7.5 million gap: who is the King of China's domestic mobile phone sales? Huawei cell phone, phone shipments-IT information

A few days ago, as the global authority on market research agency IDC for 2016 global Smartphone shipments in the first quarter statistics released, found, had been among the top 5 Chinese mobile phone manufacturer millet and Lenovo were replaced with two other Chinese handset makers OPPO and VIVO, this industry began to write home about, even pattern of change between the discussion of domestic mobile phone manufacturers. Wait a minute, because in addition to IDC, but we know market statistical agencies, such as TrendForce, Counterpoint Research, HIS also has released the report, while we pore over, especially after the statistics comparing different statistical agencies, which confused many.

First look at Huawei's statistics. IDC, and TrendForce, and CounterpointResearch, HIS given its shipments in the first quarter of this year was 27.5 million, 27 million, 28.4 million and 28.392 million Department. The gap between the highest and lowest statistics for 1.4 million (28.4 million minus lowest of the highest Counterpoint Research TrendForce. 27 million). It is important to note, because of the Counterpoint of statistical Research is mainly based on actual sales, widely considered to be the most in the industry objectively reflect the real performance of manufacturers in the market. And from HIS first quarter is based on the actual sales data as the basis for statistical, and the final statistics and statistics only 8,000 of the CounterpointResearch (calculated in accordance with sales of 28 million, the error is only 2.9 per thousand), we can consider from the point of view of actual sales, at least two statistics company is consistent.

And according to shipping volume calculation of IDC and TrendForce both statistics of errors for 500,000, errors rate for 1.85%, despite this two home company according to same index (are is shipping volume) of statistics errors to great Yu Counterpoint Research and HIS according to same standard (are is actual sales), but 1.85% still in can allows of errors within , so can think from shipping volume statistics of angle, IDC and TrendForce are basically the same.

But doubts that followed were arguably shipments should be greater than actual sales, and why IDC and TrendForce according to shipment statistics but less than Counterpoint Research and HIS actual sales figures on that? We calculate this gap maximum at about 1.4 million. Does the IDC and TrendForce in artificially Huawei handset shipments? Or a Counterpoint and HIS Research overstate actual sales of Huawei phone? In any case, 4 Statistics Agency for Huawei cell phone has a minimum value of 27 million in the first quarter, meaning that Huawei, the world's third place is undisputed.

Again in the first quarter instead of millet and associate of OPPO and VIVO. According to the IDC statistics, OPPO and VIVO 18.5 million and 14.3 million shipments respectively in the first quarter. And when we went to see shipped statistics with IDC to standard TrendForce statistics, he found that a considerable gap. TrendForce reports, OPPO and VIVO shipments to 11 million in the first quarter of this year, shipments and IDC statistical difference between 7.5 million and 3.3 million, respectively. If said both zhiqian in for Huawei phone shipping volume of statistics of 1.85% of errors is in errors range within words, to has on OPPO and VIVO of statistics, both of errors rate was up to 41% and 23%, is they for Huawei phone statistics errors rate of 22 times times and 12 times times, apparently far beyond has errors of category, so let we doubts of is, what is IDC overestimated also is TrendForce underestimated has OPPO and VIVO of shipping volume? Maximum gap of 7.5 million shipments has not, after all, the difference, it may cause the final ranking results qualitative change.

In support of IDC and TrendForce for the OPPO or VIVO shipments statistics more reliable, we introduced the standard CounterpointResearch to the actual sales and HIS statistics, OPPO CounterpointResearch statistics of actual sales to 13.3 million units, in VIVO does not appear in the statistics (that is, actual sales in VIVO certainly lower than the 13.3 million), To calculation convenient, we this assumes that VIVO of sales equivalent Yu OPPO of 13.3 million Department, so actual sales and shipping volume of gap in 1 million Department, due to IDC is according to shipping volume of statistics, so and actual sales 1 million Department of gap should in reasonable of category (for example unwanted in channel, and points pin business at, reasons), at least and Qian said of 3.3 million Department of gap compared. This reasonable of course is based on refers to the actual sales Counterpoint Research and assumes that VIVO maximum sales on the basis of.

In that case, Counterpoint Research Statistics for other manufacturers will have to introduce and to consider, such as millet in its actual sales statistics for 14.5 million, is beyond the IDC for VIVO 14.3 million shipments statistics Coupled with HIS released of 14.8 million Department millet phone of actual sales and and IDC as to shipping volume for standard of TrendForce for millet and Lenovo shipping respectively for 16 million Department and 17 million Department of these data, 4 Home Statistics company in the, has 3 home statistics of (millet, and Lenovo) or shipping volume or actual sales are over has IDC for VIVO 14.3 million Department of statistics, this had to let we produced doubts, Whether the IDC in their statistics artificially Association and shipments of millet, so much so that it does not appear in the list of top 5.

As for the OPPO, as we already mentioned, in the same shipment as the standard in the IDC and TrendForce statistics, a difference of up to 7.5 million. For this reason, we as in VIVO analysis, likewise arrests the standard Counterpoint to the actual sales of Research and statistics, and by Counterpoint Research Statistics, OPPO sold 13.3 million in the first quarter, with IDC for OPPO shipments compared to 18.5 million, statistics from the Ministry, a difference of 5.2 million units. Although this gap and IDC and TrendForce compared to the 7.5 million gap has narrowed, but 5.2 million still occupy the IDC for shipments of the OPPO1850 28%.

It is worth mentioning that, in Counterpoint in Research sales statistics, millet for 14.5 million, more than 13.3 million of the OPPO. In other words, if really reflect the actual market sales, millet would rank in front of the OPPO. What we wonder is why actual sales, OPPO and millet compared with 1.2 million difference, how to follow when shipments, millet 4.2 million ahead of OPPO instead? So there are only two explanations: an IDC is exaggerating the OPPO's shipments, also possible that OPPO is unwanted, and unwanted is not low. But as it is, if an exaggerated OPPO IDC sales, how much exaggerated?

Shipments because, according to TrendForce statistics, while Lenovo's shipments of 17 million units, and sales OPPO IDC statistics only 1.5 million of the gap. At this point, there is also a factor to consider is that since last year, IDC statistics: OPPO and VIVO only about 5 million of the gap in shipments for the year (OPPO shipped 50 million units shipped 45 million VIVO), and by the first quarter of this year, two-quarter gap reached 4.2 million, this is how likely? Here we would like to use another to deduce if IDC exaggerated OPPO shipments, exaggerating how much? Because this will most likely affect the TrendForce's 16 million and 17 million units of millet and Lenovo's rankings.

Above, we think, given 4 home industry are well-known of market statistics company has released of 2016 first quarter global intelligent phone shipping volume or actual sales of statistics, its maximum of statistics gap was in 307.5 million Department around, according to statistics probability, if 300,000 Department and are is tens of sales compared, also is errors words, so 7.5 million Department, this digital has accounted for to China 5 big wisdom expert machine manufacturers Dang quarter shipping volume minimum 26% (And Huawei 28 million Department compared) and highest 68% around (and VIVO of 11 million Department compared) of proportion , had to let we on market survey company for this quarter China Qian 5 big (which has 3 big into global intelligent phone ranking Qian 5) of Huawei, and OPPO, and VIVO, and millet and Lenovo of shipping volume and actual sales statistics of objectivity and authenticity produced doubts, what who in bias who? Who's suppressing whom? We hope that the relevant market statistics company, including related businesses to come forward to give the industry a scientific and rational explanation, because it could affect not only manufacturers the final ranking, and more importantly, when the industry was still as a reference and decision-making when the loss of objectivity and impartiality will be fatal.

750万部的差距：谁才是中国本土手机销量之王？ - 华为手机,小米手机,出货量 - IT资讯

日前，随着全球权威市场调研机构IDC对于2016年第一季度全球智能手机市场出货量统计的出炉，业内发现，之前一直在前5之列的中国手机厂商小米和联想被另外两家中国手机厂商OPPO和VIVO取代，对此业内开始大书特书，甚至讨论起国内手机厂商间的格局之变。且慢，因为除了IDC外，我们知道另外的市场统计机构，例如TrendForce、Counterpoint Research、HIS等也先后发布了相关的报告，而我们仔细研读，尤其是用不同统计机构的统计数字横向比较之后，发现其中是疑惑重重。

首先看对于华为的统计。IDC、TrendForce、CounterpointResearch、HIS给出的其今年第一季度的出货量分别是2750万部、2700万部、2840万部和2839.2万部。其中最高和最低统计之间的差距为140万部（即最高的Counterpoint Research 的2840万减去最低的TrendForce的2700万）。需要说明的是，由于Counterpoint Research的统计主要是依据实际销量，所以普遍被业内认为是最能客观反映厂商在市场中真实表现的。而从HIS第一季度也是按照实际销售数据作为统计根据，且其最终的统计与CounterpointResearch的统计仅差了8000部（按照2800万销量计算，误差仅为千分之2.9），我们可以认为从实际销量的角度，至少有两家统计公司是保持一致的。

而按照出货量计算的IDC和TrendForce二者统计的误差为50万，误差率为1.85%，尽管这两家公司按照同一指标（均是出货量）的统计误差要远大于Counterpoint Research和HIS按照同一标准（均是实际销量），但1.85%依然在可允许的误差之内，所以可以认为从出货量统计的角度，IDC和TrendForce应是基本一致的。

但随之而来的疑惑是，按理说出货量应该大于实际销量，为何IDC和TrendForce按照出货量的统计反而小于Counterpoint Research和HIS按照实际销量的统计呢？我们计算了一下，这种差距最大值在140万左右。莫非是IDC和TrendForce在刻意压低华为手机的出货量？亦或是Counterpoint Research和HIS夸大华为手机的实际销量？不管怎样，4家统计机构对于华为手机第一季度的最低值为2700万，也就是说华为全球第三的位置是无可争议的。

再看在第一季度替代小米和联想的OPPO及VIVO。按照IDC的统计，OPPO和VIVO第一季度的出货量分别为1850万和1430万。而当我们去看与IDC一样以出货量为统计标准的TrendForce的统计，就发现了相当大的差距。即TrendForce的报告显示，OPPO和VIVO今年第一季度的出货量均为1100万，出货量与IDC的统计竟然分别相差750万部和330万部。如果说二者之前在对于华为手机出货量的统计的1.85%的误差尚在误差范围内的话，到了对OPPO和VIVO的统计，二者的误差率竟然高达41%和23%，是它们对于华为手机统计误差率的22倍和12倍，显然远远超出了误差的范畴，那么让我们疑惑的是，究竟是IDC高估还是TrendForce低估了OPPO和VIVO的出货量？毕竟最大750万部出货量的差距已然不是量的差异，它还可能会导致最终排名结果质的变化。

为了佐证IDC和TrendForce对于OPPO和VIVO的出货量统计谁更靠谱，我们引入以实际销量为标准的CounterpointResearch和HIS的统计，其中CounterpointResearch统计的OPPO的实际销量为1330万部，VIVO并未出现在此统计中（也就是说VIVO的实际销量肯定低于1330万部），为了计算方便，我们在此假定VIVO的销量等同于OPPO的1330万部，那么实际销量与出货量的差距在100万部，由于IDC是按照出货量的统计，所以与实际销量100万部的差距应该在合理的范畴（例如压货在渠道、分销商处等原因），至少与前述的330万部的差距相比。当然这个合理是建立在参照了Counterpoint Research的实际销量，且是假设VIVO最大销量基础上的。

既然如此，Counterpoint Research对于其他厂商的统计就不得不引入和考虑，例如小米在其统计中的实际销量为1450万部，已经超出了IDC对于VIVO的1430万出货量的统计，加之HIS发布的1480万部小米手机的实际销量以及与IDC一样以出货量为标准的TrendForce对于小米和联想出货分别为1600万部和1700万部的这些数据，4家统计公司中，有3家统计的（小米、联想）或出货量或实际销量均超过了IDC对于VIVO 1430万部的统计，这不得不让我们产生疑惑，即IDC是否在其统计中刻意压低联想和小米的出货量，以至于其没有出现在排名前5的榜单中。

至于OPPO，前面我们已经提到，在同样以出货量为标准的IDC和TrendForce的统计中，二者相差竟然达到了750万部。为此，我们与分析VIVO一样，同样引人以实际销量为标准的Counterpoint Research的统计，而按照Counterpoint Research的统计，第一季度OPPO的销量为1330万部，与IDC对于OPPO出货量1850万部的统计相比，二者相差520万部。虽然这个差距和IDC与TrendForce的750万部的差距相比有所缩小，但520万部依旧占据了IDC对于OPPO1850万部出货量的28%。

值得一提的是，在Counterpoint Research的销量统计中，小米为1450万部，超过了OPPO的1330万部。也就是说，如果按照真正反映实际市场表现的销售量，小米应排在OPPO的前面。那么我们疑惑的是，为何在实际销量中，OPPO与小米相比还相差120万部，怎么到了按照出货量计算时，OPPO反而领先了小米420万部？那么只有两种解释：一种就是IDC夸大了OPPO的出货量，还有一种可能就是OPPO有压货，且压货的比例不低。但随之而来的是，如果是IDC夸大OPPO的销量，究竟夸大了多少？

因为按照TrendForce的出货量统计，当季联想的出货量在1700万部，与IDC统计的OPPO的销量只有150万部的差距。在此，还有一个要考虑的因素是，从去年全年看，IDC的统计显示：OPPO与VIVO全年出货量的差距仅在500万部左右（OPPO出货量为5000万部，VIVO出货量为4500万部），而到了今年的第一季度，二者季度的差距就达到了420万部，这种可能性有多大？这里我们是想借助另外一个比较来推断如果IDC夸大OPPO的出货量，到底夸大了多少？因为这极可能会影响到TrendForce统计的1600万部和1700万部的小米和联想的排名。

综上所述，我们认为，鉴于4家业内均知名的市场统计公司已发布的2016年第一季度全球智能手机出货量或实际销量的统计，其最大的统计差距竟然在30—750万部左右，按照统计概率，如果30万部与均是千万级销量相比，还是误差的话，那么750万部，这个数字已经占到中国5大智能手机厂商当季出货量最低26%（与华为2800万部相比）和最高68%左右（与VIVO的1100万部相比）的比例，不得不让我们对市场调查公司对于本季度中国前5大（其中有3大进入全球智能手机排名前5）的华为、OPPO、VIVO、小米和联想的出货量和实际销量统计的客观性和真实性产生疑惑，究竟谁在偏袒谁？谁又在打压谁？我们希望相关市场统计公司，包括相关的企业能够站出来给业内一个科学及合理的解释，因为这影响的可能不仅是厂商最后的排名，更重要的是，当业内依旧以此作为参考和决策的时候，客观性和公正性的丧失将是致命的。