This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Samsung's US shipments revealed in Apple court battle
Samsung's US shipments revealed in Apple court battle
(8 days later)
Samsung has sold a total of 21m smartphones to carriers in the US since April 2010 and retailers have taken just 1.4m of the three tablets that Apple claims infringe its intellectual property, according to documents filed on Thursday in the bitter court battle between the two technology giants.
Samsung has sold a total of 21m smartphones to carriers in the US since April 2010 and retailers have taken just 1.4m of the three tablets that Apple claims infringe its intellectual property, according to documents filed on Thursday in the bitter court battle between the two technology giants.
Its highest-profile handset, the Galaxy S2, has shipped a total of 4.1m across four models since its launch in the third quarter of 2011, while the Galaxy Nexus, the showcase phone for Google's Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich" software, saw 512,000 shipments from its launch in October 2011.
Its highest-profile handset, the Galaxy S2, has shipped a total of 4.1m across four models since its launch in the third quarter of 2011, while the Galaxy Nexus, the showcase phone for Google's Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich" software, saw 512,000 shipments from its launch in October 2011.
The figures will be embarrassing for Samsung, which has repeatedly declined to put figures on its shipments or sales of smartphones or tablets since early 2011, preferring instead only to give revenue figures.
The figures will be embarrassing for Samsung, which has repeatedly declined to put figures on its shipments or sales of smartphones or tablets since early 2011, preferring instead only to give revenue figures.
The court-ordered disclosures by Samsung's lawyers show its breakdown for shipments to carriers and retailers – though not end-user sales or levels of returns – for devices that Apple claims infringe a number of its US patents or bear so much cosmetic, rather than functional, resemblance that they infringe its "trade dress".
The court-ordered disclosures by Samsung's lawyers show its breakdown for shipments to carriers and retailers – though not end-user sales or levels of returns – for devices that Apple claims infringe a number of its US patents or bear so much cosmetic, rather than functional, resemblance that they infringe its "trade dress".
By contrast, Apple's documents show that it shipped a total of 85.9m iPhones, 46.5m iPod Touches and 34m iPads since 2007 in the US. For the comparative period with Samsung's, it shipped a total of 34m iPads, 62.8m iPhones and 25.3m iPod Touches.
By contrast, Apple's documents show that it shipped a total of 85.9m iPhones, 46.5m iPod Touches and 34m iPads since 2007 in the US. For the comparative period with Samsung's, it shipped a total of 34m iPads, 62.8m iPhones and 25.3m iPod Touches.
The figures do not appear to show how many Samsung devices were returned from carriers or retailers because they did not sell. But it is known that a number of the Galaxy Tab tablets were returned by customers, following a study by Samsung which was entered into evidence earlier this week which studied why customers at Best Buy had returned their purchases.
The figures do not appear to show how many Samsung devices were returned from carriers or retailers because they did not sell. But it is known that a number of the Galaxy Tab tablets were returned by customers, following a study by Samsung which was entered into evidence earlier this week which studied why customers at Best Buy had returned their purchases.
Apple, by contrast, has struggled to fulfill customer demand, suggesting that sell-through of shipments to end users is essentially 100%.
Apple, by contrast, has struggled to fulfill customer demand, suggesting that sell-through of shipments to end users is essentially 100%.
The spreadsheets show, in great detail, how Samsung's business has fared in the US, and the slim margins that retailers and carriers take on the tablets and phones.
The spreadsheets show, in great detail, how Samsung's business has fared in the US, and the slim margins that retailers and carriers take on the tablets and phones.
Because the figures show the revenues that Samsung collects from the purchases by carriers and retailers, they indicate the gap between the wholesale and retail prices.
Because the figures show the revenues that Samsung collects from the purchases by carriers and retailers, they indicate the gap between the wholesale and retail prices.
For the Galaxy Tab, the average wholesale price (AWP) was $448 (£287), on a device which retailed for $499 upwards. On the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the AWP was $405 for a device which retailed at $499 upwards.
For the Galaxy Tab, the average wholesale price (AWP) was $448 (£287), on a device which retailed for $499 upwards. On the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the AWP was $405 for a device which retailed at $499 upwards.
The 4G/LTE version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 saw lower shipments, though a much higher AWP of $637.
The 4G/LTE version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 saw lower shipments, though a much higher AWP of $637.
The Galaxy Note "phablet", which has a 5in screen and is classed as a tablet by some analysts, does not appear in either set of data because it is not the subject of any complaint by Apple in this case.
The Galaxy Note "phablet", which has a 5in screen and is classed as a tablet by some analysts, does not appear in either set of data because it is not the subject of any complaint by Apple in this case.
The dramatic difference between the Samsung tablet shipments, and those for Apple's iPad, bear out the suggestion that the US company has dominated the tablet market since introducing the iPad in April 2010 – but also raise the question of why it is so desperate to crush a company whose products sell so poorly in comparison.
The dramatic difference between the Samsung tablet shipments, and those for Apple's iPad, bear out the suggestion that the US company has dominated the tablet market since introducing the iPad in April 2010 – but also raise the question of why it is so desperate to crush a company whose products sell so poorly in comparison.
On the phone side, although the flagship Galaxy S2 has been the focus of much of Samsung's advertising and of media coverage, and the Galaxy Nexus drew attention because it was the showcase for Android 4.0, the figures show that it is Samsung's Epic 4G phone, released in the third quarter of 2010 and still on sale, which has seen the most shipments – 1.9m.
On the phone side, although the flagship Galaxy S2 has been the focus of much of Samsung's advertising and of media coverage, and the Galaxy Nexus drew attention because it was the showcase for Android 4.0, the figures show that it is Samsung's Epic 4G phone, released in the third quarter of 2010 and still on sale, which has seen the most shipments – 1.9m.
According to AllThingsD, which first publicised the documents – released under the US Pacer court system – a number of other companies have petitioned the court to keep parts of the relevant information under wraps, including Ericsson, BlackBerry-maker RIM, Nokia and Microsoft.
According to AllThingsD, which first publicised the documents – released under the US Pacer court system – a number of other companies have petitioned the court to keep parts of the relevant information under wraps, including Ericsson, BlackBerry-maker RIM, Nokia and Microsoft.
The Reuters news agency is disputing that, saying that information used in the court should be made available to the wider public.
The Reuters news agency is disputing that, saying that information used in the court should be made available to the wider public.
The trial resumes on Friday in San Jose.
The trial resumes on Friday in San Jose.
Comments
121 comments, displaying first
10 August 2012 8:21AM
Apple obviously do everything first and want to take credit for doing everything first. Well, everything except child labour but everything else, *they* did first.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 8:26AM
@Charles Saw the original comment in All Things D and your comments are useful addition in transparency. Good question of Apple's intent. I believe the answer is not backward looking but forward looking. Apple fears Samsung going forward more than in the past. Probably knows Samsung has some awesome product in the pipeline. Regarding your final comment about transparency, I hope Reuters is successful in its petition to the court, esp about revealing the details of Microsoft licensing agreements with Android vendors.
For clarity, I wonder if your comment about Apple numbers for the comparable period are correct? You say:
"For the comparative period with Samsung's, it shipped a total of 34m iPads, 62.8m iPhones and 25.3m iPod Touches."
Is the comparable period from Q 3 2011. If so, I am not sure the numbers are accurate? Did I misread your comparison?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 8:49AM
I will never buy any apple related software or hardware after a compulsory apple quicktime upgrade destroyed my laptop once. fuck apple.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 8:55AM
Errr, Samsung... ban... USA. Does that ring a bell Charles? You don't mention it, yet you have reported it before.
Smiles.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 8:58AM
Is it really that surprising for US only numbers? After all it is Apples best market. In the days when Nokia was at its peak it had struggled in the US aswell I believe.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 9:02AM
Nice irrelevant headline. "Only" some numberof phones. Oh but that's the cherry picked specific time period to make Samsung look worse. And it compares Apple's entire sales against only Samsung's "infringing" sales. How many phones did Apple sell in 2005?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 9:09AM
What's the difference between Apple's AWP and retail price? My guess is its less. They famously screw the telcos.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 9:18AM
@dredger
Don't panic. The low sales numbers actually look quite good, as they counter Apple's claim they have made big losses due to Samsung's "slavishly copied models". Releasing these numbers won't do Apple a favour ;) Maybe judge Koh will set the final amount to $2.5 instead of $2.5b.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 9:33AM
Phablet?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 9:37AM
A PHone mixed with a tABLET ...
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 10:08AM
So, Apple's been really damaged by Samsung then? And I suppose, that those that bought the S2 were short sighted and thought they were actually buying an iPhone, hey?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 10:21AM
I find this line very interesting "following a study by Samsung which was entered into evidence earlier this week..."
Why is the judge allowing this evidence when it denied the evidence (which Samsung later released to the press) that showed this whole case is ridiculous and unnecessary.
The US patent and legal system in general is just becoming a laughing stock.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 11:41AM
I think we all know that Sammy's tablets haven't sold well so far, and their smartphone dominance is more telling in Europe and Asia: americans buy Apple (american), not so many europeans buy Nokia, so Europe and Asia would be the best places for Samsung to infiltrate and get market share and gain the lead, which they now have http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/apple-owns-us-smartphone-market-while-samsung-dominates-worldwide/
as rquick says above, the lack of sales proves that Apple haven't heavily lost out in the US.
another point: I can tell the difference between a Samsung and an iPhone almost any way you look at it. A lot of Apples sales are done through brand loyalty so people won't buy it unless it's got an Apple logo on the back.
anyway off out to buy something big and white (a touch chavvy but what the hey) with a 4.8 inch screen and it's not an Apple - thanks to everyone who gave me advice on smartphones, the s3 seems the best all-rounder right now and according to GSMarena I may squeeze out two days of battery life as well. I was going down the n9/lumia route but for the first time my head has been turned by the filth of Android.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 11:44AM
yep, sounds like abuse of a dominant position (in the US at least) - maybe a competition claim ought to be filed once they start falling from grace?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:00PM
Is there nothing the desperate apple-haters will try to spin?
These Samsung figures are, on any basis, pathetic....just pathetic.
Apple in this case, fights for the future....our future.
A future where we use fluid, beautifully engineered, adaptive, life-enhancing tech. Not the shabby, fragemented, clunky 'me too' pale imitation of one man's genius.
Steve crushed them all, not because he was a bully or a greedy man, but because he knew, he knew what we needed, even before we did. His loss is felt daily, worldwide, but that which he left us is a reminder, every time we congress with the marvellous world of ios (the heart and soul) and the supreme tech (its' corporeal form).
Spin how you will, the figures and facts seak a clarion message to the world. One man had a dream, and He gifted the fantastical wonderland of that dream to all of us.
Look away if you can't stand the blinding light of His vision, but do not insult the intelligence of those of us, and there are many, who know why our lives are better.
Many have tried to best apple. Who has succeeded?
Anyone?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:04PM
@kingsize
To quote another commenter earlier in another thread
HanDoJin
10 August 2012 10:09AM
Christ, pass the sick bucket.
The "life enhancing tech" did it for me.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:16PM
I never know whether Kingsize is trolling or being a retard ?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:22PM
He's someone's idea of a joke, you can confidently ignore him :)
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:25PM
I'm not being funny, but I've only just noticed that's not an iPhone in the pic above. I've only glanced at it a few times when reloading this page for the brilliant bile below the line, and just this second spotted the Home button is square.
Guys, that particular device looks more blatantly like an iPhone 3G/3GS than any other smartphone by any other manufacturer you care to mention. I don't think anybody made a phone that looked so similar at a glance to an iPhone. It always was a blatant attempt to cash in, that model.
In my opinion, of course. But our opinions don't matter really; it's the jury that has to be convinced.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:32PM
"Errr, Samsung... ban... USA. Does that ring a bell Charles?"
Apple applied for many bans on Samsung products but the only one that appears to have been implemented - and was quickly lifted - was on the Galaxy Nexus, in July, which is after the period covered by these figures.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:38PM
I thought it was an SGS2 but that's probably due to me owning one.
Anyhoo, Samsung are stupid, they don't need to copy Apple as they have plenty of good stuff banging around and I have to say the S2 is a darned good phone (Without TouchWiz - i've put a custom ROM on mine - beacause you can). Trying to convince the missus to get the S3 for her upgrade so that I can play with it, but she wants a new iPhone. What's a boy to do?!
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:38PM
"Why is the judge allowing this evidence when it denied the evidence (which Samsung later released to the press) that showed this whole case is ridiculous and unnecessary."
Because, if you were following the trial, Samsung's lawyer, John Quinn, brought it up in court thus allowing Apple to quote from it.
To be honest it is looking more and more like Samsung's legal team are aiming for a mistrial (Allowing a lawyer who was not registered to practice in that court to deliver material, for example) to allow Samsung to continue their KIRFing ways.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:41PM
Anyway, going back to what I was saying earlier in the week about needing more than just two factor authentication.
probably. I own iPhones so that's what I saw at first as I skipped over it and the caption. I really think the resemblance is uncanny.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:43PM
In the case of a mistrial can the accusing party not just re-file? It's not as if they can't afford to. Not a lawyer, see...
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:47PM
I went directly to the PDF, because the way Charles Arthur reports the numbers, he does not compare like with like. For instance, he compares 4.1 million total US sales of Galaxy S II phones (from Q2 2011 to Q2 2012) with the 85 million total US sales of iPhones (from Q2 2007 to Q2 2012 -- a much longer period). The comparison is both misleading and irrelevant, and seems mainly to have been done because the author wants to convince himself that Samsung is not really a very successful smartphone maker. The correct and relevant comparison in the matter of phone sales should be the 21 millioin allegedly infringing phones that Galaxy sold between Q2 2010 and Q2 2012 versus the 60 million iPhones that Apple sold in the same period -- three times as many.
For tablets, the correct comparison should cover the sales period from Q3 2010 to Q2 2012, during which Samsung sold 1.4 million allegedly infringing tablets (Galaxy Tab, Tab 10.1 and Tab 10.1 LTE) in the US, and Apple sold 31.7 million tablets -- 22 more than times as many.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:55PM
I think Horace's image makes the point more clearly:
twitpic.com/ahlss3
Samsung aren't doing very well in America.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 12:59PM
@Charles
The article mentions "since April 2010" and since "Q2 2011" here and there. Maybe I overlooked the "up to" bit?
There is currently still a ban on the Tab 10.1 (since June)
Also, Samsung has to deal with name recognition, which explains lower sales. After all Apple is almost a household name in the US since the 70's. Samsung's sales numbers are shooting up lately, which I think shows that people start to recognise the brand as a good alternative to iPhone's. The free publicity they get via the court-case, will certainly help people to connect "Samsung" to "smartphone". They should thank Apple for that.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 1:05PM
you are clearly a troll, I bet you use two yoghurt pots to order more burgers from your mum up in the kitchen ;) Anyway since you asked
I'm not being funny, but I've only just noticed that's not an iPhone in the pic above. I've only glanced at it a few times when reloading this page for the brilliant bile below the line, and just this second spotted the Home button is square.
Guys, that particular device looks more blatantly like an iPhone 3G/3GS than any other smartphone by any other manufacturer you care to mention. I don't think anybody made a phone that looked so similar at a glance to an iPhone. It always was a blatant attempt to cash in, that model.
I've owned a 3G/3GS, and when I saw that picture I immediately thought "oh that's one of those old Samsung phones". The huge 'SAMSUNG' logo at the top of the device is a bit of clue, as well as the rectangular home button and less rounded edges.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 1:11PM
PDF here: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1286669/Apple_v_Samsung_US_sales_numbers.pdf
BTW, has anyone seen the phones that Apple are alleging infringe its IP? Apple's main charges are of trade dress and trademark infringement, but beyond being touchscreen phones, most of them don't look at all like an iPhone. Examples:
Apple are casting their net ridiculously wide. Wild optimism, or PR stunt?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 1:12PM
Perhaps Samsung could not get enough kiddies in to make them fast enough?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19185771
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 1:12PM
I take the point that the front of the samsung above "kinda" looks like the front of the iPhone 3GS HOWEVER there are two clear distinguishing factors in that the button is more clearly laid out and bigger. ALSO there is a frickin big samsung logo at the top, just in case there was any doubt.
Similarly if I HID the Sony logo on my flatscreen telly at home, it would probably look exactly the same as a similar-sized LG, Samsung, Grundig (if they still exist - must check Argos). However the Samsung logo is not hidden it is quite prominently on display on the phone displayed above. That's how I know it's not an Apple, because I bothered to read one word.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 1:15PM
Ha you beat me to the punch there - good points!
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 1:18PM
I have to say, after reading that some people had mistakenly purchased a Samsung phone rather than an iPhone, I thought 'hmmmm, what a twat you would have to be to not see the word at the top of the phone'
I know the case goes deeper than the black rectangle, but for god's sake, the sammy is much bigger and has the company name displayed quite prominently on the front.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 1:24PM
Samsung aren't doing very well in America.
They're doing a lot better than Charles Arthur would have readers believe. Also, they're doing a lot better in Apple's home territory than Apple are doing in Samsung's home territory (where Samsung's share is about 70% and the iPhone is virtually non-existent).
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 1:44PM
I'm not being funny, but I've only just noticed that's not an iPhone in the pic above. I've only glanced at it a few times when reloading this page for the brilliant bile below the line, and just this second spotted the Home button is square.
Obviously, you weren't paying attention to the image. When people aren't paying attention, they tend to see what they expect to see, instead of what's there, even when what's there is obviously different from what they expect. (Google "selective attention" and "invisible gorilla" to see dramatic demonstrations of how strong this effect is.) If you were in a shop buying a phone, you would certainly notice the differences, and very quickly, too. Apple's "trade dress" claim is totally implausible.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 2:03PM
must have made you cry
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 2:04PM
Obviously, you weren't paying attention to the image.
Obviously you didn't read the bit where I said I glanced over it several times reloading the page and just took it in as an iPhone (because of the size, shape, metallic shiny edge, button at the bottom, vaguely similar chrome on the media player).
I'm just saying that at a glance that phone looks more deliberately like an iPhone than any other smartphone ever made.
I didn't read the rest; I was just saying what my opinion of the look of that device is, but it's the jury who needs to be convinced by Apple's argument, which goes a lot further than the external appearance.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 2:05PM
However the Samsung logo is not hidden it is quite prominently on display on the phone displayed above. That's how I know it's not an Apple, because I bothered to read one word.
Samsung are grateful you are not their lawyer coz that defence sucks.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 2:08PM
I thought I'd stumbled into the Accountancy section of the The Guardian until I saw Charles Arthurs' name at the top.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 2:36PM
"I went directly to the PDF, because the way Charles Arthur reports the numbers, he does not compare like with like."
From the story: "For the comparative period with Samsung's, [Apple] shipped a total of 34m iPads, 62.8m iPhones and 25.3m iPod Touches."
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 2:47PM
no I'm just your average joe - however me and millions of 5 year olds across the globe are still better at playing spot the difference than you
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 3:07PM
5.7m ipads sold in Q2 in the US vs 37k Samsung tablets.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 3:12PM
actually why don't Sammy just get 12 random 5-year olds to walk into Court and explain to the highly paid lawyers what the difference is? it would be a great publicity stunt if nothing else. I'd be embarrassed if that happened to me and I was bringing a patent claim.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 3:12PM
as an iphone owner of almost 4 years i still reckon they're about the best phones out there. but the more and more i read, the more i think that apple is an stinking turd of a company. I just don't think i could bring myself to buy another product from them, in much the same way i could never vote conservative. I'd just feel too damn dirty.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 3:14PM
Regardless what All Things D say, I thought the comparable period was from Q3 2011 to Q2 2012, in which case the numbers for iPhones, iPads, and iPods are incorrect and overstated. Or did you mean a different period of time?
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 4:17PM
I'm not using ATD's calculations. I calculated them myself from the tables. Why do you think the "comparable period" would be from Q3 2011? Apple filed its suit well before that.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 4:19PM
I hear you
Its why I could never buy a product from a company involved in child labour allegations
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 4:23PM
I'm just saying that at a glance that phone looks more deliberately like an iPhone than any other smartphone ever made.
Looking similar at a glance is not enough. Lots of products look similar to one another at a glance. To infringe trade dress and be liable for damages, the similarity has to deceive customers into buying a product while mistaking it for a rival product, or do some similar sort of harm to the rival product. This has not been demonstrated -- certainly not by the test you are applying.
Link to this comment:
10 August 2012 4:29PM
RogueSaucer 10 August 2012 4:19PM
Its why I could never buy a product from a company involved in child labour allegations
So, no electronics for you then. I hope you typed that message on a computer at work.....
Link to this comment:
Comments on this page are now closed.
Turn autoplay off
Turn autoplay on
Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
Edition: UK
About us
Today's paper
Subscribe
Just 1.4m Galaxy Tab and related devices shipped since the middle of 2010, and 4.1m Galaxy S2 phones, while iPhone and iPad rocketed, documents show
Samsung has sold a total of 21m smartphones to carriers in the US since April 2010 and retailers have taken just 1.4m of the three tablets that Apple claims infringe its intellectual property, according to documents filed on Thursday in the bitter court battle between the two technology giants.
Its highest-profile handset, the Galaxy S2, has shipped a total of 4.1m across four models since its launch in the third quarter of 2011, while the Galaxy Nexus, the showcase phone for Google's Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich" software, saw 512,000 shipments from its launch in October 2011.
The figures will be embarrassing for Samsung, which has repeatedly declined to put figures on its shipments or sales of smartphones or tablets since early 2011, preferring instead only to give revenue figures.
The court-ordered disclosures by Samsung's lawyers show its breakdown for shipments to carriers and retailers – though not end-user sales or levels of returns – for devices that Apple claims infringe a number of its US patents or bear so much cosmetic, rather than functional, resemblance that they infringe its "trade dress".
By contrast, Apple's documents show that it shipped a total of 85.9m iPhones, 46.5m iPod Touches and 34m iPads since 2007 in the US. For the comparative period with Samsung's, it shipped a total of 34m iPads, 62.8m iPhones and 25.3m iPod Touches.
The figures do not appear to show how many Samsung devices were returned from carriers or retailers because they did not sell. But it is known that a number of the Galaxy Tab tablets were returned by customers, following a study by Samsung which was entered into evidence earlier this week which studied why customers at Best Buy had returned their purchases.
Apple, by contrast, has struggled to fulfill customer demand, suggesting that sell-through of shipments to end users is essentially 100%.
The spreadsheets show, in great detail, how Samsung's business has fared in the US, and the slim margins that retailers and carriers take on the tablets and phones.
Because the figures show the revenues that Samsung collects from the purchases by carriers and retailers, they indicate the gap between the wholesale and retail prices.
For the Galaxy Tab, the average wholesale price (AWP) was $448 (£287), on a device which retailed for $499 upwards. On the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the AWP was $405 for a device which retailed at $499 upwards.
The 4G/LTE version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 saw lower shipments, though a much higher AWP of $637.
The Galaxy Note "phablet", which has a 5in screen and is classed as a tablet by some analysts, does not appear in either set of data because it is not the subject of any complaint by Apple in this case.
The dramatic difference between the Samsung tablet shipments, and those for Apple's iPad, bear out the suggestion that the US company has dominated the tablet market since introducing the iPad in April 2010 – but also raise the question of why it is so desperate to crush a company whose products sell so poorly in comparison.
On the phone side, although the flagship Galaxy S2 has been the focus of much of Samsung's advertising and of media coverage, and the Galaxy Nexus drew attention because it was the showcase for Android 4.0, the figures show that it is Samsung's Epic 4G phone, released in the third quarter of 2010 and still on sale, which has seen the most shipments – 1.9m.
According to AllThingsD, which first publicised the documents – released under the US Pacer court system – a number of other companies have petitioned the court to keep parts of the relevant information under wraps, including Ericsson, BlackBerry-maker RIM, Nokia and Microsoft.
The Reuters news agency is disputing that, saying that information used in the court should be made available to the wider public.
