{"id":70330,"date":"2026-07-14T01:31:03","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T23:31:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=70330"},"modified":"2026-07-14T01:33:08","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T23:33:08","slug":"storage-crisis-divides-smartphone-market-apple-wins","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/speicherkrise-spaltet-smartphone-markt-apple-gewinnt","title":{"rendered":"Storage crisis divides the smartphone market \u2013 Apple wins"},"content":{"rendered":"

A second market research firm confirms Apple's record quarter, but arrives at a completely different conclusion regarding the overall market situation. More revealing than the discrepancy itself is the explanation behind it: memory chips now account for over 60 percent of the material costs in budget smartphones \u2013 compared to half that amount in premium devices.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following Counterpoint Research's figures, the analysis firm Omdia has now also published its preliminary shipment data for the second quarter of 2026. Both agree on the core finding: Apple achieved a 20 percent market share, marking its strongest second quarter in company history, while Samsung remains in the lead. However, the two firms offer fundamentally different assessments of the overall decline in the smartphone market<\/a> \u2013 and Omdia<\/a> also provides the underlying mechanism that explains Apple's record performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Memory accounts for over 60 percent of the material costs in cheap mobile phones<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The key figure from the Omdia report doesn't concern market share, but rather bills of materials. Memory and flash storage now account for more than 60 percent of total material costs in budget devices. For high-end devices, it's more than 30 percent. Some manufacturers are currently paying four to five times more for memory than they did a year ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Almost everything else follows from this relationship. A $200 smartphone consists largely of precisely the component whose price has skyrocketed\u2014and cannot be made arbitrarily expensive without losing the target audience for which it was designed. A $1,200 device spreads the same cost increase across chip design, camera, display, and profit margin. The crisis is not hitting all manufacturers equally hard, but rather each price segment differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The break-in occurs below $400<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

That's precisely what the data shows. The most significant volume declines are in the mass market below $400 \u2013 where supply bottlenecks are tightest, margins are thinnest, and buyers are most price-sensitive. The result is a polarization that Omdia explicitly describes as severe: The two largest suppliers are growing, while the manufacturers behind them are losing market share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Omdia's calculations, Xiaomi lost four percentage points, more than any other major manufacturer. OPPO dropped two points, and vivo one. All three are heavily invested in the entry-level and mid-range segments \u2013 precisely where storage costs have the greatest impact in percentage terms. The fact that manufacturers are currently shifting their strategy from volume to value creation is the logical reaction: those who are losing money on low-priced devices are removing them from their product lines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two reports, two very different market crashes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

While both companies agree on Apple, they are far apart on everything else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/th>Counterpoint<\/th>Omdia<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Market decline compared to the previous year<\/td>-11 %<\/td>-4 %<\/td><\/tr>
Weakest quarter since<\/td>2013<\/td>Q2 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Samsung<\/td>24 % (out of 20 %)<\/td>22 % (out of 20 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Apple<\/td>20 % (out of 17 %)<\/td>20 % (out of 16 %)<\/td><\/tr>
Xiaomi<\/td>12 % (out of 14 %)<\/td>11 % (out of 15 %)<\/td><\/tr>
OPPO<\/td>11 % (out of 12 %)<\/td>10 % (out of 12 %)<\/td><\/tr>
vivo<\/td>8 % (out of 9 %)<\/td>8 % (out of 9 %)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

An 11 percent decline or a 4 percent decline \u2013 the difference is almost a factor of three. And between "weakest second quarter in 13 years" and "weakest in three years" lies the difference between a historic turning point and a bad season. Both statements were made on the same day and refer to the same quarter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This can be explained by the methodology: Both companies estimate so-called sell-in figures, i.e., deliveries to retailers, and both work with preliminary data. How the gray area below the top 5 is modeled makes a significant difference \u2013 at Omdia, the share of the other manufacturers remains almost constant, while at Counterpoint it falls. For assessing the situation, this means one thing above all: These percentages are estimates with a noticeable margin of error, not precise measurements. The reliable indicator is the trend, not the decimal places.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Apple is winning right now<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Against this backdrop, Apple's record takes on a different meaning. The company sells virtually no devices below $400, meaning it's not present in the very segment that's currently collapsing. Furthermore, there's the issue of negotiating power: companies that purchase memory in large quantities over the long term feel a price spike later and less acutely than manufacturers who have to buy on the spot market at short notice. The fact that, according to sources within the supply chain, Apple itself may have played a role in creating the memory shortage<\/a> fits into this picture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both market researchers emphasize the same point: Apple was the only major provider to keep smartphone prices stable, while its competitors had to pass on the costs. The record share is therefore less the result of exceptional demand than the result of a crisis that is hitting others harder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There's no going back on these prices<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For buyers in German-speaking countries, the most relevant point is contained in a side note: Omdia expects the market to never return to pre-2025 price levels. The increased component costs are not a temporary dip that will simply disappear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple has already taken this step \u2013 just not for the iPhone. At the end of June, the company raised prices for Macs, iPads, Apple TV, HomePod, and Vision Pro<\/a>, while the iPhone remained untouched. Omdia remains to be seen whether this will continue: Whether and to what extent similar price increases will reach the iPhone later in the year is considered an open question. Several reports already point to higher prices<\/a> for the next generation. So, if you're planning on buying a new device this year anyway, the time before autumn isn't the worst time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The toughest quarters are yet to come<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Both companies are bleak in their forecasts, albeit to varying degrees. Omdia expects the sharpest declines in the next two quarters \u2013 when the seasonal peak of new product launches, holiday sales, and shopping festivals coincides with a tight supply of memory. New bottlenecks in chip manufacturing are also expected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A pattern repeating itself across product categories: The laptop market also recently came under pressure, while MacBook prices rose<\/a>. The memory crisis is therefore not just a smartphone problem, but a shift in the cost base for all devices with chips \u2013 and both companies believe it has yet to reach its peak. (Image: Shutterstock \/ Alex Malt)<\/p>\n\n\n\n