Domestic mobile phone to get rid of Samsung Apple will get lost?

Samsung released its financial report for the second quarter of 2014 showing that operating profit, which accounts for more than half of Samsung’s mobile phone business, fell 30% to 4.42 trillion won (approximately RMB 26.52 billion). This is the lowest quarterly profit for the Samsung mobile phone business since the second quarter of 2012 (4.13 trillion won, about RMB 24.78 billion). This also directly dragged Samsung's overall profit down by 25%.

At the same time, data from Strategy Analytics shows that in the global mobile phone market in the second quarter of 2014, Samsung and Apple still ranked first and second in shipments, while China’s Huawei, Lenovo, and Xiaomi received third and fourth respectively. Five. Compared to the first quarter, Samsung’s market share dropped from 32.6% to 25.2%, Apple’s share dropped from 13.4% to 11.9%, Huawei’s rose 2 points, Lenovo rose 0.6 points, and millet rose from 1.8% to 5.1%.

Obviously, Chinese mobile phone companies have begun to swiftly erode the market share of Samsung and Apple. There are several points behind this set of data changes that are worth thinking about:

First, when the low price does not mean low quality, the brand is dead?

At present, Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, Xiaomi and other domestic mobile phones are no longer just synonymous with low prices, which is totally different from the prevalence of functional machines in 2004. At that time, domestic mobile phones were synonymous with low prices and low quality. Now the old mobile phone companies such as Huawei, Lenovo, ZTE, Meizu, OPPPO, and Coolpad are all starting to adopt the fine mobile phone strategy. Even positioning “fans” is the best. The "design" of millet began to perform art on a steel plate.

Moreover, the gap between the work of these fine mobile phones and international brands such as Samsung has been greatly reduced, and the same configuration price is 1/2 of Samsung. When low prices are no longer equal to low quality, Chinese consumers without brand loyalty begin to return to rationality, commodities begin to show their most essential use value, and the brand's premium ability becomes very fragile.

Second, efficiency and cost reduction brought about by e-commerce, buying, and social marketing.

Driven by Xiaomi, mobile phone companies such as Huawei and ZTE have embarked on the road of e-commerce, buying, and social marketing. This has greatly increased the efficiency of commodity circulation, accelerated the speed of payment, eliminated the middleman links, and drastically Reduced overall marketing costs, inventory costs, logistics costs, so that mobile phone companies more focused on product development and marketing, and production, sales, logistics, distribution all to a professional company to complete. The “buy” model has made it possible for all companies to dream up their orders and zero inventory.

However, multinational mobile phone giants such as Samsung and HTC still rely on the power of operators and traditional channels to sell in China. This undoubtedly has no advantage in terms of cost control, product turnover efficiency, and capital flow efficiency. The direct result is that it cannot participate in prices. War, can only hand over the market to domestic mobile phone companies.

Third, after the monopoly of the horizontally integrated supply chain disappeared.

Samsung once had the most complete supply chain system in the world, including horizontal integration of supply chain advantages such as screen, CPU, memery, and circuit design. This also allows Samsung to compete with Apple in many patented technologies, but this manufacturing advantage is gradually disappearing.

With the maturation and expansion of technology in Taiwan's Japanese screen, domestic integrated circuits, chip manufacturing, and Taiwanese and mainland OEM companies, the manufacturing advantages brought about by Samsung's supply chain advantages are disappearing, and Chinese companies can no longer be subject to Samsung's raw material supply. Can also quickly create low-cost high-quality mobile phones, which also led to the decline of Samsung mobile phones. In addition, on the software side, Chinese companies’ learning and micro-innovation skills are also stronger than those of Japan and South Korea. Based on native Android-optimized MIUI, emotionUI, Flyme, and other systems, they all have excellent experiences. At the same time, they are all building an iOS-like platform. Ecosystem and continuous efforts. Samsung is still confined to mobile phone hardware manufacturing, and its Tizen system phone is still in its infancy.

Another underlying reason behind this may be the Chinese government’s subsidies and incentives for ICs, chip design, and software R&D, and China’s accumulated experience and talent base in software OEMs, all of which allow Chinese companies to be appropriately At the time point, it is easy to realize a curve overtaking.

Fourth, is model innovation and technological innovation a sign of a new turning point?

If Nokia's death is due to lack of a good grasp of smart phone opportunities, there is no rapid and thorough self-revolution and transformation. But this does not mean that Nokia does not have a proud patented technology, Nokia is still relying on royalties to obtain profits, and Microsoft is also looking at this point.

Kodak's death is not due to Kodak's lack of technological innovation. Kodak is the inventor of digital cameras. Kodak has a lot of proud patented technology, but Kodak has not taken the inevitable trend of digital cameras must be low prices, because everyone wants to have A digital camera, but Japanese companies have seen this opportunity.

At present, the rapid rise of domestic mobile phones in the era of smart phones depends not on technological innovation but on “model innovation” which encompasses product R&D model, management model, sales model, marketing model, pricing model, and even the future profit model ( From the profitability of hardware to the low profit of hardware and the profitability of value-added services, great innovations have been made. However, these innovations are not related to technological innovation. The cost is far lower than the cost of technological innovation, but it has harvested a huge market.

Therefore, we have been very much in agreement with whether the “technical innovations” that praise the company's fate are correct. Chinese companies are using technology from Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia and other global technology companies to produce their products. However, they rely on low-cost "model innovations" to overturn these giants. This should be worth thinking about because it contains a The arrival of the “new turning point” in the development of enterprises is different from the turning point of “technical innovation” when the functional machine is replaced by a smart machine.

However, there is a serious fallacy in this. If there are no “technological innovation” companies such as Samsung, Apple, and Microsoft, how will Chinese companies design the next generation of products? How do you know the future direction of the product? If the leader is dead, who will continue to lead the way? This is related to the future of the entire industry! This article has only given an introduction to this topic. Welcome everyone to express their opinions.