or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › German court bars Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 from sale in Europe in Apple suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

German court bars Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 from sale in Europe in Apple suit - Page 5

post #161 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Your facts are right but your conclusions are wrong. Consider the following, in that quarter Samsung reported in a separate press release that they had sold 5 million Galaxy II Ss. That model sells for close to iPhone levels and presumably has lower levels of R&D required since Samsung is getting their OS from Google. Samsung's profits were less than one quarter of Apples, so if the Galaxy II S has roughly comparable net margins - that means that the other 75 million devices that samsung sold in the quarter, 14 million smartphones, 60 million feature phones and a few tablets made approximately 0 profit.

Those 75million devices could include models with horrendous return rates, quite easily - and Samsung's profits would still be high for the quarter thanks to one successful model.

This isn't proof of high return rates, I'm not one of the people claiming that any such proof yet exists - but any attempt to deny the possibility of high return rates for some android models is flawed.

Given that the Galaxy S2 is considered one of Samsung's top android models then melgross' claim is out of the 5M sold, 1.5M were returned. IF that many Galaxies were getting returned it would be very obvious at the retail level AND your scenario falls completely apart. This is just another instance of melgross pulling some false factoid out of half remembered ether.

Also, you have no idea of the net margins of the Galaxy and your math seems completely fishy. Any scenario where you claim 74M phones generates 0 profits is highly suspect.

Could a few Android models be seeing 30-40% return rates? Sure. Is it likely that the top Samsung models are? No. Is it likely that this is the average return rate for high end Android phones? No. Is there any data that even suggests that the 30-40% return rate even exists? No. Just a rumor from one anonymous source.

If a significant android model was being returned at a 30%-40% rate it would be huge news since it's a failure on par with the 23%-50% XBox RROD rate. It would be pretty hard to hide given the major android models are actually selling millions of units.

This would be like claiming that the 27" iMac was seeing 30-40% returns. There would be freaking obvious impact on Apple's desktop computer bottom line and in retail reports.
post #162 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Given that the Galaxy S2 is considered one of Samsung's top android models then melgross' claim is out of the 5M sold, 1.5M were returned. IF that many Galaxies were getting returned it would be very obvious at the retail level AND your scenario falls completely apart. This is just another instance of melgross pulling some false factoid out of half remembered ether.

I'm not even attempting to defend Melgross - I'm talking about the actual tech crunch claim - which was for some or many handsets having a high return rate.

Quote:
Also, you have no idea of the net margins of the Galaxy and your math seems completely fishy. Any scenario where you claim 74M phones generates 0 profits is highly suspect.

Actually it's 64M, I had their total number of phones wrong, but the idea that they could sell that and make no profit isn't fishy. Nokia sold MORE than that and made no profit. You can go and check the RRP for the Galaxy S 2, you can go look for teardowns, I'm not going to try to pursuade you that the margins are as high as the iPhone, but if you do the numbers it's hard to conclude that they should be much lower.

Quote:
Could a few Android models be seeing 30-40% return rates? Sure. Is it likely that the top Samsung models are? No. Is it likely that this is the average return rate for high end Android phones? No. Is there any data that even suggests that the 30-40% return rate even exists? No. Just a rumor from one anonymous source.

Ok, but it's pretty likely that one or two handsets would see that return rate, no evidence - as I freely admit - and likely we'll never get any evidence. It's completely unsubstantiated, but it's also plausible - I'm only arguing agains the claim that it's impossible.

Quote:
If a significant android model was being returned at a 30%-40% rate it would be huge news since it's a failure on par with the 23%-50% XBox RROD rate. It would be pretty hard to hide given the major android models are actually selling millions of units.

It wouldn't necessarily be huge news if even a significant handset like the Samsung Charge had high returns. For starters this wouldn't primarily be a failure rate of the device, in the RROD sense, so it would be unlikely to generate anything like the same stink. The only people who'd really get a view on it would be the people in the retail stores.

The other way we get access to return rates is consumer surveys, but they tend to aggregate across the entire platforms or at least OEMs, so we don't have any available model data. Again a completely different situation to the XBox.

Quote:
This would be like claiming that the 27" iMac was seeing 30-40% returns. There would be freaking obvious impact on Apple's desktop computer bottom line and in retail reports.

Compare the number of SKUs that Apple maintains with any other firm. A major model return for Apple would be visible in their gross margins, but for another firm with 4 or 5 times the number of SKUs? Much less.

I repeat I'm not claiming that there is evidence for Tech Crunch's claim, but arguments that the contention is impossible are vastly overstated.
post #163 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

I'm good thanks so maybe you should look it up yourself...

No, you're not good at all.
post #164 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Use enough commas? lol You have no idea what I have read about this case.

I like commas, ok?

I can tell what you think by your posts. That's enough.
post #165 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

All he had to do was disprove the so called "facts" about the 30-40% return rate, of which he accomplished to be false and libel generated by Apple fanboys.

No, he didn't. His own article wasn't even correct.
post #166 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Well this is clearly false. There was always more computers than there were Macs and not all Macs were networked anyway. Even from the perspective of all networked computers vs all localtalked computers this is false. The window where LocalTalk held advantages as a physical connector was fairly small...until about the time we could widely start using 10BaseT twisted pair vs coax for ethernet in the late 80s.

You might be able to argue there were more AppleTalk compatible devices than all other computers only because MS baked AppleTalk into WinNT. But you aren't because you're clearly talking about the physical implementation because you claim that ethernet killed appletalk...which it didn't. It killed localtalk. You can run Appletalk over ethernet (EtherTalk), token ring, etc. In any case, AppleTalk was clearly not used as a primary protocol on WinNT machines.

And no, don't claim some "I know this because I was doing this for 40 years" BS because I've been doing computer networks since before '84 (When AppleTalk came out) and built my fair share of LANs using Token Ring, AppleTalk, FDDI, Ethernet (fat, thin, optical and twisted pait) and string, bubblegum, duct tape and desperate wishes.

No, no, no. I didn't mean that there were more Macs than all other computers together. A little thought about that would have showed that. I meant in the context of networked computers, there were more Macs networked at one time than all other networked computers together. This was before Windows 3.1.1 came out, and for a time afterwards. From what I remember the 3.1.1 edition was the first one where networking was standard in all the releases.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently, but I didn't think anyone would think I was saying that there were more networked Macs than Windows machines!
post #167 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

I replied every bit as responsibly as the post I was quoting warranted.

A single unnamed source says you secretly agree but are being paid by Steve Jobs personally to argue the point here.

No, you didn't.

And, yes, you're second sentence is funny.
post #168 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

If you read that article from AndroidCommunity you'd notice that the author cites your first link as his source (see "[via TechCrunch]" at the bottom), so we're really only talking about one article.

This is the same article referenced in the ones I linked to, so far the only place I've found on the web that claims such a silly notion as a 40% return rate for Android phones.

If true, it would turn our understanding of not only the Android world but the entire electronics manufacturing industry upside down.

So what is such a radical, world-changing claim based on?

The TechCrunch article offers only, "said a person familiar with handset sales for multiple manufacturers".

Someone said it.

That's right. It boils down to: "If someone said it, it must be true."

The articles I provided links for explain exactly why the silliness of such a claim should be self-evident. 40% returns rates simply can't exist for a wide variety of basic economic reasons. Check out the links I provided and if you don't agree with their assessment each of them provides contact info. But for the rest of us, the simple logic they spell out is sufficient.

Complimenting this basic logic is the complete absence of any supporting data from TechCrunch at all.

None.

Nada.

Zip.

All they offer is the opinion of a single unnamed source.

If such a source said something that didn't fit into the worldview of an iOS fan, it would be recognized as insubstantial.

But here in Doublestandardland such unsupportable claims are parroted as truth despite a complete lack of data or reason.

I did say that he agreed with that source, so you're saying nothing different here. The point is that someone who edits, or runs, a site that is positive for Android believes that some Android phones could have very high return rates.

Is that important? More important than your thinking it's not likely true. We know who he is, and so his involvement with Android is understood. Why would someone in his position think that the article could be right? You would think that he would take your position. Yet, he isn't!

Being that he likely has more contacts in the Android community, as a result of his position, he might be hearing the same thing.

I agree that neither article is a definite statement of fact, but with the addition I mentioned earlier of Samsung stating that they will no longer give shipping numbers for their tablets and smartphones, along with their smartphones numbers coming in below expectations this quarter, the supposition of returns is very possibly correct.
post #169 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Precisely.

A single unnamed source says Steve Jobs is still taking LSD weekly.

Those weren't quotes from me. See, maybe you don't get what you read?
post #170 of 180
What concerns me about the whole process of barring Samsung Tab imports in the EU is the distinct possibility that Apple's counsel may have intentionally submitted altered images of Samsung's device to help "prove" the look and feel claims they're alleging. It's plainly obvious that the images Apple submitted to the court were not accurate representations of Samsung's actual Tab 10.1. Combined with additional followup comments, the changes/omissions that were made to the images are too numerous to have been a simple error IMO.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/23804...t_samsung.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #171 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

True, all sorts of things MIGHT be the case. Or they might not. We simply can't know,

Not even TechCrunch ventured to be so specific, but that doesn't stop a meme once it gets rolling.

You and I are in complete agreement: it's absolutely right to attack the idea that we should accept the TechCrunch story as truth when it is so thinly sourced.

With that out of the way, we can explore any number of random conjectures we can make up in this forum: MAYBE the unnamed source meant "Samsungs' top phones"; MAYBE he was referring to "many" Android phones from a variety of manufacturers as you noted; MAYBE he was referring to only two models from HTC sold at a single retailer in Omaha; MAYBE he was referring to the sales he made out of the back of his van; MAYBE he was referring to a litter of kittens.

All sorts of conjecture is possible.

Conjecture can be entertaining, as long as it's recognized as such.

I read elsewhere that it was Samsung phones, though I don't remember where now, maybe AllThings D.

I'm not saying that it's 100% true that these high rates of return are happening, just that there seem to be reasons to believe the possibility. You don't seem to be willing to entertain that possibility at all.

We do have a big credibility problem in the industry for phones and tabletsexcept for Apple.

Apple is still the only one who states sell through. No one else is willing to do that, even when asked point blank what the sales numbers are. That should raise suspicions about what is actually happening. There is a great belief that these devices are piling up in warehouses and retailers stockrooms. At some point, something has to give, and that's new orders.

If some return rates are also high, then new orders will slow drastically. This happened to Palm. It's happening to WP7 phones now. Also to Playbooks and other tablets. Sprint stopped selling the 4G Playbook because of lack of demand. It's also possible that all of these devices are experiencing high returns. That often happens when sales for products are very slow.

We know it's happening the the Logitec Google TV, where the company stated that returns are higher than new sales (to the channel). So to believe in this isn't going out on a limb.

Here's one article about tablet sales in the EU. I'm just linking to it as an example of how shipments can get well ahead of sales.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/201...es_stagnating/
post #172 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Given that the Galaxy S2 is considered one of Samsung's top android models then melgross' claim is out of the 5M sold, 1.5M were returned. IF that many Galaxies were getting returned it would be very obvious at the retail level AND your scenario falls completely apart. This is just another instance of melgross pulling some false factoid out of half remembered ether.

Also, you have no idea of the net margins of the Galaxy and your math seems completely fishy. Any scenario where you claim 74M phones generates 0 profits is highly suspect.

Could a few Android models be seeing 30-40% return rates? Sure. Is it likely that the top Samsung models are? No. Is it likely that this is the average return rate for high end Android phones? No. Is there any data that even suggests that the 30-40% return rate even exists? No. Just a rumor from one anonymous source.

If a significant android model was being returned at a 30%-40% rate it would be huge news since it's a failure on par with the 23%-50% XBox RROD rate. It would be pretty hard to hide given the major android models are actually selling millions of units.

This would be like claiming that the 27" iMac was seeing 30-40% returns. There would be freaking obvious impact on Apple's desktop computer bottom line and in retail reports.

You've posted more than your share of posts that misunderstand what you're responding to. You've done it here to me already.

Do you know any of these numbers? No, you don't. So what you're stating about them is no better than the ones you're denying. Where did I get the numbers, from the same place everyone else got them, so you can stop with the garbage.

I never said that it was 100% that this was correct, only that there was a good shot at it. And that all we can say.
post #173 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What concerns me about the whole process of barring Samsung Tab imports in the EU is the distinct possibility that Apple's counsel may have intentionally submitted altered images of Samsung's device to help "prove" the look and feel claims they're alleging. It's plainly obvious that the images Apple submitted to the court were not accurate representations of Samsung's actual Tab 10.1. Combined with additional followup comments, the changes/omissions that were made to the images are too numerous to have been a simple error IMO.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/23804...t_samsung.html

It would be absurd for Apple to deliberately do that because it's a serious offense in any jurisdiction to submit knowingly false evidence.
post #174 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It would be absurd for Apple to deliberately do that because it's a serious offense in any jurisdiction to submit knowingly false evidence.

So your honest opinion is that Apple's attorneys are simply inept? How else to explain plainly altered images being submitted as evidence?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #175 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So your honest opinion is that Apple's attorneys are simply inept? How else to explain plainly altered images being submitted as evidence?

My opinion is always honest. That's why I get into trouble with some people here.

I can't answer that. The only ones who can are those involved. They apparently got those images somewhere. Who altered them, and to what point? It isn't as though no one would notice. The whole thing is odd, and it's possible we've not heard all of it.
post #176 of 180
Here's Apples' entire court document, with all of the pictures. It seems as though that one was a mistake, because the others show the proper shape. I wonder if some artist was trying to fit the image in a box, and screwed up. I've seen it happen. It should have been caught.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/1...alaxy-Tab-10-1
post #177 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Here's Apples' entire court document, with all of the pictures. It seems as though that one was a mistake, because the others show the proper shape. I wonder if some artist was trying to fit the image in a box, and screwed up. I've seen it happen. It should have been caught.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61993811/1...alaxy-Tab-10-1

So it was just lucky for Apple that the only slide with both devices side by side and turned on (and in color) supposedly showing how identical they really are in use was also the only one that got altered. I'd be more convinced that it was unintentional if the two actually showed the boot screens. But they don't. Apple chose to use an image of the AppDrawer, a secondary screen, on the Tab, in comparison to Apple's home screen.

No matter, Apple can use whatever images they wish to submit, but it leaves a taste of dishonesty that I don't think should have been necessary for Apple to make their point. Had Microsoft or Google done this. . .

Then again it is business, win at all costs and all that. \
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #178 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So it was just lucky for Apple that the only slide with both devices side by side and turned on (and in color) supposedly showing how identical they really are in use was also the only one that got altered. I'd be more convinced that it was unintentional if the two actually showed the boot screens. But they don't. Apple chose to use an image of the AppDrawer, a secondary screen, on the Tab, in comparison to Apple's home screen.

No matter, Apple can use whatever images they wish to submit, but it leaves a taste of dishonesty that I don't think should have been necessary for Apple to make their point. Had Microsoft or Google done this. . .

Then again it is business, win at all costs and all that. \

Judges aren't like juries. They aren't easily swayed by one thing. And we don't know what happened in court. It's very possible the judge noticed this error. It's also possible Apples attorneys did as well, and mentioned it. We don't know. But it's just one photo out of many, and all the others show the shape clearly. As far as which screen they showed, well, it would be fine to show the one that was thought to be infringing the most.
post #179 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No, no, no. I didn't mean that there were more Macs than all other computers together. A little thought about that would have showed that. I meant in the context of networked computers, there were more Macs networked at one time than all other networked computers together.

And I covered that. Given we had both thick and thin ethernet deployments when AppleTalk was first released (or soon after for thin ethernet) there were quite a number of networked workstations in 1984 when AppleTalk was launched.

How do I know? Because I was involved in a startup in college that was going to make 68000 based unix workstations in that timeframe. We raised cash by debugging code for a unix printer server built using a 68010 workstation made by some small manufacturer I can't recall...although I do recall not overwhelming fondness for SYSV unix. No networks, no need for a print server. There were many small networks in business to share expensive resources and this was not only the start of the PC era but right when Sun and other the other Unix workstation makers gaining steam.

We also did Fat Mac conversions (not me, I suck with an iron) to raise cash and beer money.

Not to mention that my uni was part of arpanet...we used to print out the BITNET and arpanet nodemap on the printer before the mac came out and it covered a wall. Then it got really silly around when the mac came out and we couldn't anymore. It went from maybe a thousand nodes to tens of thousands of nodes.

That's ignoring all the other large networks that existed within IBM, DEC and others.

Quote:
This was before Windows 3.1.1 came out, and for a time afterwards. From what I remember the 3.1.1 edition was the first one where networking was standard in all the releases.

I remember that we had a lab full of PCs running with token ring around that same '84-'87 period. "Full of" being around 30-50 machines and donated by IBM. IBM had built out the token ring spec to handle a couple hundred machines. I recall because it was a royal pain in the rear and I knew one of the student admins. I was working in the uni wide help-desk.

These were DOS boxes.

Quote:
Perhaps I should have worded it differently, but I didn't think anyone would think I was saying that there were more networked Macs than Windows machines!

It is really unlikely there were more network macs than other networked computers combined. Not when you consider the thousands and thousands of computers already networked in 1984 and the massive expansion of arpanet and workstation usage in the 80s.

The original macs weren't particularly strong sellers and like I said, the window for AppleTalk/LocalTalk dominance was very limited...until about the time 10Base2 became widespread in the mid/late 80s...as long as you made sure you were properly terminated a small 10Base2 install was easy. When 10BaseT became widespread in the mid 90s I'd say that LocalTalk was pretty dead for major builds.
post #180 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I read elsewhere that it was Samsung phones, though I don't remember where now, maybe AllThings D.

Convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You've posted more than your share of posts that misunderstand what you're responding to. You've done it here to me already.

Except I haven't. I already answered your objections in my original post that you glossed over and then accused me of misunderstanding.

If I didn't understand then I wouldn't have refuted them now would I?

Quote:
Do you know any of these numbers? No, you don't. So what you're stating about them is no better than the ones you're denying. Where did I get the numbers, from the same place everyone else got them, so you can stop with the garbage.

Except you didn't get them anywhere. There's no source ANYWHERE that states Samsung is seeing 40% returns in their top android phones except perhaps where someone misinterpreted the original TechCrunch article just like you did. You can't find it not because Google sucks but because you mis-remembered.

Nor is there a link to show that Samsung tablets are seeing 100% returns. I know which article you're likely thinking of there and they never said 100%. Just "lots". But I'm sure this is going to be another one of those articles you can't find again.

Do I know any of the numbers I quoted? Yes, I sure do. Unlike you, if I can't find a corroborating reference I don't try to pawn it off as fact anyway. These numbers reported by Samsung in their quarterly (via Reuters as linked in my original post) and Samsung announced 5 million sales for the Galaxy S II.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samsung...ow/5980096158/

Quote:
I never said that it was 100% that this was correct, only that there was a good shot at it. And that all we can say.

"I never said that the US Government destroyed the world trade center, only that there was a good shot at it. And that's all we can say."

This is pretty much an ad ignorantiam fallacy. We don't know all the facts so all possibilities are equally likely. In reality, there are many things we do know that makes what you state a very very low probability.

Show a non-bizzaroland scenario where Samsung is seeing 30-40% return rates in their top android phones (aka the ones with the highest ASPs, sales and build costs like the Galaxy S and S II) AND still double their operating profit in the same time period.

Can SOME android handset be seeing 30-40% returns somewhere? Sure, there probably is some crappy android phone somewhere seeing 30-40% returns even if this rumor isn't confirmed in any way.

Can Samsung's top android phone, the Galaxy S II, be seeing 30-40% returns? Not frigging likely.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • German court bars Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 from sale in Europe in Apple suit
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › German court bars Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 from sale in Europe in Apple suit