Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales • Hacker News Board

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#31

Post by TimGebhardt » Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 2:03 PM UTC

jstsch wrote: post #10

yogrish wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though a late entrant, by hook or crook Sammy has become top seller of smart phones along with Apple. It is almost pushing Nokia,RIM and others out of market. This is definitely appreciable.

I don't think it is appreciable, since Samsung is one of the biggest copycat companies ever. I was shopping for a washing machine recently, and it struck me how blatantly Samsung copies features from Miele. You can say what you want about Nokia and RIM, but they certainly have been innovative in the past. Samsung, not at all.

How is this any different than software? Certainly there are many cases where a startup or company tries to make a product and us geeks say "It's stupid to pay for that I can redo it in a weekend and put it on Github" and we fawn over the OSS project and grill the original company.

And certainly there are other cases where OSS blazes the trail. But copycat software gets a hall pass when it you get to download it for free? Or is your post just a different iteration on the iOS/Android fanboy-ism?

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#32

Post by TimGebhardt » Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 2:05 PM UTC

josephlord wrote: post #22

yogrish wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that it is a copycat, that's why I mentioned 'hook or crook'. But how many copy cats are making it to top in any sector. Some thing more is there with it technology wise or marketing wise. Would like to hear Any other thoughts.

They are a copycat but one with brilliant industrial design capabilities (not just a nice product but efficient to assemble), a ruthless competitive streak, most complete supply chain of any CE company (screens, semi conductors and god knows what else). They buy their way into retail with high dealer margins and slightly different models for each retailer/carrier so that the dealers/carriers push them until they are…

So they're successful because they're holistically thinking about the entire supply chain, rather than just think that a cool product will sell itself?

Wow, sounds like another company I've heard of...

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#33

Post by hessenwolf » Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 2:12 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #23

jnorthrop wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a link to that story: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Samsung-Sha... That's a tough spin on positive news. Just because the analysts blew their estimates doesn't mean Samsung had a bad quarter. Here is the key quote: "Sales of 47 trillion won ($41 billion) trailed the 49.8 trillion-won average of 35 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg, overshadowing operating profit that rose to a recor…

"That's a tough spin on positive news." Consider the source: people reading Bloomberg probably do want to know what's going on with the share price moreso then a general or tech news source reader where the focus might remain on the raw numbers.

In fairness, big corp worker here, we make a plan and it is heavily dependent on market, and if we are off then our bonuses are too.

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#34

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 2:14 PM UTC

jnorthrop wrote: post #5

runako wrote: post #2

Bloomberg's headline for the same announcement: "Samsung Shares Fall After Quarterly Sales Miss Estimates"

Here is a link to that story: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Samsung-Sha... That's a tough spin on positive news. Just because the analysts blew their estimates doesn't mean Samsung had a bad quarter. Here is the key quote: "Sales of 47 trillion won ($41 billion) trailed the 49.8 trillion-won average of 35 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg, overshadowing operating profit that rose to a recor…

Here is why it works like that: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizi...

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#35

Post by flyinRyan » Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 2:18 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #19

jnorthrop wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a link to that story: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Samsung-Sha... That's a tough spin on positive news. Just because the analysts blew their estimates doesn't mean Samsung had a bad quarter. Here is the key quote: "Sales of 47 trillion won ($41 billion) trailed the 49.8 trillion-won average of 35 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg, overshadowing operating profit that rose to a recor…

Well, if you are investing on analyst expectations, and then the stock doesnt meet those expectations, then of course a price correction is necessary. The market is efficient and so is sensitive to information changes.

Yes, but if the estimates were too conservative, then the adjustments should be upward, not downward. Adjusting unexpected profits upwards is clearly just a punishment.

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#36

Post by arthurrr » Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 2:22 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #19

jnorthrop wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a link to that story: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Samsung-Sha... That's a tough spin on positive news. Just because the analysts blew their estimates doesn't mean Samsung had a bad quarter. Here is the key quote: "Sales of 47 trillion won ($41 billion) trailed the 49.8 trillion-won average of 35 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg, overshadowing operating profit that rose to a recor…

Well, if you are investing on analyst expectations, and then the stock doesnt meet those expectations, then of course a price correction is necessary. The market is efficient and so is sensitive to information changes.

markets aren't efficient (don't listen to what they teach at school), they trade on emotion, perception is more important than reality

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#37

Post by moe » Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 2:27 PM UTC

jstsch wrote: post #8

CrazedGeek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...icons on a grid resemble iOS, sure, and about a million other UIs.

It's about two subtle design cue's: swipable page with 4*4 icons - spacing - 4 fixed icons. Call icon with white on similar hue of green in bottom left.

And?

Should my car manufacturer switch to square steering-wheels for better differentiation?

When an UI works well then by all means copy it. Apple should not be allowed to hold back an entire industry just because they happened to be the first to come up with a sensible icon-layout for touchscreen-devices.

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#38

Post by RyanMcGreal » Fri, Jul 06, 2012, 2:49 PM UTC

runako wrote: post #2

Bloomberg's headline for the same announcement: "Samsung Shares Fall After Quarterly Sales Miss Estimates"

Bloomberg headline writers love to try and assign causality to the meanderings of stock prices. Daniel Kahneman's recent book Thinking, Fast And Slow recounts a story from Nassim Taleb's book The Black Swan that encapsulates the tendency to find causality:

> A story in Nassim Taleb’s The Black Swan illustrates this automatic search for causality. He reports that bond prices initially rose on the day of Saddam Hussein’s capture in his hiding place in Iraq. Investors were apparently seeking safer assets that morning, and the Bloomberg News service flashed this headline: U.S. TREASURIES RISE; HUSSEIN CAPTURE MAY NOT CURB TERRORISM. Half an hour later, bond prices fell back and the revised headline read: U.S. TREASURIES FALL; HUSSEIN CAPTURE BOOSTS ALLURE OF RISKY ASSETS. Obviously, Hussein’s capture was the major event of the day, and because of the way the automatic search for causes shapes our thinking, that event was destined to be the explanation of whatever happened in the market on that day. The two headlines look superficially like explanations of what happened in the market, but a statement that can explain two contradictory outcomes explains nothing at all. In fact, all the headlines do is satisfy our need for coherence: a large event is supposed to have consequences, and consequences need causes to explain them.

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#39

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 10:45 AM UTC

arthurrr wrote: post #36

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you are investing on analyst expectations, and then the stock doesnt meet those expectations, then of course a price correction is necessary. The market is efficient and so is sensitive to information changes.

markets aren't efficient (don't listen to what they teach at school), they trade on emotion, perception is more important than reality

They are efficient with respect to imperfect information and an imperfect actor (humans with emotions), which means they will be even more volatile as new information is uncovered or new emotions arise.

Re: Samsung profits surge 79% boosted by smartphone sales

#40

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 10:47 AM UTC

flyinRyan wrote: post #35

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you are investing on analyst expectations, and then the stock doesnt meet those expectations, then of course a price correction is necessary. The market is efficient and so is sensitive to information changes.

Yes, but if the estimates were too conservative, then the adjustments should be upward, not downward. Adjusting unexpected profits upwards is clearly just a punishment.

Analyst estimates were bullish, Samsung's later estimates were less than that. Since its not in Samsung's interest to be less bullish than necessary, investors took that as new reliable information and reacted to it by adjusting their target price for the stock downwards. Nothing weird about it.

If Samsung was the only source of information, then you would be correctly. But they aren't, and even if they were, investors would make "bets" that were either more optimistic or pessimistic than what later information supported.