Confidential Apple, Samsung sales figures outed in court filing

Confidential Apple, Samsung sales figures outed in court filing

Summary: Despite Apple and Samsung's pleas to keep sensitive data private, the judge overseeing the design patent spat releases a whole wealth of valuable, broken-down data relating to the two companies' sales.

TOPICS: Apple, Legal, Patents, Samsung

You see these numbers? Apple didn't want you to see them, and certainly didn't want Samsung finding out exactly how many iPhones, iPads and iPod touch devices were sold since their initial launch. 

The Apple v. Samsung ding-dong continues as the two technology supergiants battle it out in court. But the two companies continue to see their private information released in spectacularly fine detail -- such as yesterday's court filing [PDF] -- in which Apple's iOS sales figures are paraded to the press like it's a 18th century witch trial.

In total, Apple sold more than 85.9 million iPhones in the U.S. since its launch in Q2 2007 up to Q2 2012. (Since the iPod touch was released at the same time as the original iPhone, Apple sold 46.5 million devices making more than $10.2 billion.) 

Apple made around $50.7 billion in revenue from the smartphones. Since the iPad launched in Q2 2010, Apple sold 32 million iPads in the U.S., totaling more than $19 billion in revenue. 

Samsung didn't escape the public spectacle, however. All in all, 24 Samsung smartphones -- including three Galaxy tablets -- had their sales figures released since their launch in late-2010 and early-2011. 

Because Samsung's smartphone base is wider, the table is naturally larger, but didn't scrimp on the details. According to the filing, the Galaxy S II Epic (4G Touch) was sold to 1.67 million customers, raking in $764 million in revenue since its mid-2011 launch, while the original Epic 4G brought in close to 1.9 million devices at a total revenue of $855 million. 

Samsung sold 21.2 million smartphones in 1H 2012 [PDF], bringing in more than $7.5 billion in revenue.

Considering the Galaxy Tab products are under the spotlight of the court, the figures show exactly how well (or not, as the case appears to be) how poorly the tablets are selling.

For example, the original Galaxy Tab sold more than 725,000 times and brought in $325 million, whereas Samsung sold only 585,000 Galaxy Tab 10.1 devices. On top of that, the 4G LTE version of the tablet only managed to bring in $81 million in revenue from 127,000 devices sold.

In total, Samsung sold only 1.4 million tablets, dwarfed by Apple's iPad figures. It probably goes without saying, Apple remains at the top of the tablet market share with around 60 percent share, according to pretty much any analyst and research firm available. 

The trial resumes later today.

Topics: Apple, Legal, Patents, Samsung

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • IE9

    The Samsung tablet sales are very low in the US.
    They probably do better in the Asian markets
    • Not believable.

      The fact that Samsung has filed several misleading documents makes me think the company is lying again.

      The company is shrinking U.S. sales figures to avoid big damages in case it loses to Apple.
      roger that
  • The More Figures Get Released ...

    ... the more it becomes clear that Apple is being "hurt", not by others "stealing" its ideas, but by its own inability to keep up with a fast-changing market.
    • Really?

      They still sell like hotcakes and when the iPhone 5 comes out no doubt it will sell like hotcakes too.

      And, yes Samsung did copy/borrow/design like Apple.
  • What about the injunctions?

    Surely Apple's anti-competitive policy of getting injunctions on Samsung's devices (which stop them from being sold) had NOTHING to do wit the Tab not selling many units. Pffft.
    • Yeah, what about them?

      @NKX, you're the only person remotely suggesting that the injunctions have anything to do with the poor sales of the Tab. So Pffft yourself.
  • The Samsung copycat

    The damage that Samsung did was not only to Apple, but to the entire tablet industry.

    Many of the people who purchased and then returned the Galaxy tablets did so, because they believed (and the "spec", design, packaging, ads etc) convinced them that "this thing is the same if not better than the iPad".

    Those people never tried an actually iPad to see for themselves what an well designed tablet is like.

    Many of those people will surely continue to think that tablets are junk and "toys" and will surely tell everybody else that "first hand opinion".
    • returns?

      danbi, what percentage of Galaxy tablets have been returned? Please provide a link to your source. Thank you.
      • john- you must be one of those lazy arse Windoze users.

        Look it up yourself. Don't make others do your work for you.
        • Meaning...

          ...he doesn't know either, but someone he trusts said so, so it must be true.
          John L. Ries
        • It was looked up, but was found not to exist

          which is likely why the source is being asked for.

          We're not lazy.
          You're just lying.
          milo ducillo
    • Missing the point

      Whilst it is obvious that you have worn your Apple pants, t-shirt and probably are reading through Steve Jobs autobiography for the 3rd time, thinking how best to put up a shrine in his holy memory...
      ... it doesn't change the fact that if tablets really were products with a real long term application, then more of them would sell across the market.
      These one sided sales, in a market that should be maturing, indicate that this must be a transitional or fad product, otherwise the market would be bigger for all players. For instance, like the old Sony Walkman... market leading but after a year or two, other players would still have had a significantly bigger piece of the pie.
      Irrespective of whether a pad is made by Apple or a.n.other manufacturer, like it or not Apple fans, they all pretty much have similar functionality or application simply with a different operating system.
      I think what is revealing from these iPad sales, simply by the fact that they are so skewed to Apple, would indicate that the sales are likely coming mainly from people locked in to the Apple vertically integrated model, rather than the wider market. i.e. non Apple advocates can't still quite see what the point of an iPad is if you already have a mobile phone or another type of internet interface. Everyone else is buying the cheaper option of an E-reader for the pad's only other real functionality.
      What would be really revealing would be to know the usage statistics of iPads. Are they in constant use or are they just another Nintendo Wii, that people have bought, think they are great, but probably won't buy again, unless they are individuals with high disposable incomes or get their employers to buy them for them?
      • No one wants a drill. They want holes.

        Your note depends on consumers viewing the product they are buying to be a hardware device, i.e. a tablet computer. Too many product managers at too many companies made that same mistake, leading to massive overbuilds, $100-a-unit fire sales, and so on.

        According to this mistake, the reason that a Hot Box bristling with gigahertz and megaslots sat on the shelf until it got shipped off to be the Woot Of The Day is that the world is populated by mindless Apple Zombies who just didn't appreciate all the GPU cycles and APIs the YoyoDyne 600 had.

        Truly understanding what people think they're buying is always trickier than that. In the case of the iPad, there isn't just a hardware device. There was an OS that -- in Microsoft's terms -- was "fast and fluid" as a consequence of being polished for years on phones, plus an app and content store that had also been polished for years in the music player market. The iPad success was all those things, plus the sort of slick industrial design Apple always brings to its wares, plus a $100-million-plus advertising campaign to make sure that people knew and understood what the "product" was. And it was NOT a hardware device. It was pictures and music and books and movies and painting and composing. No gigahertz, no ports, no space pods that will engulf you if you buy one.

        When The Other Guys came out with boxes full of gigahertz, not even space pods could sell them.
        Robert Hahn
      • You are very very wrong on this one point...

        "they all pretty much have similar functionality or application simply with a different operating system."

        That is, pretty much, close to a lie, fabrication or a dream as you can get.
    • I invented the rectangle shape of phones, computers and laptops

      Right, because any boob is able to see that Star Trek must have pilfered through Steve's brain and stole the idea for the tablet as well as a flip top "Phone". To suggest that Apple innovates anything is a slap in the face. They just do a better job of marketing to idiots.
      • Or marketing to peke who know what

        They want and don't settle:)

        Pagan jim
        James Quinn
        • Oops meant people so wish they brought back edit.

          Pagan jim
          James Quinn
      • uhhhh....

        last I read a product had to exist. Star trek pads were fiction. iPad is non-fiction. get it?
      • boob

        ((( "Right, because any boob is able to see that Star Trek must have pilfered through Steve's brain and stole the idea for the tablet as well as a flip top 'Phone'." )))

        The fictional USS Enterprise also has a warp drive propulsion system that enables it to travel faster than the speed of light. If SpaceX were to reveal a rocket with a warp drive, would you similarly pooh-pooh their invention as a "slap in the face" to the concept of innovation?
  • 32 million iPads? I'm so underwhelmed.

    Here is the number one tablet in the world, with 32 million iPads sold, and, the tech experts and tech bloggers are trying to convince the world that, the post-PC era has arrived? The profits that Apple makes and the single company sales may look good statistically, but, tablets don't really look so promising, judging by the sales of more than 2 years. And, if the company getting the vast majority of the tablets sales wasn't called Apple, with its cult-like following, chances are that, tablets sales would not be anywhere near that 32 million.

    Smartphones are a different matter, but, they are even more limited in what people can do with them, and they, for certain, cannot be called a "post-PC" device, since, they can't replace a PC in any way, shape, or form. So, the only device which might possess PC-like features is the tablet, but, sales haven't really been overwhelming, so, the post-PC mantra is, pure crap.