or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by hill60

I see this:-"- PR attack plan by pointing out iPhone 5's weakness (small 4 inch LCD size)"is still in full swing and people who like Apple are the ones accused of being "sheep".
 Maybe they just want Samsung to use up their allotted time so they can come in and attack, leaving Samsung with little recourse.
 WebApps were immediately available. Goodbye Flash, hello HTML 5.
 So Samsung's success was due to marketing? Marketing that a guy employed as "Chief Marketing Officer" by Samsung and presented as an expert in the field of marketing, apparently had never heard of. So I guess it was copying of the iPhone in 2010 by the Galaxy S that was the real reason for Samsung's success after all.
 Schmidt,is the shit,who did,it! I prefer poems to fairytales. Google is an ad agency of the lowest of the low products, they rank somewhere between used car salesmen and compensation lawyers in the scheme of things.
 I prefer the craftsmanship that went into this 64 bit powerhouse to any piece of cheap Android junk which is the majority of the 80%. Some suckers are conned by Samsung's marketing into paying more than an iPhone for plastic coated crap.
The biggest error was treating Apple as a horizontal participant when in fact they were a vertical participant.The verdict was determined under this fatal flaw.
Of course Apple are more cooperative now Bromwich has been reigned in by Cote's clarification enforced by the court of appeal. Meanwhile the appeals continue. How many million dollars is "irreparable harm"?
 Yeah, because Europe doesn't allow stupid patents. :) Oops, just infringed.
 The Prada wasn't "full touch screen", it had three buttons, call end and send and a home button, it also wasn't multitouch. Apple was working on the iPhone years before the Prada was launched or do you think Apple "magic pixie dust" made it possible to come up with the iPhone in a matter of weeks?
New Posts  All Forums: