Right, but the question is why they would even bother with the software. It's a lot of effort maintaining their substantial Android modifications for seemingly not a lot of payoff compared to just producing superior hardware.

They must have some differentiator, so that people buy a Samsung phone instead of an Android phone. If you provide the same software as everyone else you become a commodity provider in the eyes of customers. It's as if Coke had the same recipe as Pepsi.

A differentiator explanation only works if buyers believe the differences are neutral or good. Hence the question of whether consumers actually use Samsung software.

There would still be intense brand rivalry. Not everyone can tell pepsi and coke apart by taste.

True, but what if, although I do think the analogy kind of falls apart there, Coke was allowed to dictate any change to the recipe? That's the situation Samsung would be in if they relied on 'stock' Android. Google would have a significant advantage simply because they control both the device and the OS (the latter IMO more important), and Samsung would only be able to compete by device.

And that's even assuming that Google doesn't 'leverage' its ability to control both software and hardware.

It's enough to know that they taste different, even if you don't notice it yourself. If nobody could tell Pepsi and Coke apart without the label, that would become public knowledge pretty quickly and defeat the branding.

But most know that the store brands are usually re-labelled coke or pepsi, usually without much tweaking to the recipe, if any. But they still buy the main brand.

on the other hand I'm on the fence for the new galaxy a3, but having a non standard android to be updated only when samsung says so bothers me

but I do understand I'm likely not their reference target

If you want to sell something, "worse but different" often makes the sales job easier than being a me too product (reference: David Davidow)

Less leverage for Google, more consumer lock in.

This is not why Coke is successful. Coke is successful because of taste lockin, each coke tastes the same as the one before, the taste it's customers have chosen to love.

Every new Samsung offers new features, it's not necessary to buy a new Samsung when your old one craps out. There is little to no lockin. That massive advertising budget is a necessity for Samsung, without it people would forget about it entirely and buy Google, HTC or iPhones.

As spivak noted, the question I asked isn't why people buy Samsung phones, it's why Samsung bothers with apps.

I'm sure the apps are for leverage when negotiating with Google and/or Samsung harbors intentions to leave the Android ecosystem at some point, go Tizen-only and capture all the value up and down the vertical.

I can understand why Samsung finds the idea alluring, I'm not sure if they can successfully nurture a 3rd mobile OS in a brutally competitive field where Microsoft/Nokia and BlackBerry failed.

Idk. Loyalty and marketing can only compensate for so much inferiority.

I think the reason coke is pure marketing is because sugar drinks is pretty much a solved problem. No one is ever going to make a drink that is 10x tastier than coke.