Who is the first important in the Chinese mobile phone market?

Recently, with the introduction of global and Chinese smart phone market shipments and market share by major domestic and foreign market research companies, the dispute over who is the number one smartphone market in China was immediately launched. Due to the difference in statistics and calculation methods, the market research company's data is different. What is not normal is that our mobile phone manufacturers always use the statistics of companies that are conducive to their own market performance when they promote their products, and even use this to make a fuss.

Of course, they are very clear, in order to become the first in the market share of the Chinese smart phone market, the first is to go beyond Samsung, after all, Samsung has been the leader of the Chinese smart phone market. So winning the first, it means that beyond Samsung, this is probably some of our domestic mobile phone manufacturers trying to prove to the outside world that it is the real purpose of the Chinese smart phone market first. So who is the first in the Chinese smart phone market is so important? Can it really prove to some of our vendors that even our smart phone industry has led the industry in this development?

If only from the statistics of the relevant market research institutions, some institutions in China (such as Xiaomi and Lenovo) have won the first place in the Chinese smartphone market in the second quarter despite relevant agency statistics. However, at the same time, we can still see that Samsung is still the statistics of the first relevant institutions in the Chinese smart phone market, and it is also a relevant domestic organization. Even the statistics of most organizations show that Chinese companies have indeed achieved the first, but that is only the second quarter. After all, in the first quarter of the past, Samsung was still the number one, and there are still two quarters left this year. Therefore, it will be difficult to say who will become the number one smartphone market in China in 2014.

In addition, from the statistics of China-related companies to get the first organization in China's mobile phone market, one thing is common, that is, Samsung is still among the top three in China's smart phone market, and it is the first place with so-called Chinese companies. The gap is not great. At most, it is also 2 percentage points. For Samsung with quarterly shipments of 74 million units, the gap between these two percentage points (100-2 million mobile phones) is also a breeze. In other words, in the eyes of Samsung, this gap is probably not the difference. However, other people attach great importance to Samsung, there are reports that Samsung Electronics Vice President Li Zaijun will go to Beijing, and Samsung China senior executives held an emergency meeting to discuss measures to suppress domestic smart phone manufacturers to save Samsung's share of the Chinese market. In contrast, our vendors are still struggling with who is the first and even complacent.

Since we are talking about market share, we may wish to look to the global market. Some may claim that it has long been known that we will compare Chinese manufacturers to global markets and Samsung. Is this comparable and fair?

Of course, because we are currently the first manufacturer in certain Chinese markets, without exception, will regard overseas markets as their new growth point in the future. Since this is the case, we must naturally look at the global market, otherwise it is unfair or even meaningless.

According to IDC's statistics, in the first quarter, Samsung occupied 25.2% of the global smartphone share, and the third and fourth-ranked Chinese companies Huawei (6.9%) and Lenovo (5.4%) together accounted for 12.3% of the market share. Half of Samsung. Even the market share of Chinese manufacturers that have not been included in the statistics (because of low market share) but claim to have entered overseas markets (such as ZTE and Coolpad) is at best half the Samsung market share. Of course, this is our Lenovo and Huawei acquired in the high-growth quarters of overseas markets (mainly emerging markets) (whether or not we can continue to maintain, and even increase the number is unknown. This is necessary, after all, compared to the base of ours. It is too low. As for the single vendor and Samsung, the gap is even more pronounced. From the point of view of Chinese manufacturers going global, we are far from surpassing, and even the degree of challenge has not been reached.

The next thing we have to say is revenue and profits. Do not want to say more, just quote the relevant statistics, in the past quarter, even if Samsung's profits fell by 24%, but it and Apple still accounted for 104% of global smartphone profits. What we want to focus on is whether the first quarter (mainly beyond Samsung) in the Chinese market indicates that we have begun to lead the innovation and development of the smartphone industry.

It is clear in the industry that the smart phone industry has developed into a bottleneck for innovation today. Apple, represented by innovation, does so, as does Samsung, which controls the industrial chain. So how do the Chinese manufacturers who have no core technology at all major links in the smartphone industry chain (such as chips, displays, cameras, flash memory, and materials) lead the development of the smartphone industry? As industry analysts say, the smart phone industry has a high degree of similarity with the traditional PC industry, and it has already entered the stage of competing supply chain capacity and scale.

Here, some people may question whether it is not very contradictory that Chinese manufacturers are not using Samsung beyond the scale (at least in the Chinese market). This is where the crux and potential threats lie.

According to the size of Samsung's smartphones and the self-sufficiency of some of its industrial chains, it is reasonable to say that Samsung should lead in terms of scale. How can it not increase and decrease? The media attributed it to the cost-effectiveness of Chinese mobile phone manufacturers, and from the perspective of Samsung, it is unwilling to sacrifice profit margins, especially in the low-end models that are fiercely competitive and occupy the main force in the Chinese market. That is, Samsung’s previous strategy was to maximize the profitability of the low-end market (this was down from 3.9% in its second-quarter shipments, but the overall profit plummeted by 24%). This indicates that Samsung will still be able to obtain shipment growth (optionally strong) at the expense of profit margins. No wonder foreign analysts say that if Samsung pressures to change its pursuit of profitability, Chinese manufacturers with low profit margins and scale savings will be the worst (or further increase the so-called price/performance ratio, sacrifice profit margins, and maintain the market.) Shares increase, either lose market share and maintain profit margins.)

What worries us even more is that when the smart phone industry rarely changes the existing market pattern through innovation, Samsung is already considered to be the market behind the smart phone industry's wearable device market. As of now, it has released five generations of intelligence. Watches and market effects alone say that Samsung's experience gained in the market and its understanding of the market at least through the release of these 5th generation smart watches have laid the foundation for the possible outbreak of growth in the market in the future.

Similarly, following Google and Apple, Samsung recently spent US$200 million to acquire SmartThings, a US company, to enter the smart home sector. Earlier this year, Google acquired Nest and Dropcam. In June, Apple launched the HomeKit application. And these giants' predictions indicate that they have begun to lay out in the next industrial smart home. Compared with the above-mentioned real giants, we have no substantive thinking and actions in the above-mentioned industries that may be new and truly represent innovation opportunities.

We are not denying the progress of Chinese manufacturers in the smart phone industry, but some of the recent mobile phone manufacturers are targeting China's smart phone manufacturers for the first time, and thus believe that they have replaced Samsung to lead the innovation of smart phone industry development. The first is that there is no significant difference in market share. Instead of thinking about how to deal with opponents once they change their strategy? Or where is the opportunity for the next industry more valuable?