Consumer Tech

Memory Prices Did What the Note 7 Could Not

Samsung's mobile division lost 0.7 trillion won, its first quarterly loss ever. During the Note 7 recall it still made money. Memory prices did this.

Consumer TechBy Servola Tech Desk2026-07-304 min read

AI-assisted, edited by humans. | Editor-in-Chief: Leon Soliman | Editorial standards

Memory Prices Did What the Note 7 Could Not

Key takeaways

Samsung's mobile division posted an operating loss of 0.7 trillion Korean won, about 510 million dollars, the first quarterly loss in its history, in the same quarter the group's memory business set all-time records. The company that makes the memory could not hold its phone unit above zero, so no buyer further down the chain will negotiate a better component price than Samsung gave itself.
In the third quarter of 2016, with the Galaxy Note 7 recalled and discontinued worldwide, the same division still earned 100 billion won and narrowly avoided its first loss. Memory prices have now done what the worst product recall in smartphone history did not.
Mobile revenue grew year on year on Galaxy S26 and Galaxy A sales while the division's earnings fell under component cost pressure. Samsung absorbed the increase rather than pricing it through, and a division cannot absorb a loss as a policy.
Plan for list-price rises rather than further specification cuts in the second half. Holding a price point and quietly reducing the specification has now visibly failed at the largest scale available, so the next adjustment lands on the invoice. Fix refresh budgets and put the memory configuration in the contract before the next quote.

A threshold the Galaxy Note 7 never crossed

In the third quarter of 2016 Samsung's mobile division sat in the middle of the worst product failure the smartphone industry has produced. The Galaxy Note 7 had been recalled and then discontinued after batteries caught fire, and airlines banned it from cabins. The division's operating income fell about 96 percent year on year, to 100 billion Korean won. It was a humiliation, and it was still a profit.

On 29 July Samsung reported its second quarter of 2026, and the same division, now MX and Networks, posted an operating loss of 0.7 trillion won, roughly 510 million dollars. That is the first quarterly loss in the division's history. Nothing was recalled and no product caught fire. The cause Samsung gives is elevated component costs, and the largest component cost in a modern phone is memory.

The division sold more and earned less

Revenue rose while profit went negative. Samsung reports that mobile revenue grew year on year on solid sales of the Galaxy S26 series and strong momentum across the Galaxy A range, and that earnings still declined under industry-wide component cost pressure. That combination carries a specific meaning. The division did not lose customers, it lost margin. It shipped more phones into a market where the bill of materials rose faster than it was willing to raise prices.

Absorbing the increase is a deliberate choice and it is the one a manufacturer makes to defend share. It is also the choice with a time limit, because a division can carry a squeeze for a quarter or two out of group resources but cannot run at a loss as a policy. Anyone buying phones or managing a fleet should read this loss as notice that the absorbing phase is ending rather than as a single bad quarter.

The same group set memory records in the same quarter

Samsung's problem and Samsung's triumph share one balance sheet. Group revenue reached 171.5 trillion won, up 28 percent on the prior quarter and about 130 percent on the year, and operating profit reached 89.5 trillion won, up roughly 1,814 percent year on year. The Device Solutions division lifted sales 56 percent quarter on quarter, and the memory business set all-time highs for both quarterly revenue and quarterly operating profit. Earnings per share rose 52 percent, to 10,849 won.

The group is therefore not a victim of memory prices. It is the beneficiary. Its phone division buys from its own fabrication plants at an internal transfer price and still could not hold zero, which puts a floor under what everyone outside the company is paying. It also removes any expectation that the supplier relieves the pressure voluntarily, because the same wafer earns more sold as high-bandwidth memory to an AI customer than sold into a handset.

What a device buyer does with a supplier's loss

There is no vendor margin left to negotiate away on the device side. A buyer pressing for a lower unit price is now pressing against a published loss, which is the weakest ground available in a negotiation. The levers that still move are the ones that do not touch the supplier's component cost: contract term, specification, refresh timing and residual value. Ask for the memory configuration in writing rather than a model name, because the same model number has shipped with different capacities through this cycle.

European buyers should price in a second effect. Samsung's disclosure notes that a stronger dollar added roughly 3.1 trillion won to group operating profit, and that is the same currency movement making dollar-denominated components dearer for a euro or sterling budget. A European fleet is paying the component increase and the exchange rate at once, and only one of the two ever appears on a vendor's price list.

Why the market sold a record

Samsung shares fell about 7 percent on the print, and the reason investors gave was not the mobile loss. The result had been widely expected and was already reflected in a share price that ran up beforehand, so attention moved to whether the cycle holds. Morgan Stanley warned that large cloud operators would soon tighten capital spending controls, and Samsung's plan to build a 400 trillion won semiconductor hub in a region without established chipmaking infrastructure drew questions of its own. A record quarter the market reads as a peak is a different signal from one it reads as a trend, and for anyone budgeting device costs into 2027 that distinction is the whole question.

Frequently asked questions

Has Samsung's mobile division ever lost money before?

No. The operating loss of 0.7 trillion won, about 510 million dollars, in the second quarter of 2026 is the first quarterly loss in the division's history. In the third quarter of 2016, during the Galaxy Note 7 recall and discontinuation, it earned 100 billion won and narrowly avoided a loss.

Why did the phone division lose money while Samsung set profit records?

The two sit in different divisions. The memory business, inside Device Solutions, sells into AI data-centre demand at record prices and set all-time highs for quarterly revenue and operating profit. The mobile division buys memory as an input, and Samsung attributes its loss to elevated component costs.

Should a device refresh be delayed until prices fall?

Samsung's own numbers argue against waiting. Its mobile division absorbed the component increase this quarter instead of passing it on, which is not sustainable, so the more likely direction for list prices is up. Fix the refresh budget, specify the memory configuration explicitly, and take the quote that can be had in writing.

Samsung is the strongest available test of whether a device maker can absorb this cycle, because it owns the plant that sets the price. It ran that test this quarter and its phone division came out below zero. Every buyer downstream is negotiating from a worse position than the one that already failed.

SamsungMX DivisionDRAMmemory pricesGalaxydevice budgetscomponent costs

A 14 Percent Crash Will Not Cut Your Memory Bill

Samsung fell 13.4 percent and SK Hynix 14.7 percent on a Chinese lithography tool. That tool makes commodity DRAM, not HBM. What it changes in your memory contract, and when.

6 min read

Capital

A Fourth DRAM Supplier Just Raised 8.6 Billion

CXMT listed in Shanghai on 27 July and rose 470 percent. The debut number is not the one that changes a European memory budget. The 57.92 billion yuan raise is.

5 min read

Law & Regulation

The EA Buyout Now Hinges on Brussels

The largest take-private in history has cleared EA shareholders and US antitrust. The last real gate is the EU - and not classic merger review, but the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, facing its first blockbuster test.

3 min read

← All articles