketplace and consumers.

Posted via CB10

[MarsupilamiX]

With all due respect, Xiaomi sells the device for razor thin margins. The bulk of the cost is paid to the very companies you mentioned, Samsung and LG.

LOL

for every Xiaomi Sold, (except for the MTK chip variants), Samsung and LG DOES make big money off Xiaomi

And why would that change anything?
Did you think that was a great point?
If yes, your enthusiasm was premature.

On what margins Xiaomi operates is completely irrelevant, if I search a good smartphone for a good price.
Phones like the Mi 3, prove that it's unnecessary to pay the Samsung/LG premium.
Same phone half the price.

But it seems as though you like to overpay for things.
If that's your hobby, I see no reason to explain you why it's probably a rather expensive one, that doesn't fulfil any logical need.

Posted via CB10

[badiyee]

And the next one...
Omg..
Every well known Android manufacturer still sells phone with the exact same modus operandi.
If you don't buy high-end, don't expect updates.
And even then, at least expect delays.

Also, remember the PlayBook?
Or OS6? Or every BlackBerry you couldn't upgrade because of hardware limitations, even though BlackBerry already knew that they will upgrade the hardware requirements for the next OS, when they launched the device?



That's called competition.
And that happens on the market place.

You can compete on the basis a lot of things.
If it's not innovation, then price is a good way to do it.
Or do you think that every product you see in the supermarket is a rip off of one another, and that they shouldn't even exist?
(if yes, I'll give you hint of why you couldn't be more wrong: competition means better prices. Simple as that).



See point above.
It's called competition.

And Samsung through not selling their tech to a competing market player, are able to stifle competition.
They are therefore able to sell their handsets at a higher price.
Not selling their tech, is necessary for them if they don't want to compete on price.
Because Samsung knows what most tech journalists start to understand: Chinese manufacturers sell you a Samsung S5 for 300$.

In other words, Samsung fears Xiaomi and doesn't want to compete on price.



So you like to pay more, for the same thing?
That's ironic.
Everyone who is on the side of the consumer, instead of big tech corporations should applaud Xiaomi/Huawei/ZTE/Micromax.

They make handsets cheap.
They drive mass adoption even forward.
They drive technological progress forward, through making it cheap and available to the masses.

You don't always have to innovate, to be useful for the marketplace and consumers.

Posted via CB10

I think what you've said, is ignorant.

Corporations don't outdo others to make "lesser profits".
Corporations outdo others to make "more profits".

And Xiaomi makes a lot of profit, by undercutting the competition to the point that they have been boycotted (no, boycott is a strong word) put on the sidelines for making more profit than other companies selling only hardware. But yes, the profit isn't from hardware, but the companies you mentioned (LG and Samsung spesifically) still gets a big portion of the money Xiaomi pays to have their phones manufactured. Which is ironic to the idea that they're undercutting Samsung.

Because its not about who they are undercutting. It is about who makes bigger profits, and Xiaomi did, but the consumers pay for it, without them knowing.

hehehe.

[badiyee]

And the next one...
Omg..
Every well known Android manufacturer still sells phone with the exact same modus operandi.
If you don't buy high-end, don't expect updates.
And even then, at least expect delays.

Also, remember the PlayBook?
Or OS6? Or every BlackBerry you couldn't upgrade because of hardware limitations, even though BlackBerry already knew that they will upgrade the hardware requirements for the next OS, when they launched the device?

I think you're misquoting me, or in the precise language, putting words into my mouth. I did not say Android manufactures sell phones with exact same modus operandi. I'm talking about lumping Huawei into the likes of One Plus One and Xiaomi, as against to Q10Nutter's suggestion that Huawei is lumped together with Lenovo in a class of its own. Please, you can do better.

That's called competition.
And that happens on the market place.

You can compete on the basis a lot of things.
If it's not innovation, then price is a good way to do it.
Or do you think that every product you see in the supermarket is a rip off of one another, and that they shouldn't even exist?
(if yes, I'll give you hint of why you couldn't be more wrong: competition means better prices. Simple as that).

Le sigh. I'm saying Xiaomi is a rip off, and again you're putting words into my mouth. Did I say that they shouldn't even exist, or did you put those words into my mouth?

See point above.
It's called competition.

And Samsung through not selling their tech to a competing market player, are able to stifle competition.
They are therefore able to sell their handsets at a higher price.
Not selling their tech, is necessary for them if they don't want to compete on price.
Because Samsung knows what most tech journalists start to understand: Chinese manufacturers sell you a Samsung S5 for 300$.

In other words, Samsung fears Xiaomi and doesn't want to compete on price.

You say competition, then you say Samsung is able to siffle competition. What are you saying? What i'm saying is simple. Xiaomi is a rip off. That's it. I'm neither pro Samsung, nor against Samsung. But i'm still calling Xiaomi a rip off. (For what it is, with the way they behave). I'm also saying, no matter how "cheap" Xiaomi is selling, it doesn't hurt Samsung's or LG's profits in any way.

So you like to pay more, for the same thing?
That's ironic.
Everyone who is on the side of the consumer, instead of big tech corporations should applaud Xiaomi/Huawei/ZTE/Micromax.

They make handsets cheap.
They drive mass adoption even forward.
They drive technological progress forward, through making it cheap and available to the masses.

You don't always have to innovate, to be useful for the marketplace and consumers.

Posted via CB10

No, I did not talk about innovation or anything remote. I'm just calling Xiaomi a rip off, thank you. And they sell hype. They don't "drive mass adoption even forward". LOL. You're just another product for them to sell to another entity.

[Tsepz_GP]

Oh believe me I think I know more about those devices than you do.

Quality is not about specs. Its about the over all package and it encompasses not only hardware but after sales support, build quality, usability, tactility, design and so many other factors.

And please stay on topic. Im talking about cheap chinese branded android phones not the japanese or korean or taiwanese phones. Read please.

If you think these android phones have the best package in terms of hardware and software then what are you doing on forum?

BTW android OS is in no way superior to BlackBerry 10. Again you're in the wrong place.



Differentiate or Die

Yes, quality is all about the overall package, I use the Xperia Z2 as an example:
Aluminum and Glass finish WITH Water and dust resistance
Gorgeous Design
Incredible specs
Great after sales support in more countries than BB
And the specs crush every single BlackBerry available.

You said:

In other words if you are cheap, go for android.

If you dont mind spending on quality go for BlackBerry or Apple.

You pretty much rolled up every single Android Manufacturer under one statement, that all are cheap, if you said "If you are cheap go for a low end Chinese Android" then I'd agree as those are awful, but the most dominant Android players on a global scale (not just China) produce excellent quality products and great support.

I like that you brought in after sales support, as THAT is one of BlackBerry's worst areas, when last did pre-BB10 devices get any software updates? Older Androids get all kinds of software updates be it from their manufacturer OR through Google Services Framework which gets updated every 6weeks for phones running anything from Android2.3 to Android4.4.4.

I'm here because we have a BB8900 Curve, BB9900 Bold and BB Q10 in the house, I like to keep them up to date and give them a spin every now and then and I do enjoy dabbling with the Q10 when I'm allowed to. I've noticed a whole lot of incorrect and incredibly wrong things being said about other platforms here, I used to just browse here and check tutorials, but I couldn't keep quiet with some of the utter rubbish I read here sometimes.

[MarsupilamiX]

I think what you've said, is ignorant.

Corporations don't outdo others to make "lesser profits".
Corporations outdo others to make "more profits".

You understand that there are 2 variables for that calculation, yes?
Profit= profit per unit * units

If I sell 10 cakes, and get 5 profit out of them, or sell 5 cakes to get 10 profit, is irrelevant for the result.
This is where price/demand elasticities come into play.
"Price elasticity of demand (PED or Ed) is a measure used in economics to show the responsiveness, or elasticity, of the quantity demanded of a good or service to a change in its price. More precisely, it gives the percentage change in quantity demanded in response to a one percent change in price (ceteris paribus, i.e. holding constant all the other determinants of demand, such as income)."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price...city_of_demand

In a highly competitive market, where a few dollars more or less can influence buyers immensely, rogue companies who undercut the competition significantly can get a relatively big share of the market pretty fast.
This creates a scenario where the competiting enterprises have to decide if they prefer to sell less devices than before, but with a similar profit or more devices with less profit per unit.

There usually comes the point, where you have to go down with your prices as well, because you would lose even more profit if you don't sell for less, but more units.
Which drives the whole prices of the market down.
(all of that is the case if the market is highly competitive. Monopolies usually don't have to play that game though)

Look at the PC market and maybe you'll understand it.
10 years ago a midrange PC cost 5000$.
Today 500$ could be too much.
A lot PC OEMs went broke or stopped manufacturing PCs because the market was too competitive and the profit margins not big enough.

That's called competition.

And Xiaomi makes a lot of profit, by undercutting the competition to the point that they have been boycotted (no, boycott is a strong word) put on the sidelines for making more profit than other companies selling only hardware. But yes, the profit isn't from hardware, but the companies you mentioned (LG and Samsung spesifically) still gets a big portion of the money Xiaomi pays to have their phones manufactured. Which is ironic to the idea that they're undercutting Samsung.

Because its not about who they are undercutting. It is about who makes bigger profits, and Xiaomi did, but the consumers pay for it, without them knowing.

hehehe.

Please explain that paragraph in more detail.
I struggle with a few things.

Who made what profits because of whom and who paid for it?
Who buys components from whom?
Who produces smartphone components and who assembes smartphones?

Thanks.

Posted via CB10

[The Big Picture]

LOL. You're exact words were:



Android (like Apple and BBRY) offers different devices at different price points. BBRY's problem (IMHO) is that it cannot provide the same overall value that the others do while attempting to sell some hardware at high end prices.

And, with all do respect, no one (you, me or other visitors outside the site owners and designated agents) has the right to tell anyone they are in the wrong place. Thinking BBOS/BB10 is the "best" is not a requirement for ownership.

You are taking my words out of context. If you captured what I said in the paragraph just above what you so aptly quoted me on you'll see that I was talking about cheap chinese made androids.

Talk about spinning things in your favour.

Differentiate or Die

[The Big Picture]

I have the feeling that your knowledge about the mobile phone market is VERY limited.
http://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2014/0...d-range-price/
"The Mi 3 is a solid Android smartphone that performs excellently ? way beyond what people assume its price tag of $332 can buy you ? and it makes me wonder why companies like Samsung, HTC and LG are tooting their horns for smartphones that come in at double to triple the price when the performance of the Mi 3 seems to be largely on par with their flagship devices. However, one bit that the Mi 3 is severely lacking is support for 4G LTE, which could put off consumers used to having such a speedy network and propel them to opt for other devices instead."

That's just one example.
Chinese manufacturers are starting to get known for one thing, internationally: High end specs with very solid build quality, but with mid-range prices.

Posted via CB10

Xiaomi and the other companies using off the shelf android running hardware today is not making money because of their tiny margins.

The reason why companies like oppo and xiaomi exist is simple.

They want to flood the market with cheap (but high hardware spec) android phones in hopes to price out the competition. Its a very old business trick when your product does not have a differentiating factor which is basically most androids.

When your product is the same eg. all basically the same hardware (snapdragon 800, 13mpx camera, 1080p screens) and software (android) how do you compete?

There's only 1 way which is price. Business 101. I really dont think its a sustainable business model.

Differentiate or Die

[MarsupilamiX]

I think you're misquoting me, or in the precise language, putting words into my mouth. I did not say Android manufactures sell phones with exact same modus operandi. I'm talking about lumping Huawei into the likes of One Plus One and Xiaomi, as against to Q10Nutter's suggestion that Huawei is lumped together with Lenovo in a class of its own. Please, you can do better.

And I am saying, that you don't have to look at China for manufacturers who just dump a phone at the market, to then forget it ever existed.
Every well known manufacturer did it, and partially still does it.
If you blame the Chinese, blame the rest of the manufacturers as well.
If not, it looks biased.

No, I did not talk about innovation or anything remote. I'm just calling Xiaomi a rip off, thank you. And they sell hype. They don't "drive mass adoption even forward". LOL. You're just another product for them to sell to another entity.

Rip-off, as in, they demand too much money? (wouldn't make sense)
Or rip-off as in copycats?

I took it for the second one. Which is a term you use for someone who isn't able to do something unique.
An enterprise who copies another one, is unable to invent a new product or innovate upon an existing one.
When you say "ripp-off", "lack of innovation" is implicitly included.

Now onto the mass-adoption:
"That's OK because Xiaomi has become a top-10 smartphone brand built almost entirely on China alone. By the end of March, the company knocked BlackBerry out of the No. 10 spot by capturing 3.5 percent of global smartphone shipments, according to IDC data."
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...n-tablets.html

They sell 97% of their phones in China. And sold 18.7 million smartphones worldwide in 2013.
They therefore sold 18.14 million phones in China.
They sit already at an 3.5% marketshare this year. In a market of 2 Billions (expected for this year) this corresponds to 70 million devices sold, with a majority of them in China.

China is a country with more than one billion people living in it.
Let's just take 1 billion to make it simple though.
Xiaomi, if everything goes according to plan, they will have sold about 100 million smartphones since they started.
Which means that they would have been able to put a Xiaomi into 1/10th of Chinese population.
They alone.

And that's not what you call "driving mass adoption of technology forward"?
Man, you have NO CLUE whatsoever.

I'm also saying, no matter how "cheap" Xiaomi is selling, it doesn't hurt Samsung's or LG's profits in any way.

Disproved in my other post.
One market player who has stupidly low prices, can the change the market equilibrium pretty fast, if there is enough demand.
It also happens gradually. As we have seen with PCs.

As long as Xiaomi and co stay cheap and provide quality devices for the money they demand, then Samsung and co will feel it.

Posted via CB10

[The Big Picture]

By the way this whole thread is about how xiao mii is cheap.

Xiao mii doesnt have their own OS. That in itself is a huge cost factor.

Why is apple and BlackBerry more expensive? Because they have their own OS and this is the main reason people buy the phone, hardware is secondary.

The iphone 5s for example doesnt even have a HD screen.

Why are android devices higher spec in hardware? Because that the only way they can differentiate themselves.



Differentiate or Die

[MarsupilamiX]

Xiaomi and the other companies using off the shelf android running hardware today is not making money because of their tiny margins.

The reason why companies like oppo and xiaomi exist is simple.

They want to flood the market with cheap (but high hardware spec) android phones in hopes to price out the competition. Its a very old business trick when your product does not have a differentiating factor which is basically most androids.

When your product is the same eg. all basically the same hardware (snapdragon 800, 13mpx camera, 1080p screens) and software (android) how do you compete?

There's only 1 way which is price. Business 101. I really dont think its a sustainable business model.

Differentiate or Die

Yeah totally, it's Business 101.
Price/demand elasticities combined with the old law of supply and demand.

The smartphone penetration worldwide isn't high and I think that you overstate how thin the margins are.
Prices go down very fast for tech components and the more phones you sell, the easier it is to achieve good economies of scale (still business 101)

I don't see any reason to think that what Xiaomi does is unsustainable.
The price war will only intensify.
They are just the first prominent market player that gets mentioned by the press.



Posted via CB10

[MarsupilamiX]

By the way this whole thread is about how xiao mii is cheap.

Xiao mii doesnt have their own OS. That in itself is a huge cost factor.

Why is apple and BlackBerry more expensive? Because they have their own OS and this is the main reason people buy the phone, hardware is secondary.

The iphone 5s for example doesnt even have a HD screen.

Why are android devices higher spec in hardware? Because that the only way they can differentiate themselves.

Differentiate or Die

BlackBerry has a 40% gross margin.
What about Apple?

Posted via CB10

[badiyee]

You understand that there are 2 variables for that calculation, yes?
Profit= profit per unit * units

If I sell 10 cakes, and get 5 profit out of them, or sell 5 cakes to get 10 profit, is irrelevant for the result.
This is where price/demand elasticities come into play.
"Price elasticity of demand (PED or Ed) is a measure used in economics to show the responsiveness, or elasticity, of the quantity demanded of a good or service to a change in its price. More precisely, it gives the percentage change in quantity demanded in response to a one percent change in price (ceteris paribus, i.e. holding constant all the other determinants of demand, such as income)."
Price elasticity of demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a highly competitive market, where a few dollars more or less can influence buyers immensely, rogue companies who undercut the competition significantly can get a relatively big share of the market pretty fast.
This creates a scenario where the competiting enterprises have to decide if they prefer to sell less devices than before, but with a similar profit or more devices with less profit per unit.

There usually comes the point, where you have to go down with your prices as well, because you would lose even more profit if you don't sell for less, but more units.
Which drives the whole prices of the market down.
(all of that is the case if the market is highly competitive. Monopolies usually don't have to play that game though)

Look at the PC market and maybe you'll understand it.
10 years ago a midrange PC cost 5000$.
Today 500$ could be too much.
A lot PC OEMs went broke or stopped manufacturing PCs because the market was too competitive and the profit margins not big enough.

That's called competition.

I think you're conveniently tryign to mash up marketshare and mindshare, which are two different things.

Please explain that paragraph in more detail.
I struggle with a few things.

Who made what profits because of whom and who paid for it?
Who buys components from whom?
Who produces smartphone components and who assembes smartphones?

Thanks.

Posted via CB10

Nah, you know the answer better, since you seem to really like Xiaomi and be their apologist. I'm sure you know how they work intricately, so don't need to be coy about that. You've even made claims that they will deliver technology to the masses (which is ridiculously funny and ironic considering the current method of distribution they are using and the means of controlling manufacture output is directly in the opposite direction of what you're saying Xiaomi is doing)

And I am saying, that you don't have to look at China for manufacturers who just dump a phone at the market, to then forget it ever existed.
Every well known manufacturer did it, and partially still does it.
If you blame the Chinese, blame the rest of the manufacturers as well.
If not, it looks biased.



Rip-off, as in, they demand too much money? (wouldn't make sense)
Or rip-off as in copycats?

I took it for the second one. Which is a term you use for someone who isn't able to do something unique.
An enterprise who copies another one, is unable to invent a new product or innovate upon an existing one.
When you say "ripp-off", "lack of innovation" is implicitly included.

Now onto the mass-adoption:
"That's OK because Xiaomi has become a top-10 smartphone brand built almost entirely on China alone. By the end of March, the company knocked BlackBerry out of the No. 10 spot by capturing 3.5 percent of global smartphone shipments, according to IDC data."
Look at What Xiaomi Has Done to the iPhone in China. Imagine What It Could Do in Tablets - Bloomberg

They sell 97% of their phones in China. And sold 18.7 million smartphones worldwide in 2013.
They therefore sold 18.14 million phones in China.
They sit already at an 3.5% marketshare this year. In a market of 2 Billions (expected for this year) this corresponds to 70 million devices sold, with a majority of them in China.

China is a country with more than one billion people living in it.
Let's just take 1 billion to make it simple though.
Xiaomi, if everything goes according to plan, they will have sold about 100 million smartphones since they started.
Which means that they would have been able to put a Xiaomi into 1/10th of Chinese population.
They alone.

And that's not what you call "driving mass adoption of technology forward"?
Man, you have NO CLUE whatsoever.

I think you're better off saying "sorry, but I can see Xiaomi being a popular choice vs the pervasiveness of other handset makers despite their offerings. Saying that I don't have a clue, when you're conveniently ignoring the very fact that the numbers you've put about 1/10th of the Chinese population as wrong, however much you try to romanticize Xiaomi as a "deliverer" of technology to the masses. The another problem with your numbers is that, due to Xiaomi's way of selling their products, its considered SOLD to them, but it does not mean that every unit sold by them is in the hands of the customer. I'm sure that you understand this since you're pretty coy about Xiaomi's way of doing things, and trying to even divert the question back at me (refer to a post earlier up)

Secondly, for somebody who seems to know a lot about Xiaomi, you're really good at whitewashing the fact that Xiaomi does lack innovation. Or rather, "mass-alpha-beta-omega" that innovation. I see how convenient of that for you to just press "HEY ITS FREE MARKET" and conveniently ignore the fact that they are selling other things as well, but not making mass profits off the phones alone.

Disproved in my other post.
One market player who has stupidly low prices, can the change the market equilibrium pretty fast, if there is enough demand.
It also happens gradually. As we have seen with PCs.

As long as Xiaomi and co stay cheap and provide quality devices for the money they demand, then Samsung and co will feel it.

Posted via CB10

Disproven? More like you skewed / spun the answer. Technically wrong. The equation in question is not about who favours customers more, but rather rake in better profits. Samsung wisened up by discontinuing supplying Xiaomi with its battery cells (cut all direct ties, proxy ties are left as it is) because other manufacturers have told off Samsung that they will stop buying Samsung parts. LG on the other hand already lost the marketshare so they're willing sell at whatevery price Xiaomi has asked for, since they are not in mind to expand (physically) their manufacturing capacities and prefer to have something done and sold. In one way to look at it, Samsung isn't going to "bend over a dollar to pick up a dime", so the expression goes. Irregardless, whether by parts of by phones, Samsung still makes a tidy profit off, irregardless who built and sold them, since it is still their own parts. What Xiaomi originally did was to emulate Samsung's early strategy against the iPhone generation 1 up to 3Gs, but for whatever loss in margins Xiaomi make in hardware they make up in ancillary income, which ironically involves a move as the Chinese expression goes "borrow a knife to kill another".

[badiyee]

By the way this whole thread is about how xiao mii is cheap.

Xiao mii doesnt have their own OS. That in itself is a huge cost factor.

Why is apple and BlackBerry more expensive? Because they have their own OS and this is the main reason people buy the phone, hardware is secondary.

The iphone 5s for example doesnt even have a HD screen.

Why are android devices higher spec in hardware? Because that the only way they can differentiate themselves.



Differentiate or Die

Even Xiaomi loyalist won't want to admit that MIUI isn't an OS of its own (but people in the early days will know how many times they have tried, right? *grin*) but at the same time, as the saying goes...

"They can see a mosquito an ocean far ahead, but they can't see the elephant right in front of their eyes".

Xiaomi has an OS is pathethically laughable. More of like "i'll make money off this OS by stealing it".

[MarsupilamiX]

I think you're conveniently tryign to mash up marketshare and mindshare, which are two different things.




Nah, you know the answer better, since you seem to really like Xiaomi and be their apologist. I'm sure you know how they work intricately, so don't need to be coy about that. You've even made claims that they will deliver technology to the masses (which is ridiculously funny and ironic considering the current method of distribution they are using and the means of controlling manufacture output is directly in the opposite direction of what you're saying Xiaomi is doing)



I think you're better off saying "sorry, but I can see Xiaomi being a popular choice vs the pervasiveness of other handset makers despite their offerings. Saying that I don't have a clue, when you're conveniently ignoring the very fact that the numbers you've put about 1/10th of the Chinese population as wrong, however much you try to romanticize Xiaomi as a "deliverer" of technology to the masses. The another problem with your numbers is that, due to Xiaomi's way of selling their products, its considered SOLD to them, but it does not mean that every unit sold by them is in the hands of the customer. I'm sure that you understand this since you're pretty coy about Xiaomi's way of doing things, and trying to even divert the question back at me (refer to a post earlier up)

Secondly, for somebody who seems to know a lot about Xiaomi, you're really good at whitewashing the fact that Xiaomi does lack innovation. Or rather, "mass-alpha-beta-omega" that innovation. I see how convenient of that for you to just press "HEY ITS FREE MARKET" and conveniently ignore the fact that they are selling other things as well, but not making mass profits off the phones alone.


Disproven? More like you skewed / spun the answer. Technically wrong. The equation in question is not about who favours customers more, but rather rake in better profits. Samsung wisened up by discontinuing supplying Xiaomi with its battery cells (cut all direct ties, proxy ties are left as it is) because other manufacturers have told off Samsung that they will stop buying Samsung parts. LG on the other hand already lost the marketshare so they're willing sell at whatevery price Xiaomi has asked for, since they are not in mind to expand (physically) their manufacturing capacities and prefer to have something done and sold. In one way to look at it, Samsung isn't going to "bend over a dollar to pick up a dime", so the expression goes. Irregardless, whether by parts of by phones, Samsung still makes a tidy profit off, irregardless who built and sold them, since it is still their own parts. What Xiaomi originally did was to emulate Samsung's early strategy against the iPhone generation 1 up to 3Gs, but for whatever loss in margins Xiaomi make in hardware they make up in ancillary income, which ironically involves a move as the Chinese expression goes "borrow a knife to kill another".

You didn't understand a word of what I wrote, did you?

Posted via CB10

[badiyee]

You didn't understand a word of what I wrote, did you?

Posted via CB10

I understood that

a) you're trying to repetitively put words into my mouth (or claiming I said so and so), to which, I didn't say a whole lot of what you've said.
b) you're Xiaomi apologist
c) you're coy about being disproven (despite having a go at me repetitively saying "you're disproven! you're disproven!" again and again, but nothing's really disproven, except that you just posted your romantic ideas in a spin on your stance.

[MarsupilamiX]

I understood that

a) you're trying to repetitively put words into my mouth (or claiming I said so and so), to which, I didn't say a whole lot of what you've said.
b) you're Xiaomi apologist
c) you're coy about being disproven (despite having a go at me repetitively saying "you're disproven! you're disproven!" again and again, but nothing's really disproven, except that you just posted your romantic ideas in a spin on your stance.

Yeah, then you understood nothing.
The level of ignorance I am facing, sadly is too strong.

You...
1) obviously have no clue about economics. As in, not even the slightest.

2) have no idea what it means to compete on a marketplace (a problem tied with 1).

3) for whatever reason, don't understand the meaning of "making technology available to the masses".

4) Apparently didn't understand a word of what I said, because I never romantised anything.
I described a normal economic process (which brings us back to 1).

The best part is, that you think that you have disproven anything I said.
You are completely off-topic in your responses and basically say nothing at all that is related to what I said.
As in, not even remotely close.
Which is why I wondered if you understood what I said because it doesn't seem to be the case.

Posted via CB10

[badiyee]

Yeah, then you understood nothing.
The level of ignorance I am facing, sadly is too strong.

You...
1) obviously have no clue about economics. As in, not even the slightest.

2) have no idea what it means to compete on a marketplace (a problem tied with 1).

3) for whatever reason, don't understand the meaning of "making technology available to the masses".

4) Apparently didn't understand a word of what I said, because I never romantised anything.
I described a normal economic process (which brings us back to 1).

The bast part is, that you think that you have disproven anything I said.
You are completely off-topic in your responses and basically say nothing at all that is related to what I said.
As in, not even remotely close.
Which is why I wondered if you understood what I said because it doesn't seem to be the case.

Posted via CB10

You're claiming i'm arrogant. Let me point out that you're arrogant. Not me. I'll say it again, you are very arrogant.


1. You claim I have no idea in economics. but you've ignored the fundamentals of the supply chain. I pointed that out and you've ignored it. More like squirrel around it. It doesn't matter for Samsung or LG, because the parts are from them. Unless there's another Samsung, and there's another LG, that's also Samsung and LG.

2. Apparently you're stuck with the idea that to complete with a marketplace, the ONLY solution to that is to undercut. The problem with THAT thought is that, corporations are not "pro consumers", and have never been. They are only answerable ONLY to profits. What route makes the bigger profit, they'll take it. Competition that goes up or down, is just a collateral damage.

3. Because "making technology available for the masses" means NOTHING if you don't have monopoly over the supply chain. And you have in a dramatic fashion romanticised the idea of "corporations are for consumers" which is a fallacy.

4. The normal economic process does not take into general wellbeing / regards to consumers. The only thing that matters, is "how to milk money", and "how i'm going to enlarge that share". Making technology available to the masses only works when it gives / guarantees a steady flow of income / revenue, best if monopolized. Because corporations do not answer to "wellfare of consumers", it only answers to profits.


And all of that, was the whole point leading to my first post to Q10Nutter's claim that Huawei and Lenovo are of a different class against the likes of Xiaomi and Oppo, to which I disagree, and said "you (Q10Nutter) should lump Huawei into the likes of Xiaomi and Oppo, because the modus operandi is the same" (before you came in and put words into my mouth what kind of modus operandi (when I believe in that post I've never really explicated about it).

So call me arrogant, but the one truly arrogant here is you when you have made claims that somehow I did not, and then shove all of that conveniently on me and then make it as if you're in the industry while playing coy about details that you should have known before even trying to put it into my mouth.

[MarsupilamiX]

I think you're conveniently tryign to mash up marketshare and mindshare, which are two different things.

And I think that your reading comprehension should become better then.
Xiaomi has a worldwide marketshare of about 3.5%, in the last quarter.
That's more than BlackBerry (what a surprise) and makes them a top 10 manufacturer.
You understood that? Still with me? Great!

Nah, you know the answer better, since you seem to really like Xiaomi and be their apologist. I'm sure you know how they work intricately, so don't need to be coy about that. You've even made claims that they will deliver technology to the masses (which is ridiculously funny and ironic considering the current method of distribution they are using and the means of controlling manufacture output is directly in the opposite direction of what you're saying Xiaomi is doing)

They will have sold about 100 million handsets at the end of the year. With over 90% of them in China.
You really don't understand what "delivering to the masses" means.
Well, grab a dictionary and learn some new words then.

I think you're better off saying "sorry, but I can see Xiaomi being a popular choice vs the pervasiveness of other handset makers despite their offerings. Saying that I don't have a clue, when you're conveniently ignoring the very fact that the numbers you've put about 1/10th of the Chinese population as wrong, however much you try to romanticize Xiaomi as a "deliverer" of technology to the masses.

Yeah, I simplified the calculation so that you would get it.
I see that this was unnecessary, as you still don't get it.
Grab a dictionary, learn some new words.
Thanks

It doesn't matter if it's 1/10th or 1/15th.
It's very clear in what direction it is going.
And yes, selling 100 million cheap smartphones to people who definitely don't have the money to buy a Samsung Galaxy, is the definition of "delivering technology to the masses".
(see dictionary for further understanding)

The another problem with your numbers is that, due to Xiaomi's way of selling their products, its considered SOLD to them, but it does not mean that every unit sold by them is in the hands of the customer. I'm sure that you understand this since you're pretty coy about Xiaomi's way of doing things, and trying to even divert the question back at me (refer to a post earlier up)

Huh?
Shipped=Sold, for accounting purposes.
It's compliant with the GAAP...
Everyone does it like that, where's the problem?

And as I said before, if it's 1/10th or 1/15th of the population, makes no difference for the principle.

Secondly, for somebody who seems to know a lot about Xiaomi, you're really good at whitewashing the fact that Xiaomi does lack innovation. Or rather, "mass-alpha-beta-omega" that innovation. I see how convenient of that for you to just press "HEY ITS FREE MARKET" and conveniently ignore the fact that they are selling other things as well, but not making mass profits off the phones alone.

You are completely off-topic.
It's.... Nearly shocking.

1) You just said it yourself, Xiaomi lacks innovation. 2 posts before, you called that "putting words in your mouth". Thanks for admitting that.

2) And then you earn a big fat WTF?
Whitewashing?
I clearly said that Xiaomi is not innovating. And that they have no need for it.
It's not their current business model to innovate.
Their model is to sell cheaper than the competition and nothing else.
Which seems to work out rather well.

A byproduct of selling cheap, is the diffusion of technology. I never said that it is their motivation to do business (if you read that, I would have to tell you to up your level of reading comprehension), just that it happens.

That's how the market usually works btw and also why Steve Jobs said that they are about 5 years ahead of the competition when they launched the iPhone.
You have an innovator who is the first mover (Apple with iOS and the iPhone) and the rest of the market who plays catch up.
This is not unique to the cell-phone market.

How and where Xiaomi makes money is completely irrelevant, if it's legal and enough to stay in the smartphone business.
Yes, this is also part of a free market (that isn't nearly as free as the terminology suggests).

Disproven? More like you skewed / spun the answer. Technically wrong. The equation in question is not about who favours customers more, but rather rake in better profits.

So you agree that Xiaomi favours the customer more?
Apart from that, you are completely off topic again.

You said that Samsung or LG won't feel it, if Xiaomi continues to undercut them significantly, in terms of price.
Which is factually wrong when we look at other markets.
And also factually wrong when we look at simple economic principles.

Competition in highly competitive markets have falling prices as a result, because customers are price sensitive.
Therefore making price/demand elasticities important.
It's not a spin to say that.
Open up an academic book about economics (probably 101) and you would understand that.

Anyhow, when Xiaomi sells the same phone Samsung does, but for half the price.... What's my reason to buy a Samsung?
There is none, apart from prestige.
And the vast majority doesn't care about prestige that much, when it comes down to their hard earned dollars.

Considering profits you are for once, at least partly correct.
Yes, you measure the success of a company on their ability to make profits.

But not everyone can be the number 1. So you try to compete on a level you can compete at.
Following you logic, every business who isn't the number 1 should just stop with their business operations, which is just nonsensical.

2 years ago, nobody had an idea that Xiaomi might actually make it into the top 10.
Today they outsell BlackBerry and have a marketshare of 3.5%.

The biggest problem I see, is that I would have to explain you economic principles from the ground up, because frankly, you lack a lot of knowledge and don't seem to understand what you are talking about.
Since I am not willing to do that though, there is only thing I can do....

I will have to take you even less seriously, and just see your comments as what they are.
The thoughts of someone who just doesn't know it any better.


Posted via CB10

[badiyee]

And I think that your reading comprehension should become better then.
Xiaomi has a worldwide marketshare of about 3.5%, in the last quarter.
That's more than BlackBerry (what a surprise) and makes them a top 10 manufacturer.
You understood that? Still with me? Great!

So what's this got to do with BlackBerry again, when I was talking about putting the other 3 manufacturers lumping them into a group? In my opinion I think that your reading comprehension needs to be ..."re-evaluated". I'm not saying that you fail, but I suggest a re-evaluation of your reading comprehension would be a good move, since for whatever you're insinuating about, I haven't in any way remotely tied BlackBerry to Xiaomi.

They will have sold about 100 million handsets at the end of the year. With over 90% of them in China.
You really don't understand what "delivering to the masses" means.
Well, grab a dictionary and learn some new words then.

Oh no need to bother. You're just dying to say that Xiaomi will deliver "technology to the masses". Problem is, I'm not even seeing that as a point, because the point I've been saying (I'm not even sure how such a nihilistic idea of Xiaomi will bring technology to the masses as a concrete absolute fact, (when technically there are other manufacturers outdo Xiaomi in pure volume alone). The problem with your dictionary is, you're squirelling with the definitions and what entails that definition.

Yeah, I simplified the calculation so that you would get it.
I see that this was unnecessary, as you still don't get it.
Grab a dictionary, learn some new words.
Thanks

Coming from somebody who just claims that so and so who doesn't agree with you has reading comprehension problems? Naw, you are the one who needs to go through all that, I don't. Suit yourself.

It doesn't matter if it's 1/10th or 1/15th.
It's very clear in what direction it is going.
And yes, selling 100 million cheap smartphones to people who definitely don't have the money to buy a Samsung Galaxy, is the definition of "delivering technology to the masses".
(see dictionary for further understanding)

Apparently, there seems to be an issue. There are Samsung phones that are cheaper than what Xiaomi has, even with Hongmi 1S. Or let's put it this way, whatever Xiaomi is doing, there are other companies putting cheaper tech out on the market, using your term "to deliver technology to the masses". Of course that is a wide example, but is a valid example.

Huh?
Shipped=Sold, for accounting purposes.
It's compliant with the GAAP...
Everyone does it like that, where's the problem?

And as I said before, if it's 1/10th or 1/15th of the population, makes no difference for the principle.

Squirelling here aren't you? Let's see... Earlier on your premise is that Xiaomi is doing everything so that masses can adopt it, but the fundamental problem is that, that premise is flawed because Xiaomi is not out there to "provide technology to the masses", nor in any way romanticized motion you're proposed. I've said that regardless how cheap Xiaomi makes, as long as the parts they buy are from Samsung and LG (or any other parties involved, but I'm strictly using Samsung and LG as the example here), their bottom line isnt' hurt because the parts come from Samsung and LG, for whatever price LG and Samsung agreed to sell them at , or was. Unless somehow magically Samsung manufactures the parts but Xiaomi doesn't even pay them (yet gets the goods) which is very odd.

You are completely off-topic.
It's.... Nearly shocking.

Not as much as you're going to squirrel around.

[QUOTE=MarsupilamiX;10578677]
1) You just said it yourself, Xiaomi lacks innovation. 2 posts before, you called that "putting words in your mouth". Thanks for admitting that.

2) And then you earn a big fat WTF?
Whitewashing?
I clearly said that Xiaomi is not innovating. And that they have no need for it.
It's not their current business model to innovate.
Their model is to sell cheaper than the competition and nothing else.
Which seems to work out rather well.

A byproduct of selling cheap, is the diffusion of technology. I never said that it is their motivation to do business (if you read that, I would have to tell you to up your level of reading comprehension), just that it happens.

That's how the market usually works btw and also why Steve Jobs said that they are about 5 years ahead of the competition when they launched the iPhone.
You have an innovator who is the first mover (Apple with iOS and the iPhone) and the rest of the market who plays catch up.
This is not unique to the cell-phone market.

How and where Xiaomi makes money is completely irrelevant, if it's legal and enough to stay in the smartphone business.
Yes, this is also part of a free market (that isn't nearly as free as the terminology suggests).
[quote]
I think there's the problem to your reading comprehension (since you're insisting that my reading comprehension may have an issue, and I'm actually saying YOUR reading comprehension is intellectually appalling.) because the way I look at it you're ignoring the very fact that I've stated that first, their OS isn't and OS, and secondly, their advancements are built upon others but doesn't really "harm" others, nor did you acknowledge the fact that Xiaomi's adoption strategy is in complete antithesis of "driving mass adoption" of which you're claiming Xiaomi IS doing, then going around and tying in unrelated points such as their market share (because truthfully, they aren't churning devices FASTER than anyone else per se of being the largest volume, nor is it the cheapest regardless of price per spec) which ironically, disproves the very notion of yours is that whatever Xiaomi is doing is to spur "mass adoption of technology".

So you agree that Xiaomi favours the customer more?
Apart from that, you are completely off topic again.

You said that Samsung or LG won't feel it, if Xiaomi continues to undercut them significantly, in terms of price.
Which is factually wrong when we look at other markets.
And also factually wrong when we look at simple economic principles.

Competition in highly competitive markets have falling prices as a result, because customers are price sensitive.
Therefore making price/demand elasticities important.
It's not a spin to say that.
Open up an academic book about economics (probably 101) and you would understand that.

Anyhow, when Xiaomi sells the same phone Samsung does, but for half the price.... What's my reason to buy a Samsung?
There is none, apart from prestige.
And the vast majority doesn't care about prestige that much, when it comes down to their hard earned dollars.

Considering profits you are for once, at least partly correct.
Yes, you measure the success of a company on their ability to make profits.

But not everyone can be the number 1. So you try to compete on a level you can compete at.
Following you logic, every business who isn't the number 1 should just stop with their business operations, which is just nonsensical.

2 years ago, nobody had an idea that Xiaomi might actually make it into the top 10.
Today they outsell BlackBerry and have a marketshare of 3.5%.

The biggest problem I see, is that I would have to explain you economic principles from the ground up, because frankly, you lack a lot of knowledge and don't seem to understand what you are talking about.
Since I am not willing to do that though, there is only thing I can do....

I will have to take you even less seriously, and just see your comments as what they are.
The thoughts of someone who just doesn't know it any better.


Posted via CB10

I think the problem with your selective reading was that, I've said, and will repeat it, the equation in question is not about who favours customers more, but rather rake in better profits.


I don't even understand what arguments you're bringing in with prestige of buying something over something(what's that got to do with lumping Xiaomi and Oppo in the same category and throwing in Huawei into the lot at the same time) into the picture of Xiaomi using Samsung parts vs Samsung building a phone with their own parts, because either way, Samsung takes a cut (unless you're insinuating there is a different Samsung than Samsung, or in this case i'm using both Samsung and LG) since the parts are from Samsung, unless they're not from Samsung (which is illogical since Xiaomi advertises they use the best parts from Samsung and LG in certain products) because in the end no matter how you spin it, Samsung walks off making a profit (they don't sell parts for a loss).

The thing is Samsung doesn't need to be number 1 in recognition or anything. All they have been doing (and which is brilliant of them) is to diversify the sales of the same parts (they sell lots of stuff to Apple and their own Android competitors, illogical if you insist, but financially a sound move from Samsung) and they have already made money from the parts sold, whether as a PIECE or by whole, it still a profit for Samsung regardless of the volume (and therefore, margins, etc).

In your desperate attempt to paint me as somebody who will NEVER agree with you, you've desperately attempted to label me having reading comprehension issues, this, that, arrogant, etc, I wonder if you're the one who's not being able to make a good point in saying that you cannot accept the fact that Xiaomi isn't here for the "benefit of the wellfare of consumers so that they can adopt technology en masse". All I have been saying is one simple premise.

If you lump OnePlusOne, Oppo (new name to lump here), and Xiaomi, then you can lump Huawei into the fray because their modus operandi (i haven't explicated this, but for your so called inability to read, i shall say it out for you, and for my benefit to set the record straight because i've not explicated on this) is that they sell whatever products they have supposedly on a lower price point to bring differenciation to the market, but they are ultimately in the same category and not about "Quality and class of its own" as another poster was saying Huawei and Lenovo would be (in a different category).

So you claim that you're going take me less seriously, but your desperate attempts at trying to, I don't know, "place me on top of the table" for something I've not yet said nor done prior to the first statement I've made, it seems that you're taking this way seriously just to 'take me less seriously', despite your repeated insinuations.


And no, its not that people have no fricking clue 2 years ago. Such a statement is so invalid. Its so bad that its not even wrong. Because people have been talking about Xiaomi more than 2 years ago. When they released their first Xiaomi MI1 with MIUI people were already talking way before folks at Engadget and co started to even publicly drool over it. Maybe you don't have a clue 2 years ago, but don't try to lump others into that, yeah? So I think your reading comprehension must be really in need, as I suggest, a re-evaluation since you've made a statement like that based on whatever comprehension you have of 2 years ago. I hope you've got the scores higher now compared to two years ago (I'm assuming that statement of yours is backdated to two years ago, yeah?) but yes, your reading comprehension should still undergo a re-evaluation.