or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Michael Scrip

Gotcha... that makes more sense.
It seems to work well for those who are "first" Here's the issue... there are always more people who want to attend WWDC than there are tickets for.What's the difference between the first 5,000 people who get tickets... or 5,000 randomly selected lottery people who get tickets?The end result is the same: 5,000 people get tickets... and some people don't.
Those are just names of companies. You didn't explain why there can't be more than one successful company in a market.All three of those companies you listed make products and make money.Apple sells phones and make a lot of money. Samsung sells phones and makes a lot of money too. Again... I don't understand the issue.Microsoft has always made their money by selling software licenses (Windows and Office)... while Apple sells hardware (Macs). Microsoft and Apple were...
I still don't understand.There can't be two technology companies both making products while both making money?Can you give an example?Maybe I need more coffee...
I think I need a little more clarification on that...Are you saying that there cannot be two or more technology companies selling products... and all of them make money?
And what if Samsung is never king of it all?Isn't it possible for them to exist comfortably in the #2 position?I think it's great for a company to strive to be #1... but they also have to be willing to make do with being a successful #2There can only ever be one #1... that's the very nature of it. So there are a lot more non-#1 companies out there.
Samsung is profitable... albeit not as much as Apple per handset. So what does that mean?Yes... there can only be one king of profit. And that is Apple... no doubt.So should all other companies just pack up and go home?Honda will never make as much money as Toyota... nor sell as many cars as Toyota. Does that mean Honda is doomed because of that?Of course not. There are dozens of car companies who don't post the kinds of numbers Toyota does. That doesn't mean they're...
Apple started developing multi-touch glass displays in the early 2000's for a potential tablet device. But in 2003-2004 they focused on "Project Purple" which was a smaller handheld device with a multi-touch glass display that eventually became the iPhone.But you think LG should get the credit? How is that logic even possible?
These lawsuits aren't as much about "copying" as they are about infringing on Apple's IP.What's the point of having patents, trademarks, trade dress and copyrights if you don't defend them?Apple is free to enter any market they want... as long as they don't infringe on someone else's property.If they do... or if anyone else does... that's for the courts to decide.
Wow... I didn't know all that!Yeah it would be nice if they could at least give accurate numbers to their shareholders.Gotta be honest (which seems to be a challenge for Samsung)
New Posts  All Forums: