By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Samsung crushes Sony. Look at the numbers.

Grimes on 07 July 2010
Jo21 said:
Grimes said:
BBH said:

I think both images are different. I see Samsung as being seen as 'Quality, popular, good value for money' wheras Sony imo are seen as 'luxury.'

Interesting figures here though, basically disproves a lot of stuff in this thread. I don't think Samsung rising over Sony has as much to do with Sony losing market dominance as you may think.

Before Recession - Samsung Revenue = $80B

After Recession - Samsung Revenue = $170B

The recession was one key to Samsungs huge success nowadays.


Look at Apple, they have the 'luxury' products and they are quite successful. There are plenty of people willing to buy goods perceived at quality regardless of a recession.


apple success its due marketing. not because they make the best product, sony walkman mp3 player battery life, sound quality, noise cancelation are way ahead of apple offers.

and USA buys apple products regarless the quality, look at iphone 4 sales and it doesnt even work well as a phone, with is flawed antenna and low reception

Marketing is important to the success of a company. It not just about advertising, but creating products with specific features that people can relate to. People care less about sound quality than ease of use for example.

I don't even own an iPhone and probably won't. However I know plenty of people who do own one and it works great for them. Seems like the antenna is a correctable problem and it isn't like Sony has never made a flawed product, for example exploding batteries.



Anyone can guess. It takes no effort to throw out lots of predictions and have some of them be correct. You are not and wiser or better for having your guesses be right. Even a blind man can hit the bullseye.

Around the Network
Xbbjf9s on 07 July 2010
Grimes said:
Jo21 said:
Grimes said:
BBH said:

I think both images are different. I see Samsung as being seen as 'Quality, popular, good value for money' wheras Sony imo are seen as 'luxury.'

Interesting figures here though, basically disproves a lot of stuff in this thread. I don't think Samsung rising over Sony has as much to do with Sony losing market dominance as you may think.

Before Recession - Samsung Revenue = $80B

After Recession - Samsung Revenue = $170B

The recession was one key to Samsungs huge success nowadays.


Look at Apple, they have the 'luxury' products and they are quite successful. There are plenty of people willing to buy goods perceived at quality regardless of a recession.


apple success its due marketing. not because they make the best product, sony walkman mp3 player battery life, sound quality, noise cancelation are way ahead of apple offers.

and USA buys apple products regarless the quality, look at iphone 4 sales and it doesnt even work well as a phone, with is flawed antenna and low reception

Marketing is important to the success of a company. It not just about advertising, but creating products with specific features that people can relate to. People care less about sound quality than ease of use for example.

I don't even own an iPhone and probably won't. However I know plenty of people who do own one and it works great for them. Seems like the antenna is a correctable problem and it isn't like Sony has never made a flawed product, for example exploding batteries.

Well for a walkman or a phone i think that would be important, I used to sell phones and the most common question was "how is sound when someone is talking to you". Also I can tell first hand..iphones are shit, droids from htc are alot better.



Alby_da_Wolf on 07 July 2010

Early LCD screens had a too narrow viewing angle and slow response time, but Sony underestimated the speed of their evolution and stuck too long to its old Trinitron CRTs, that's what damaged it most, it was less timely than competitors in that very significant technology change.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


shinyuhadouken on 07 July 2010

sony tvs are usually the most expensive. 

what do they expect?



Not a 360 fanboy, just a PS3 fanboy hater that likes putting them in their place ^.^

ZenfoldorVGI on 07 July 2010
snfr said:

Doesn't surprise me so much, because prices for Sony TVs are usually much higher than for Samsung/Toshiba/LG/... TVs. So people rather buy cheaper TVs, because the mainstream doesn't see why they should buy a Sony one.

I had to buy a new TV two years ago because my old one broke, but I didn't have enough money for a Sony one, so I bought a Toshiba. Would be interesting to see how Toshiba is doing.


Also, of note, according to most reviewers, Samsung actually makes better TVs than Sony at comparable price points. In particular, the LN52B750 line of LCD is far superior to the equivelant Sony model in every category. Even at the low end you'll also find a broader selection, and significantly higher user review and critical acclaim for Sammy or Panasonic.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Around the Network
andremop on 07 July 2010

Better question... why Sony TVs are expensive? Does anyone know?



ZenfoldorVGI on 07 July 2010

Also, it absolutely rediculious to think Samsung is seen as a "bargin" TV or a "good value for the money" that is complete bullshit. Samsung is usually as expensive as Sony, AND they make better televisions at the high end. Samsung is discussed and seen on every internet forum including AVS as a top tier TV, and a "most expensive" TV as well. Samsung is top of the line, and Sony is no better, and I would argue far worse in average PQ, and top tier PQ as well, amonst their high end sets. Samsung is prone to clouding to speak generally, but Sony is famous for their flashlighting effects on their LCDs. The LN52B750 makes this argument moot however, as it is a better LCD than anything I've seen from Sony, and it's a steal at around 2000 dollars. PQ and black levels  in a LCD that will make you shit.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

ZenfoldorVGI on 07 July 2010
andremop said:

Better question... why Sony TVs are expensive? Does anyone know?


They sure as hell aren't any better than the Samsung, or Pannys and they are usually a lot worse, so quality sure as hell ain't it. It must be because they know people will buy it because of the brand.

And it's that type of thinking that is allowing Samsung to totally lolown them.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

wholikeswood on 07 July 2010
jarrod said:
wholikeswood said:
jarrod said:
tingyu said:

- SCE has so many studios under its belt: Japan Studio, Media Molecule, Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, Santa Monica, to name a few. Sony has the largest number of high quality first party game studios in the big 3, although not as profitable as Nintendo (Pokemon Studio overkill any of the Studio mentioned before).

Sucker Punch is 3rd party.  

Also, while Sony has the most studios (barely I might add, just one more than Nintendo), Nintendo actually has a similar amount of staff within it's studios (EAD is HUGE, with near 800 people and 6 sub-divisions, bigger than Sony's largest 2 studios put together).  They're about the same size overall, while Microsoft employs probably about half as many people at it's game development studios (though Microsoft's been expanding rapidly in recent years).

Sucker Punch are 2nd party, surely?

And Microsoft have closed down almost as much as they've expanded...

2nd party is a made up term.  Nintendo created it to "explain" their relationship with Rare in the mid 1990s.  All studios are either 1st party (internal and/or owned) or 3rd party (external and not owned).

Microsoft did do a lot of closing from 2006-2008.  They've been slowly building up since then, and not just with new studios like 343 or Good Science, but also expanding established studios like Rare and Turn 10.

Still a useful bit of terminology, even if it did come about later as a means of verbalising a special concept.

And as for Microsoft expanding studios, Turn 10 are still just going to pump out a Forza title every so often and Rare still haven't released or announced anything particularly brilliant (hopefully the latter's promised surprises are not a let-down), so forgive me for my lack of excitement thus far at recent staff additions to those workforces.



DirtyP2002 on 07 July 2010
wholikeswood said:
jarrod said:
wholikeswood said:
jarrod said:
tingyu said:

- SCE has so many studios under its belt: Japan Studio, Media Molecule, Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, Santa Monica, to name a few. Sony has the largest number of high quality first party game studios in the big 3, although not as profitable as Nintendo (Pokemon Studio overkill any of the Studio mentioned before).

Sucker Punch is 3rd party.  

Also, while Sony has the most studios (barely I might add, just one more than Nintendo), Nintendo actually has a similar amount of staff within it's studios (EAD is HUGE, with near 800 people and 6 sub-divisions, bigger than Sony's largest 2 studios put together).  They're about the same size overall, while Microsoft employs probably about half as many people at it's game development studios (though Microsoft's been expanding rapidly in recent years).

Sucker Punch are 2nd party, surely?

And Microsoft have closed down almost as much as they've expanded...

2nd party is a made up term.  Nintendo created it to "explain" their relationship with Rare in the mid 1990s.  All studios are either 1st party (internal and/or owned) or 3rd party (external and not owned).

Microsoft did do a lot of closing from 2006-2008.  They've been slowly building up since then, and not just with new studios like 343 or Good Science, but also expanding established studios like Rare and Turn 10.

Still a useful bit of terminology, even if it did come about later as a means of verbalising a special concept.

And as for Microsoft expanding studios, Turn 10 are still just going to pump out a Forza title every so often and Rare still haven't released or announced anything particularly brilliant (hopefully the latter's promised surprises are not a let-down), so forgive me for my lack of excitement thus far at recent staff additions to those workforces.

so you haven't played Kameo then?

Go pick it up. It is brilliant.



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...