currently in the Chinese marketMobile phonesBrand competition is very fierce, and domestic consumers are very interested in domestic productionMobile phonesThere is also a lot of controversy about the ranking. Among the data published by many well-known analytical agencies around the world,GlorywithXiaomiare all mentioned, and there is a big difference in their rankings, which is confusing. This article will be based on a comparison of data from four major institutions,**GlorywithXiaomiRanking controversy in the domestic market, and reflect on whether to pursue the appearance of ranking too much.
1. Counterpoint data - Honor did not enter the top three, and Xiaomi ranked second
According to Counterpoint data, the top seven in the fourth quarter of 2023Mobile phonesThe brands are:ApplesXiaomiHuaweiGloryvivooppo、realme。In this data,:XiaomiCame in second, butGloryOnly ranked fourth. This data is consistent with that of most institutionsApplesThe conclusion of being the first in the world is unanimous, but different views are given on the ranking of domestic aircraft.
At this point, it's worth thinking about whyGloryFailed to make it into the top three in that data? Probably due to counterpoint forGlory's market share, user satisfaction and other indicators have made a high threshold consideration, resulting in a decline in its ranking.
2. IDC data - Glory ranked first in China, and Xiaomi fell out of the top five
According to IDC, in the fourth quarter of 2023ApplesIt still occupies the first place in the domestic marketGloryvivoHuaweioppoThis is a close second. And unlike Counterpoint data,XiaomiBeing excluded from the top five in the IDC data raises concerns about the following:Xiaomiconcern and questioning.
In this data,GloryThe ranking soared to become the first place in the domestic market. It can be speculated that IDC may be good forGloryThe market performance and brand influence are more optimistic, and they are given higher evaluations and rankings.
3. Canalys data - Xiaomi retains fifth, and OPPO enters other rankings
The Canalys data is consistent with the IDC data on the top four rankings, namely:ApplesGloryvivoHuawei。However, the difference in the data lies in the attribution of the fifth place, as shown in the Canalys dataXiaomiRanked fifth, whileoppowill be classified as a different ranking.
Differing interpretations of this data may stem from institutional perceptions ofXiaomiwithoppoDifferent assessments of market share. Canalys will:XiaomiThe influence and competitive strength of the recognition is stronger thanoppo, thus willXiaomiIncluded in the main rankings.
4.BCI Activation Data - The data is similar to Counterpoint, displayedApplesXiaomiHuaweiGloryRanked in the top four.
BCI's activation data is similar to Counterpoint's data, showing the rankings as:ApplesXiaomiHuaweiGlory。However, this data is somewhat different from Counterpoint in the fifth and sixth place rankings, as BCI showsoppoMore thanvivo, while the counterpoint shows that:vivoMore thanoppo
This difference may be due to the agency's interest in the ...oppowithvivoDiffering perceptions of market performance and user recognition have led to different evaluations of the rankings.
By comparing the data of four well-known institutions, we can see:GlorywithXiaomiThe ranking controversy does exist. Glorysometimes ranked second and sometimes fourth in the data of different institutions; XiaomiSometimes it's second, and sometimes it's out of the top five.
In the process of reviewing these data, we can't help but ask, why is there such a big difference in the ranking of domestic machines between institutions? Is it the difference in the acquisition and interpretation of data? Or are there more interests and considerations behind it?
Perhaps it is because of the differences in the data collection methods and evaluation criteria of the institutions, which leads to the differencesMobile phonesDifferent perspectives on brand performance. Or maybe there are various interests behind the organization, which leads to preferences or biases against certain brands.
Faced with different institutions forGlorywithXiaomiDifferent views on rankings, we should be aware that rankings are not measurementMobile phonesThe only criterion for the quality of a brand. In addition to market share and user satisfaction,Mobile phonesThe strength of the brand should also include product research and development capabilities, innovation capabilities, quality and user experience.
GlorywithXiaomiAs a domestic well-knownMobile phonesbrands, they have unique advantages and highlights in product design, technological innovation, user experience, etc. GloryTake the youngFashionableMainstay, focus on the frontierTechnologycombined with the needs of the user, whileXiaomiIt is cost-effective and innovativeSmartphonesKnown.
For consumers, buyingMobile phones, should be more concernedMobile phonesperformance, functionality, and the need for a personal fit, not just a ranking. Everybody forMobile phonesThe needs are different, so you should have an in-depth understanding of the product details before buying to ensure that you choose the best one for youMobile phones
By forGlorywithXiaomiIn the discussion of ranking disputes, we might as well recognize that rankings are just measurementsMobile phonesThe superficial criteria for the pros and cons of the brand, the actual evaluation of oneMobile phonesThe value of a brand needs to be considered in a comprehensive manner. In the purchaseMobile phonesWe should uphold an objective and rational attitude, pay attention to the actual performance of the product and the matching of personal needs, rather than blindly pursuing the ranking of a certain brand. Let's give eachMobile phonesThe brand's efforts and innovation are evaluated fairly to find the most suitable one for themselvesMobile phonesAnd strive.