三星為何在中國失敗了？(2)

Anonymous
After the THAAD controversey back in 2016~2017, the Chinese government basically put a de facto ban on South Korean business and culture in China.
This was economic punishment on Korean companies for the Korean government “hurting the feelings of Chinese.”

在2016年至2017年的薩德爭議之后，中國基本上對韓國在中國的商業(yè)和文化實(shí)施了事實(shí)上的禁令。
這是對韓國公司的經(jīng)濟(jì)懲罰，因?yàn)轫n國政府“傷害了中國人的感情”。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Samsung, Hyundai, LG, etc. were all impacted. In particular Lotte was forced to close their stores and sell their business to Chinese “partner” affiliated with the com...st Party for basically a few cents on the dollar. Lotte wrote off 9 billion USD and basically exited China in 2017.
Kpop and Korean dramas which had a huge following in China before 2017 were also banned and the ban is still in place today in 2021. That is why you dont see any Korean cultural content in China anymore.

三星、現(xiàn)代、LG等都受到了沖擊，尤其是樂天被迫關(guān)閉門店，以基本上幾美分的價格將其業(yè)務(wù)出售給與政府有關(guān)聯(lián)的中國“合作伙伴”，樂天核銷了90億美元并于2017年基本退出了中國。
2017年之前在中國擁有大量粉絲的Kpop和韓劇也被禁播，該禁令至今仍在實(shí)施，這就是為什么你在中國看不到任何韓國文化內(nèi)容的原因。

===========
Dante Wong
, APAC Risk Analyst, UX Writer, and Narrative Designer，Lives in Dublin, Ireland2020–present
Asking whether it’s too late for Samsung to “get into” the Chinese market and then asking what Samsung can do to “get their foot in the door” in regard to the Chinese smartphone market…
These questions come across as very, very strange.
Why?
Because the assumption underlying both these questions is that Samsung has never been in the Chinese market.
Which is plain wrong.

問三星“進(jìn)入”中國市場是否為時已晚，然后問三星如何才能在中國智能手機(jī)市場“站穩(wěn)腳跟”…
這些問題讓人覺得非常奇怪。
為什么？
因?yàn)檫@兩個問題背后的假設(shè)是，三星從未進(jìn)入過中國市場。
這顯然是錯誤的。

Samsung was actually an early entrant into the Chinese smartphone market.
Their phones took off quite well and Samsung enjoyed early success.
However, I remember that around 2014 or so, their shares started dropping precipitously.
Why?

三星實(shí)際上是中國智能手機(jī)市場的早期進(jìn)入者。
他們的手機(jī)很受歡迎，三星也很早就取得了成功。
然而，我記得在2014年左右，他們的市場份額開始急劇下跌。
為什么？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

They were slow, lumbering, culturally tone-deaf and because of that, they simply could not compete with Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo, Huawei, and Apple.
Xiomi started selling smartphones online instead of in physical stores and thus were able to sell phones for much lower prices - Samsung did not react.
Oppo and Vivo focused on capturing the rural areas and lower tier cities - Samsung’s top brass were largely Korean ex-pats… Samsung did not have the relationships or distribution points to go toe-to-toe with Oppo and Vivo in the Chinese countryside. To put it another way, the Korean top brass at Samsung had little idea of the realities of rural China.

因?yàn)樗麄冃袆舆t緩，笨手笨腳，在文化上聽不見任何聲音，正因?yàn)槿绱?，他們根本無法與小米、Oppo、VIVO、華為和蘋果競爭。
小米開始在網(wǎng)上而不是實(shí)體店銷售智能手機(jī)，因此他們能夠以更低的價格銷售手機(jī)——三星沒有做出反應(yīng)。
Oppo和VIVO專注于占領(lǐng)農(nóng)村地區(qū)和二線城市——而三星的高層大多是韓國人……三星在中國農(nóng)村沒有與Oppo和VIVO正面交鋒的關(guān)系或分銷點(diǎn)。換句話說，三星的韓國高層對中國農(nóng)村的現(xiàn)實(shí)一無所知。

Apple signed its first major carrier deal in China in 2013, which gave it great distribution, and of course, its first big iPhone - the big screen was a hit with Chinese smartphone consumers.
Hawei released the Mate 7, their first extremely competitive flagship phone.
In stark contrast, Galaxy S5, Samsung’s flagship, was … not good. (Google it)
So, Samsung started losing the premium segment to Apple and Huawei.

2013年，蘋果在中國簽署了第一份大型運(yùn)營商協(xié)議，這讓它獲得了巨大的分銷渠道，當(dāng)然，它的第一部大屏幕iPhone也受到了中國智能手機(jī)消費(fèi)者的歡迎。
華為發(fā)布了第一款極具競爭力的旗艦手機(jī)Mate 7。
與之形成鮮明對比的是，三星的旗艦產(chǎn)品Galaxy S5……并不好。（你可以去谷歌搜）
因此，三星開始將高端市場輸給蘋果和華為。

There were some other culturally tone-deaf blunders.
But Samsung’s worst blunder in China must surely be how it handled the Note 7 crisis.
You should remember the Note 7.
The phone that had, er, fire issues.
Samsung tried to manage this, on a worldwide scale, by calling for a global product recall.
But for whatever reason, Samsung decided that Chinese Note 7s would be exempt from the recall.
Obviously, the outrage from Chinese customers was swift and very vocal.
Eventually, Samsung gave in and recalled the Chinese Note 7s as well - but they never recovered from the reputational damage caused by their bizarre handling of the Chinese Note 7 recall.

還有一些跨文化的錯誤。
但三星在中國最嚴(yán)重的錯誤肯定是它如何處理Note 7危機(jī)。
你應(yīng)該記住Note 7。
那個手機(jī)有，呃，火災(zāi)問題。
三星試圖通過呼吁全球召回產(chǎn)品來在全球范圍內(nèi)解決這一問題。
但無論出于何種原因，三星決定將中國的Note 7 排除在召回范圍之外。
顯然，中國顧客的憤怒是迅速而強(qiáng)烈的。
最終，三星做出了讓步，也召回了中國的Note 7，但他們從未從對中國Note 7召回的怪異處理所造成的聲譽(yù)損害中恢復(fù)過來。

By 2018, Samsung had become irrelevant in the Chinese smartphone market.
In 2019, Samsung closed its last smartphone manufacturing plant in China.
In 2021, Samsung’s market share in the Chinese smartphone market was 0.6%.
In short, Samsung is very likely never getting back into the Chinese smartphone market.
[Below: Picture of a Samsung mobile phone store in Shanghai in 2013]

到2018年，三星在中國智能手機(jī)市場已變得無關(guān)緊要。
2019年，三星關(guān)閉了在中國的最后一家智能手機(jī)制造廠。
2021年，三星在中國智能手機(jī)市場的市場份額為0.6%。
簡而言之，三星很可能永遠(yuǎn)不會重返中國智能手機(jī)市場。

Feelix Wee
The Note 7 issue was truly bizzare. It's like Samsung telling Chinese customers that their rights and lives aren't important when the Note decides to become an exploding grenade. Have Samsung ever explained why they initially behaved like this?

他們對Note 7的處理方式真的很奇怪，這就像三星在告訴中國客戶，當(dāng)他們的手機(jī)變成一枚爆炸的手榴彈時，他們的權(quán)利和生命并不重要。三星有沒有解釋過他們最初為什么會這樣做？

Nathaniel
The problem was originally thought to be a faulty battery issue and the Chinese phones used a different battery so they shouldn’t have the issue.
The problem was that it was a design fault. The case was too small so when the battery expanded slightly when charging it rubbed and could explode.
Having a different brand of battery didn’t stop the flaw but it took a few weeks to find this out and Samsung assumed anyone that had a phone explode was faking it since they figured out incorrectly that it was faulty batteries which wouldn’t be an issue in China.

問題最初被認(rèn)為是電池故障，在中國銷售的NOTE 7使用了不同的電池，因此不應(yīng)該出現(xiàn)問題。
問題在于這是一個設(shè)計(jì)錯誤。電池外殼太小，所以當(dāng)充電時電池會稍微膨脹，它會摩擦并可能發(fā)生爆炸。
擁有不同品牌的電池并不能阻止這個缺陷，但三星花了幾周時間才發(fā)現(xiàn)這一點(diǎn)，三星認(rèn)為任何發(fā)生手機(jī)爆炸的人都是在作假，因?yàn)樗麄冨e誤地認(rèn)為這是電池故障，而這在中國不會成為問題。

Feelix Wee
Thank you for your answer. I was a Note 7 user too. Samsung handled the situation far far faster in my country and there's no question or deliberation about type of battery being used or whatnot. It is strange that Samsung values a country with a mere 31 million souls vs that of 1,400 million souls.

謝謝你的回答。我也是Note 7的用戶。在我的國家，三星處理這種情況的速度要快得多，而且對于所使用的電池類型或諸如此類的問題也沒有疑問或考慮。奇怪的是，三星看重的是一個只有3100萬用戶的國家，而不是一個有著14億用戶的國家。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Nathaniel
The issue wasn't the size of the country but that even though the product was the same name it had different materials.
Having a different policy by itself wasn't a mistake. What was a mistake was waiting for so long before issuing a recall.

問題不在于這個國家的大小，而在于盡管產(chǎn)品名稱相同，但使用的材料不同。
擁有不同的售后政策本身并不是一個錯誤，等了這么久才宣布召回才是錯誤。

George
Its because China stole techs and made it on their own. A lot of companies that went to China to do do business had same experiences. Stealing, havking techs. china might be proud that they make decent phones and techs now. But it came from shady stealing and copying and all that stuff. Look whats happening to hawei, all that money putting, they cant even make good chips

這是因?yàn)橹袊鴒o了三星的技術(shù)，并制造了自己的手機(jī)。很多去中國做生意的公司都有同樣的經(jīng)歷。中國人會t東西，搞技術(shù)，中國可能會為他們現(xiàn)在能夠生產(chǎn)出像樣的手機(jī)和技術(shù)而感到自豪，但它來自于陰暗的TQ和CX等等。看看華為發(fā)生了什么，他們花了那么多錢，卻連好的芯片都做不出來。

Altos Chu
On your allegation of theft, if you have evidence/facts/info, please provide info and lixs. Otherwise, baseless slanders and accusation of theft is just another item of disinformation.
Let's dissect your incorrect statements in detail:
1.Huawei can't make good chip: wrong. Hisense division of Huawei have designed world class chips to be manufactured by TSMC for Huawei phones. US then crafted laws and regulations to stop TSMC cold (after putting Huawei on entity list).

關(guān)于你的盜竊指控，如果你有證據(jù)/事實(shí)/信息，請?zhí)峁┬畔⒑玩溄?。否則，毫無根據(jù)的誹謗和盜竊指控只是另一種虛假信息。
讓我們詳細(xì)分析一下你的錯誤陳述：
1. 華為做不好芯片：錯。華為的海思設(shè)計(jì)了由臺積電代工的世界級芯片，但美國隨后制定的法律法規(guī)阻止了臺積電（在將華為列入實(shí)體名單后）。

2. On the other hand, if you mean ‘made’ includes manufacturing of the good chips, then not even Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Dell, HP, Cicso, AMD, Nvidia are doing any IC manufacturing. Only TSMC, Samsung, Intel are in the advanced IC mfr. No companies in China is in this as US blocked the sales of advanced IC mfr equipment (such as ASML lithography machine) to China.

另一方面，如果你說的“制造”的意思包括優(yōu)質(zhì)芯片的制造，那么就連蘋果、亞馬遜、谷歌、微軟、戴爾、惠普、思科、AMD、英偉達(dá)也沒有做任何芯片制造，只有臺積電、三星、英特爾是先進(jìn)的集成電路制造商。在美國阻止向中國銷售先進(jìn)的芯片制造設(shè)備（如ASML光刻機(jī)）的情況下，中國沒有一家公司參與其中。

3. As to the rise of cell phone mfr such aXiaomei...on your allegation of theft, if you have evidence/facts, please provide info and lixs. Otherwise, baseless slander and accusation of theft is just another item of disinformation. If anyone knows how cell phone industry works, one would know that the it has everything to do with the maturation of cell phone industry.Just like PC today, do you think you need to steal anything to assemble a PC? No. even a high school kid can assemble a PC today: get a motherboard with CPU and BIOS and memories, disks, power supply, keyboard and mouse, OS. Voila! Now, more sophiscated mfrs will design their motherboards, but here they get a lot help from Intel/AMD/Nvidia in the form of design spec, reference design, application notes, even application engineers to help and support you. Why? they just want to sell more CPU. Ditto for other IC mfr. As an upstream mfr, you need to provide enough info and support for the downstream mfr. Nothing shady here. No stealing involved. Just normal course of business.

關(guān)于小米等手機(jī)制造商的崛起....關(guān)于你的盜竊指控，如果你有證據(jù)/事實(shí)，請?zhí)峁┬畔⒑玩溄印７駝t，毫無根據(jù)的誹謗和盜竊指控只是另一種虛假信息。如果有人知道手機(jī)產(chǎn)業(yè)是如何運(yùn)作的，他們就會知道它與手機(jī)產(chǎn)業(yè)的成熟度有著千絲萬縷的聯(lián)系。就像今天的個人電腦一樣，你覺得你需要偷東西來組裝個人電腦嗎？不會?，F(xiàn)在，即使是高中生也可以組裝一臺電腦：你只需擁有一塊帶有CPU、BIOS、內(nèi)存、磁盤、電源、鍵盤和鼠標(biāo)、操作系統(tǒng)的主板即可。瞧！現(xiàn)在，更復(fù)雜的制造商將設(shè)計(jì)他們的主板，他們能夠從Intel/AMD/Nvidia獲得了很多幫助，包括設(shè)計(jì)規(guī)范、參考設(shè)計(jì)、應(yīng)用程序說明，甚至應(yīng)用程序工程師來幫助和支持您。為什么？其他IC制造商也一樣，他們只是想賣更多的CPU。作為上游制造商，您需要為下游制造商提供足夠的信息和支持。這里沒什么可疑的，不涉及偷竊，這只是正常的業(yè)務(wù)過程。

Cell phone industry has a similar ecosystem. Qualcomm and Mediatek are the equivalent of Intel/AMD, Android OS to Windows/Linux.All these is product and technical info are shared by the upstream mfr. So companies like Xuaomei started by simply assembling say Qualcomm/Mediatek reference designs initially, with a bit of customization. Then they progress to design more and more around the chip and integrate with different/more cost effective components. The ultimate is to design the CPU/baseband, like Huawei. (Mfr of chip is so specialized, expensive and skill intensive that not even Apple wants to get in).
So…. just normal evolution of cell phones industry. If you want to accuse that stealing were involved, you need to provide credible info.

手機(jī)行業(yè)也有類似的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。高通和聯(lián)發(fā)科相當(dāng)于Intel/AMD，Android操作系統(tǒng)相當(dāng)于Windows/Linux，所有這些都是上游制造商共享的產(chǎn)品和技術(shù)信息。因此，像小米這樣的公司最初只是簡單地組裝高通/聯(lián)發(fā)科參考設(shè)計(jì)，并進(jìn)行一些定制。然后，他們開始越來越多地圍繞芯片進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)，并與不同/更具成本效益的組件集成。最高級的是像華為那樣設(shè)計(jì)CPU/基帶（芯片制造商是如此專業(yè)、昂貴和技術(shù)密集，以至于連蘋果都不想加入）。
所以…這只是手機(jī)行業(yè)的正常發(fā)展，如果你想指控涉及盜竊，你需要提供可信的信息。