or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple may need to reveal iPad sales figures to bar Samsung Galaxy Tab
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple may need to reveal iPad sales figures to bar Samsung Galaxy Tab

post #1 of 89
Thread Starter 
An Australian judge has said Apple may need to break its own policy and reveal regional sales figures of the iPad and iPad 2 to bolster its case to bar sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.

It is Apple's policy to not publicly break out sales figures by region, citing competitive reasons. But if Apple wants to improve its chances of keeping the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 off the market, the company may need to disclose sales figures in the U.S. and the U.K, according to Bloomberg.

Australian Federal Court Justice Annabelle Bennett said Apple may need to prove that sales of the iPad were affected by the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in markets where Samsung's tablet is already available.

But Apple will not be forced to release the figures, the judge said. The company could simply choose to release the figures to help prove to the court the impact of the Galaxy Tab on iPad sales.

"Unless Apple puts on evidence showing the impact in the U.S. or U.K., I can't draw any positive assumptions," Bennett said in Sydney Federal Court on Tuesday.

Samsung took the opportunity to attempt to convince the court that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will not have an adverse effect on the iPad.

"People want an Android product, so they will buy an Android product," Samsung lawyer Neil Murray said in court. "This is not impacting the sales of Apple."



Apple attorney Steven Burley countered by telling the judge that the "remarkable similarity" between the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the iPad will take sales away from Apple.

Apple first sued Samsung in April, accusing its rival of copying the look and feel of its popular iPhone and iPad products. Samsung has fired back with its own patent infringement allegations

Last month, a judge decided to bar sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia, forcing Samsung to delay the launch of its tablet down under. Apple's legal action has also found initial success in Germany, where a court also ruled the Galaxy Tab 10.1 could not be sold until the case is settled.
post #2 of 89
I'm sure it will be a bit more than 20,000
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #3 of 89
So she's going on Apple's projections? How does she know how many iPads Apple would have sold if the Samsung tablet wasn't available? You can't just look at Samsung's sales numbers and claim they all would have been Apple's, that's absurd, so why look at Apple's sales numbers? I don't see the logic in this.
post #4 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

So she's going on Apple's projections? How does she know how many iPads Apple would have sold if the Samsung tablet wasn't available? You can't just look at Samsung's sales numbers and claim they all would have been Apple's, that's absurd, so why look at Apple's sales numbers? I don't see the logic in this.

Exactly...its impossible to project this in a field so young.
post #5 of 89
Fun defense from Samsung:
We sell so few Tablets that it does not impact iPad sales.

But Samsung;
"if people want an Android tablet they buy an Android tablet. It does not impact Apple"

This defense should not work since there would not be any Android tablets if they had not copied iPad.
post #6 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... Australian Federal Court Justice Annabelle Bennett said Apple may need to prove that sales of the iPad were affected by the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in markets where Samsung's tablet is already available. ...

It's a faulty assumption that sales figures would "prove" anything at all. This doesn't sound like a rational request.
post #7 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Exactly...its impossible to project this in a field so young.

And yet Apple's "trade dress" based claims hinge on this. The point of trade dress is to prevent users from buying a competing product "by mistake" because they thought it was the protected product.

Apple is claiming that the Galaxy Tab is so similar to the iPad that people are purchasing it because of that similarity, as in, they are losing sales of iPads because the customers are picking up a competing product instead.

If Apple's not losing any sales (or at least, can't prove they're losing any sales) then the Tab's design doesn't really impact the iPad at all, so blocking it doesn't really make sense.

It's the common assumption on this site that the tab and honeycomb "Suck" and that no one would buy it unless they "hate" apple, then what does it matter how similar the two look? Is Apple's brand being hurt by the Tab's operation if the only people buying one are people who would not consider an ipad anyway?

That's what the court is asking here. They're asking apple to establish that the Tab has an impact on the iPad, either in sales figures or brand perception. Which is what Trade Dress was meant to protect in the first place.
post #8 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

Fun defense from Samsung:
We sell so few Tablets that it does not impact iPad sales.

But Samsung;
"if people want an Android tablet they buy an Android tablet. It does not impact Apple"

This defense should not work since there would not be any Android tablets if they had not copied iPad.

If this is the case then apple should be able to produce data to support it. That's what the Court is asking.
post #9 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's a faulty assumption that sales figures would "prove" anything at all. This doesn't sound like a rational request.

Apple asserts that the design of the Tab mimics the iPad in a way that negatively impacts Apple. The Judge is asking for evidence to back up that claim. How is that not rational?
post #10 of 89
A person picking up a tablet that looks like an iPad, thinking it's crap can effect Apple's sales beyond that single sale. It can hurt their branding. It can effect future sales as well.

It is way too early to tell how future sales could suffer if people identify 'crappy knockoffs' with Apple's iPad.

People identify with Apple's look, if a company cops that look and puts out crap. It hurts the brand beyond current sales numbers.
post #11 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Apple asserts that the design of the Tab mimics the iPad in a way that negatively impacts Apple. The Judge is asking for evidence to back up that claim. How is that not rational?

You're mistaken. They're asking for the injunction to be made permanent. It is not a claim that Samung's copies HAVE hurt Apple, but rather that they COULD. That determination is made on the basis of how closely the copy resembles the original - along with expert testimony.

Apple's historic sales figures are completely irrelevant. They MIGHT be relevant when it gets to the damages portion of the trial, but at this stage, the only issue is whether the copy might cause confusion. Sales figures do not establish that.

Even if Apple sells a billion a year and Samsung only sells 10, that doesn't mean that Samsung's copy is legal - or that Apple doesn't suffer harm.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #12 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

And yet Apple's "trade dress" based claims hinge on this. The point of trade dress is to prevent users from buying a competing product "by mistake" because they thought it was the protected product.

Apple is claiming that the Galaxy Tab is so similar to the iPad that people are purchasing it because of that similarity, as in, they are losing sales of iPads because the customers are picking up a competing product instead.

If Apple's not losing any sales (or at least, can't prove they're losing any sales) then the Tab's design doesn't really impact the iPad at all, so blocking it doesn't really make sense.

It's the common assumption on this site that the tab and honeycomb "Suck" and that no one would buy it unless they "hate" apple, then what does it matter how similar the two look? Is Apple's brand being hurt by the Tab's operation if the only people buying one are people who would not consider an ipad anyway?

That's what the court is asking here. They're asking apple to establish that the Tab has an impact on the iPad, either in sales figures or brand perception. Which is what Trade Dress was meant to protect in the first place.

All excellent points. I hadn't stopped to think thru the Apple request before your post.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 89
deleted
post #14 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78 View Post

A person picking up a tablet that looks like an iPad, thinking it's crap can effect Apple's sales beyond that single sale. It can hurt their branding. It can effect future sales as well.

And if this is true, Apple should be able to show evidence of this.

But here's the thing: Go to your local tech store and check out how they position tablets.

The ipad is usually on an end display, or at least separated from the other devices. it has big, bold branding all around it, and it's surrounded by a ton of optimized accessories.

The galaxy tab is stuck next to other android (and RIM/HP) devices, often with "universal" accessories beneath it. EVEN IF the device is also set on it's own it has a big "It's Time to Tab" presentation, with Samsung logo's all over the place.
post #15 of 89
deleted
post #16 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're mistaken. They're asking for the injunction to be made permanent. It is not a claim that Samung's copies HAVE hurt Apple, but rather that they COULD. That determination is made on the basis of how closely the copy resembles the original - along with expert testimony.

Apple's historic sales figures are completely irrelevant. They MIGHT be relevant when it gets to the damages portion of the trial, but at this stage, the only issue is whether the copy might cause confusion. Sales figures do not establish that.

Even if Apple sells a billion a year and Samsung only sells 10, that doesn't mean that Samsung's copy is legal - or that Apple doesn't suffer harm.

That doesn't change the fact that Apple would have to at least give SOME evidence of this fact beyond "we think it's a possibility."

Apple's sales figures are not irrelevant. The tab is hardly the first device to mimic Apple's design. Apple should have some data somewhere that shows that mimiced devices hurt their sales, if that's what they're claiming.

The point of Trade Dress is to protect sales. If a design isn't hurting their sales, then the trade dress claim becomes a LOT weaker.

EDIT: You don't protect a design "just because it's new OMG" you protect it to keep others from pulling away marketshare from you by copying that design. But if those users wouldn't buy an ipad anyway (as people on this site almost universally declared as the only reason people would buy an android tablet) then they could copy the design EXACTLY and it still wouldn't impact your sales, and there would be no reason to go through the expensive process of protecting said design.
post #17 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

What method of quantification would you prefer?

User response. Announced purpose of item returns ("I bought it because I thought it ran iTunes apps." "I bought it because I thought it was an iPad." etc.).

It's impossible to determine from sales figures.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #18 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78 View Post

A person picking up a tablet that looks like an iPad, thinking it's crap can effect Apple's sales beyond that single sale. It can hurt their branding. It can effect future sales as well.

It is way too early to tell how future sales could suffer if people identify 'crappy knockoffs' with Apple's iPad.

People identify with Apple's look, if a company cops that look and puts out crap. It hurts the brand beyond current sales numbers.

I think you underestimate the strength of the Apple brand. Whilst you will get individuals saying their tablet is "Just like an iPad" people do realize that it is not the genuine article. It's like when someone claims their cheap Asian sports-sedan is just like a BMW. We all know the truth.
post #19 of 89
deleted
post #20 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Apple asserts that the design of the Tab mimics the iPad in a way that negatively impacts Apple. The Judge is asking for evidence to back up that claim. How is that not rational?

Because given the products in question and the amount of time they have been on sale (or more specifically *not* on sale), there is no way the sales figures could prove anything one way or the other. It's also an error to think that even if iPad sales were lower, that this lower figure could in any way be ascribed to the Galaxy Tab alone as opposed to any other cause. It's just faulty all around.

It's tantamount to the judge saying "I'm going to throw that argument out completely," really because she is offering them the opportunity to prove something that they of course can't prove. Which might be her point in requesting it.

Hopefully Apple has other arguments than just the possibility that Galaxy Tab's have actually hurt their sales because it's unlikely they have and unlikely to be provable even if true.

On the one hand, you could argue that every single sale of an ostensibly cloned product is actually a lost sale of the original product, but on the other you could never prove that each person that bought one would actually have bought an iPad if the cloned product wasn't available.
post #21 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

User response. Announced purpose of item returns ("I bought it because I thought it ran iTunes apps." "I bought it because I thought it was an iPad." etc.).

It's impossible to determine from sales figures.

People who are most vocal, however, would be the people who respond this way. It can easily be argued that until you get 100% user response, you can't make any judgment, and even if there are people that respond like this, then how many does it take to make a case based around that?

I would venture to guess that a product like a case for an ipad gets confused for an ipad more often than a Galaxy tab gets confused for one, simply for the packaging alone. You can't claim you thought you bought an iPad when the box says Galaxy tab all over it, and the iPad's name is popular enough that it would be extremely rare for someone to only know what the tablet sort of looks like and make their purchase decision based on that.
post #22 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

That doesn't change the fact that Apple would have to at least give SOME evidence of this fact beyond "we think it's a possibility."

Apple's sales figures are not irrelevant. The tab is hardly the first device to mimic Apple's design. Apple should have some data somewhere that shows that mimiced devices hurt their sales, if that's what they're claiming.

The point of Trade Dress is to protect sales. If a design isn't hurting their sales, then the trade dress claim becomes a LOT weaker.

EDIT: You don't protect a design "just because it's new OMG" you protect it to keep others from pulling away marketshare from you by copying that design. But if those users wouldn't buy an ipad anyway (as people on this site almost universally declared as the only reason people would buy an android tablet) then they could copy the design EXACTLY and it still wouldn't impact your sales, and there would be no reason to go through the expensive process of protecting said design.

None of that makes any sense.

Let's say Apple releases sales figures. Say they sold 40 million in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. How does that tell you ANYTHING about whether Samsung's device is an illegal copy or whether Samsung's device hurt Apple? How would the sales figures tell you what sales would have been if Samsung had come up with their own design?

Hint: they don't. There is absolutely nothing in the sales figures that tells you anything about what sales would have been without an illegal copy on the market. And even if you could somehow estimate what sales would have been, how does that tell you how much damage came from the similarity of the products and how much from just having another product on the market?

But feel free to try. Use my figures above. 40 million iPads in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. Tell us how you'd get from that data point to an estimate of how much damage Samsung's copy caused Apple.

Data is meaningless if misused. And you apparently don't have any understanding of how data should be used.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #23 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Because given the products in question and the amount of time they have been on sale (or more specifically *not* on sale), there is no way the sales figures could prove anything one way or the other. It's also an error to think that even if iPad sales were lower, that this lower figure could in any way be ascribed to the Galaxy Tab alone as opposed to any other cause. It's just faulty all around.

It's tantamount to the judge saying "I'm going to throw that argument out completely," really because she is offering them the opportunity to prove something that they of course can't prove. Which might be her point in requesting it.

Hopefully Apple has other arguments than just the possibility that Galaxy Tab's have actually hurt their sales because it's unlikely they have and unlikely to be provable even if true.

On the one hand, you could argue that every single sale of an ostensibly cloned product is actually a lost sale of the original product, but on the other you could never prove that each person that bought one would actually have bought an iPad if the cloned product wasn't available.

Then bring up Galaxy S sales figures. Or any other "cloned" product sales figures.

The judge didn't say apple needed to do this, they just said it's going to make it much harder for Apple to prove their case unless they have some evidence to back it up. Which, as I understand this whole law thing, evidence is sort of an important part.

You actually CAN'T argue that "every" sale of a cloned product is a lost sale. Because often times, the market for the cloned product is very different from the "real" product. They're either buying on price variation, or they're buying for some other reason. If product design was all that mattered, Apple would've had an injunction on these guys before they ever put the tablet on sale:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/...-required/4185

But they didn't. Why? because it's a POS that goes for $100 at a drug store. So if someone bought it, they most likely weren't considering an ipad anyway. Apple is saying that with the Tab it's different. That the Tab hits the same market segment and that it's similar design to the iPad is what's helping it, and that those sales HARM apple's sales in some way (again, this is the point of trade dress. Trade dress isn't a "patent" on innovation)
post #24 of 89
This is why you typically don't see these cases until well after an infringing product has become established. You need a detrimental trend in order to have case. This preemptive lawsuit before Android tablets have a chance to saturate the market is risky. I don't think Apple will provide regional sales as I'm sure the iPad sales will increase phenomenally even if a competing tablet penetrates the market.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #25 of 89
I think this would be a pretty pleasurable thing for Apple to reveal.
post #26 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Then bring up Galaxy S sales figures. Or any other "cloned" product sales figures.

[...]

You actually CAN'T argue that "every" sale of a cloned product is a lost sale. Because often times, the market for the cloned product is very different from the "real" product.

Note: Menno has acknowledged Samsung's cloning of Apple products.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #27 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

None of that makes any sense.

Let's say Apple releases sales figures. Say they sold 40 million in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. How does that tell you ANYTHING about whether Samsung's device is an illegal copy or whether Samsung's device hurt Apple? How would the sales figures tell you what sales would have been if Samsung had come up with their own design?

Hint: they don't. There is absolutely nothing in the sales figures that tells you anything about what sales would have been without an illegal copy on the market. And even if you could somehow estimate what sales would have been, how does that tell you how much damage came from the similarity of the products and how much from just having another product on the market?

But feel free to try. Use my figures above. 40 million iPads in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. Tell us how you'd get from that data point to an estimate of how much damage Samsung's copy caused Apple.

Data is meaningless if misused. And you apparently don't have any understanding of how data should be used.

Data shouldn't be the only thing they offer, but data should be PART of what they offer.

To my knowledge, Apple has yet to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence (reported here or at Fosspatents) that shows how Samsung "Copying" them has negatively impacted their business. Not sales figures or ANY other data.

Again, trade dress is NOT a Patent. It's not given because something is "innovative" it's given to protect an "iconic" device from having other companies trade on the design/brand to sell product. It's up to apple to PROVE this. The judge is just saying that sales figures SHOULD be part of their defense.

(as for your figures, you can show sales month to month, show the trending predictions BEFORE the tab launched, and then readjusted predictions AFTER. If sales didn't slow down more than expected after the Tab released, it's unlikely that the tab impacted sales in any meaningful way)
post #28 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

I think this would be a pretty pleasurable thing for Apple to reveal.

Pleasurable in terms of sales revenue and profit, but if there iPad sales have increased with a similiar upward trend during the time frame in which the Samsung Tabs were on sale it will hurt their case.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #29 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Note: Menno has acknowledged Samsung's cloning of Apple products.

Note: Menno has said since DAY ONE that Touchwiz and the Galaxy S line of phones is a bit too far and Apple has a case with them. In fact, Most android blogs even said this. The issue is Apple extending that lawsuit to other devices that don't come anywhere close to the design of touchwiz/galaxy S devices.

EDIT: I don't agree with the Galaxy Tab so much. First, it launched with Stock android, and the touchwiz update changes it even more (hovering apps, etc). yes, it's thin, and yes, they made it thinner because of the ipad 2, but how many ways can you make a THIN tablet style device? I have a tab, and while people might initially say "is that an ipad" all you have to do is hand it to them and within a few seconds they'll switch to "oh, it's not, what is it?"

People have that same incorrect assumption with any touchscreen device. People ask if a ZUNE is an ipod initially, because ipod=MP3 player to them. Just like iPhone=smartphone and (to a lesser extent) Droid=Android
post #30 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This is why you typically don't see these cases until well after an infringing product has become established. You need a detrimental trend in order to have case. This preemptive lawsuit before Android tablets have a chance to saturate the market is risky. I don't think Apple will provide regional sales as I'm sure the iPad sales will increase phenomenally even if a competing tablet penetrates the market.

Exactly...this make sense.
I don't think ANY tablet will affect Apple's total domination in the tablet space....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #31 of 89
deleted
post #32 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

None of that makes any sense.

Let's say Apple releases sales figures. Say they sold 40 million in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. How does that tell you ANYTHING about whether Samsung's device is an illegal copy or whether Samsung's device hurt Apple? How would the sales figures tell you what sales would have been if Samsung had come up with their own design?

Hint: they don't. There is absolutely nothing in the sales figures that tells you anything about what sales would have been without an illegal copy on the market. And even if you could somehow estimate what sales would have been, how does that tell you how much damage came from the similarity of the products and how much from just having another product on the market?

But feel free to try. Use my figures above. 40 million iPads in the U.S. and 10 million in the UK. Tell us how you'd get from that data point to an estimate of how much damage Samsung's copy caused Apple.

Data is meaningless if misused. And you apparently don't have any understanding of how data should be used.

And what if Apple releases their numbers and they have sold 1.2 million ipads in the US and 800K in the UK? Wouldn't those sales figures hold water, in relation to sales figures from all competitors that are equal? Maybe the judge is looking to see if the iPad is really selling like they claim, or if the PR machine is over-blowing the demand.

Disclaimer: I don't think the PR excuse is legit, but I'm throwing it out there since you like to belittle others about "how data can be used". You have no idea WHY the judge wants the numbers, so perhaps you don't have any understanding of how laws should be interpreted.
post #33 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

So she's going on Apple's projections? How does she know how many iPads Apple would have sold if the Samsung tablet wasn't available? You can't just look at Samsung's sales numbers and claim they all would have been Apple's, that's absurd, so why look at Apple's sales numbers? I don't see the logic in this.

They can say that they have only 4 or 5 stores in Australia, and Samsung will have much biger presence with all retail possibilites
post #34 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's a faulty assumption that sales figures would "prove" anything at all. This doesn't sound like a rational request.

Well, here is the thing. If you looked at sales for iPad (pre android) and then at sales post galaxy tab you could see if there was any fall in demand right around the time Galaxy tab was released which could indicate the confusion. (that's pretty obvious so read on)

The problem is that ALL tablets pretty much look like the iPad at this point. Plus the case is a bit pre-emptive as apple still controls a huge chunk of the market.

So I think the request has some validity, but trying to figure out where the 1-5% fall in demand for iPad was caused by samsung's design or shifty best buy sales tactics is gonna be pretty hard.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #35 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Because given the products in question and the amount of time they have been on sale (or more specifically *not* on sale), there is no way the sales figures could prove anything one way or the other. It's also an error to think that even if iPad sales were lower, that this lower figure could in any way be ascribed to the Galaxy Tab alone as opposed to any other cause. It's just faulty all around.

It's tantamount to the judge saying "I'm going to throw that argument out completely," really because she is offering them the opportunity to prove something that they of course can't prove. Which might be her point in requesting it.

Hopefully Apple has other arguments than just the possibility that Galaxy Tab's have actually hurt their sales because it's unlikely they have and unlikely to be provable even if true.

On the one hand, you could argue that every single sale of an ostensibly cloned product is actually a lost sale of the original product, but on the other you could never prove that each person that bought one would actually have bought an iPad if the cloned product wasn't available.

Excellent and logical.
post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragan0405 View Post

They can say that they have only 4 or 5 stores in Australia, and Samsung will have much biger presence with all retail possibilites


You can pick up an iPad in most good electronic and phone stores. Sales through apple stores are only a very small fraction of total sales in most countries.
post #37 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairb View Post

You can pick up an iPad in most good electronic and phone stores. Sales through apple stores are only a very small fraction of total sales in most countries.

Sure, but thats the situation when consumer can be confused, retail staf can promise anything, like, you can go to iTunes with this tablet, and you can by web, but you can`t run any app.
post #38 of 89
Or something like that.

The New Galaxy Tab - iPad Killer*

*iPad sales will be entirely unaffected by the Galaxy Tab
post #39 of 89
Actually, I don't see why the judge's request such a big deal. It will simply be a part of the data mix that goes into the decision, I imagine. It would be legitimate for the judge to get a sense for whether the rate of growth (relative to, say, a mean or median rate of growth ) has been affected by the introduction of the Samsung product.

Granted, it could go against Apple's assertions (if there is no difference in the rates of growth), but it is just as plausible that the opposite is true, which should be a cause for worry for Samsung.

Moreover, it would be totally fair game for Apple to have the judge ask for Samsung's sales numbers as well, in comparable regions. Now, that would be interesting to see (since all we've had are estimates up to this point). Finally, the truth will out.
post #40 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

So she's going on Apple's projections? How does she know how many iPads Apple would have sold if the Samsung tablet wasn't available? You can't just look at Samsung's sales numbers and claim they all would have been Apple's, that's absurd, so why look at Apple's sales numbers? I don't see the logic in this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Exactly...its impossible to project this in a field so young.

Then Apple has no reasons to block the sales of the Samsung tablet...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple may need to reveal iPad sales figures to bar Samsung Galaxy Tab
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple may need to reveal iPad sales figures to bar Samsung Galaxy Tab