Samsung says Apple lawsuits have put its Galaxy Tab on the map - Page 3

He is not searching fro truth.

I am.


That's exactly my point. I'm not saying they are better, or that they earn the same margins, but they clearly are starting to pose a competitive threat.

Glowing Engadget review from September: http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/30/a...y-s-ii-review/ claims that they've sold 10 million units of the GT-I9100.

Top 2 Google results for comparisons between the two phones:
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2011/1...thy-winner-is/ (this author at least selects the iphone, but you come awya thinking it's a close race)
http://gadgetmania.com/2011/10/iphon...iphone-5-asap/

It seems that the ecosystem advantage is either not being marketed enough by Apple or is not as important to users as I had hoped it would be.

Yep, Samsung sells a shitload of phones. Of course, we don't know how many are running Android, or how many are sitting on shelves, but still: I think it's clear that Samsung is consolidating its position as the preeminent manufacturer of Android handsets.

However, they seem to be well on their way to being the only manufacturer of Android handsets, at least of any significance, barring the odd flagship model from Google/Moto and über-cheap Chinese no names.

LE is losing money, Sony-Ericsson (soon to be just Sony again) is losing money, HTC is sinking, and the current Moto is losing money (which will soon become difficult to evaluate).

I don't know about you, but Samsung doesn't strike me as a particularly trustworthy partner. If they get a stranglehold on the Android market, how soon before they start figuring out ways to direct more consumer money towards Korea instead of Mountain View? As it stands, the Android market is largely a money funnel for Google. Think Samsung is OK with that?

At any rate, this is hardly the PC business redux. Apple has very healthy (and currently growing) market share, is selling every device they can make, and is making money hand over fist. If Samsung captures some huge percentage of the smartphone market, say upwards of 50%, so what? There's still more than enough room for Apple to maintain developer interest (especially considering the relative amounts of money to be made), accessory maker interest, and mindshare.

Plus, iOS, as represented by the iPhone, iPod Touch and the iPad (with no doubt additional devices to come) is still the overwhelming market leader, and without carrier subsidies and contract renewals Samsung doesn't seem to be all that adept at making mobile devices people want. At some point, if Apple continues its prohibitive lead in tablet sales, there's going to be a synergistic effect on handset buyers seeking seamless integration of their devices.

But even if that doesn't happen, there's no reason at all the Apple can't thrive in a world where most people buy Android handsets made by Samsung. Google, on the other hand, has real reason to be concerned by that outcome, because it puts way too much power in the hands of a company that seems inclined toward dickishness.

Say what you want about Apple's "arrogance", at least it was hard earned. Samsung slaps someone else's OS on phones and decide they invented technology.

problem is, you are quoting numbers which includes a wide range of devices/computers/telephones/mp3 players/networking/networking infrastructure/consulting/business solutions/etc... Not _just_ smartphones. Why don't they specifically say what they make/lose from smartphones? Because it is next to nothing.

Samesung Telecomunications...educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Telecommunications

I've always heard resolution and pixel density defined as 2 different things, with resolution being the number of discrete pixels in the display and pixel density being the number of pixels per area. Using that definition, many of the new android phones have a higher resolution 'by far'.

High End Androids | 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 = 614,400 pixels

Also using the definition of pixel density, there are several phones that beat the iPhone 4s.

HTC Rezound | 1280x720 @ 4.3" = 342 ppi
iPhone 4s | 960 x 640 @ = 326 ppi

I couldn't find anything on Samesung. \

You did it.

You forever proved that iOS is better with Android with this hard evidence that nobody can dispute. This was all we needed.

The fanboy wars are over, and it's all thanks to you.

I agree with most of what you've said, however I believe Google would benefit from the consolidation of the market you're predicting. If there are less options then there is a chance that a rival Android ecosystem that works for consumers could take hold. As an Apple investor I prefer the fragmentation that comes with no clear winner on the Android platform. If Samsung becomes the defacto hardware manufacturer for Android it could be similar to the Intel/Microsoft alliance that did so much damage to Apple in the past. Google can keep collecting money from ads (and apps if Samsung allows it) while it maintains OS parity with Apple, and meanwhile Samsung can make money on the hardware (and perhaps apps) and maintain hardware parity. Seems like an environment that will at a minimum shrink margins for Apple. I'm not asserting that the risk is for Apple to return to it's "beleagured" past, but just that their margins and competitive advantages suffer enough to erode their market leading position.

I love fandroids with their meaningless specs trying to sound important. You would have to be an idiot to buy a smartphone based on hardware specs alone. Most people are waking up to that. The cloner manufacturers don't like to hear that, but that is the truth.

yeah I did, still not funny.

1) The display resolution is actually higher on a lot of Android devices. (720p)
2) My 4.3" Galaxy S2 is more thin than any iphone4 / 4s.

-Camera quality goes to the N8, not the 4S
-Speed, in terms of benchmarks would EASILY go to the Galaxy note with the 1.4ghz Exynos dual core w/ mali 400 gpu
-Battery life goes to the Galaxy Note in both call-time, video playback, and standby time
-Volume goes to HTC Surround
-Sound quality? The winners would be the HTC Desire and Nexus one for their superb DAC and FLAC support.

Rather than typing up these responses that are based on facts, I'll probably just start replying with "[citation needed]" so maybe people would stop pulling facts out of their asses

And I love how in this thread, people start defending the screen quality of the iphones, even though the topic is about the Galaxy Tab.

They said it was the best screen, with the highest PPI.

And then all the sudden somebody points out that that's just wrong, and the Rezound has the highest PPI with a 720p display.

And then you completely dismiss it, saying it doesn't matter.

Bullshit! You failed to note that you're counting PenTile sub-pixels which makes you A) ignorant of the technology, or B) you are purposely trying to fudge the numbers. The Samsung Nexus S true pixels are well below what you state. It's like taking a large 8-slice pizza can cutting each slice into more slices then claiming it's twice as large because it now has 16 slices.

Only the HTC Rezound released last month to one carrier (Verizon) has a display that beats out the 1.5 year old iPhone's pixel density. BTW, it's an LCD-based device, not AMOLED.

Now, being PenTile isn't necessarily a bad thing. Vendors use them because they can be thinner and use less power, but you'll have to get about 50% more pixel density than the Nexus S in order to give the "Retina Display"-quality effect as the iPhone 4/4S and Rezound offer users today.

Also, more pixels are great until you get to a point that you can't determine the pixels when you look at the device. Now that Android-based devices can finally start besting the iPhone's pixel density note, again, it's currently with an LCD not AMOLED I'm sure Apple would love for them to keep pushing their spec sheets further and further with the result of costing more money, reducing battery life, making the GPU work harder for no visual benefit for anyone but those with superhuman eyesight. Be practical. Be rational. Be sensible.

For the rezound, we know it's LCD. But so is the iphone 4S.

We also know that AMOLED is a superior technology in every sense.
-Lower power draw
-better contrast
-brighter
-thinner panel

But for whatever reason Apple chose not to include it in the 4S even though it's becoming a standard technology in smart phones.

For the PPI, at a certain point, subpixels do not matter. A Pentile Matrix 720p display that's AMOLED puts any LCD display to shame at around that same PPI, even if it's RGB stripe.

Bullshit!


Bullshit!

Dogshit !

you don't know what you are talking about, do you?

you don't know what speed (it isn't just about processors, there's no smartphone faster than the 4s) sound and the quality of any screen is about. you showed what you know. nothing. i'm sure you are the "typical" "high-end" android costumer. A spec-whore. you don't know what makes the iPhone so special, the mac so awesome, the ferrari so charismatic, f-22 so different. you know nothing.

I thought one rule of advertising is that you don't mention the competitor by name. That just increases the mindshare of the competitor, on your own dime.

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, when you say "many of the new android phones have a higher resolution", other than the mentioned HTC Rezound, and the previously-mentioned Samsung Nexus (which is actually a lower-density display), which others were you thinking of? Anyone?

EDIT 2: Found one - Galaxy Note - 1280x800, although it's a 5.3 inch screen (that's ~285 ppi, for those playing along at home). Remember the 5" Dell Streak? Ya, they killed that for a reason - too big for a "phone". At that point, it's become a mini-tablet. Dell couldn't sell those to save it's life (such as it is ), so they killed it.


Yes, you're absolutely correct that resolution and density are different metrics. However, you seem to have conveniently missed a major point of information from my response; the poster supported their statement with pixel resolution and display dimensions (which in and of itself implicitly defines pixel density), they also explicitly specified the calculated pixel density, and all of this with respect to a specific device (Samsung Nexus), which is what I in turn explicitly commented on.



To address your complaints of 'higher higher resolution "by far"' (again subjective and grossly abused - but accurate) of other devices. Yes, there are other Android phones that have greater screen resolutions and/or pixel densities than the iPhone. This was not a fact I contended. Had the original poster cited metrics for a device which supported their argument, I would have been inaccurate in my response (I also wouldn't have posted the response in the first place), however, they did not. My response to the original post was valid.

Sorry, no points this round.


My response was to the logical/factual nature of the original posts, and a cheeky suggestion to be sure to quote accurate numbers when posting comments on a forum frequented by highly detail-oriented individuals. You've introduced information of a related nature, however it does not change the facts asserted of the original post. Thanks for playing though.

Samsung is dishonest about their dimensions. They should call this phone the Quasimodo because of its hunchback. Samsung cheats and lies about it's thickness by advertising it at its THINNEST point, not its thickest. So they lump all their thickest components into a hump at the bottom which is the same thickness as an iPhone, and then measure the screen thickness only. Laughable. Even the camera adds its own little hump. Apple is all about design integrity. They would rather have the thickest element determine the thickness and have an elegant shape rather than all warty and humpy. Samsung has no integrity. All about marketing and advertising. Look at the photos of the phone on their website--they hide the hump from view. Apple shows it all.

Yes, and the publicity says they're plagiarists.

In other news, Barry Bonds is now more famous for steroids than home runs.

Samsung lies.
MaroonMushroom lies.
Samsung Galaxy true pixel density without all the Bernie Madoff accounting is 217.

That's a blatant lie and you know it.

I hate asking this, buy why are you even here? If you hate Apple products, leave.

Yes, hardware specs are important to run it smoothly and effectively for the features offered from the phone and operating system. At the moment Samsung is the top manufacturer in terms of specs and quality, Apple had egged from them remember?.

Having played Google Android for my Galaxy Fit from Samsung, I should say that they are perfectly fitted together and, with them, I can do so many things. The Galaxy Fit is low-end smart phones in plastic, but it does more than what I want from a phone.

The best features, apart from customisable home screens with super fancy icons, that I am exited about are;

1.
I can sync Google Calender with a widget on my Galaxy Fit at ease. It means that I manage and put schedules in Google Calender on my desk top, then the details are showing in a schedule widget on my Galaxy Fit. (They even work vise versa)

2.
I can sync Gmail contact details to my Galaxy Fit. It means I could manage my contact details (multiful mob no, landline no, email, website and so on) in Gmail account on my desk top. Then, they are all showing on my Galaxy Fit and I could do everything with them easily on the go. You could import contact files to Gmail, but because I was not at doing so, I manually put all contents of my regular contacts in Gmail account yesterday.

3.
Even with lower megapixel specs compared with our 2year old sony digital camera, the photos look real and better than from our Sony camera. You could easily put photos and vidoes in you Facebook.

4.
Cloud storage available for free.

5.
There are planty of fun applications. Speaktoit Assistance (just like Siri), Fake Iphone 4S, all sorts of games and utilities.

I can do all of above from my Galaxy Fit, a low-end smartphone from Samsung, still I have more than half of storage (internal & micro SD) available. Oh, one thing. Here in New Zealand internet speed is not great. I get 4mega download speed. I get that speed when I download applications on my Galaxy Fit.

My wife got a white Galaxy Note. Imagine what she can do with it.

There are significant differences between the Intel/MS duopoly and a possible Samsung dominance of the Android handset market.

Samsung isn't a hardware platform, they just assemble the best available parts. In that they have much more in common with HP or Dell (although admittedly they do make some parts in house). I don't think the PC market would have been well served by one manufacture dominating sales-- there already isn't much incentive to innovate, and a de facto single vendor would have moved the market even further down that path.

More importantly, MS sells Windows for money, Google gives Android away. Google only makes money off Samsung if Samsung continues to deploy Google services. Look at what's going on with the Fire-- ostensibly an Android tablet, sure to inflate "Android tablet" sales numbers (much to the delight of partisan score keepers) but clearly moving away from a model that benefits Google, in favor of a model that benefits Amazon.

It's becoming clear that the ecosystem is where the money is (for everyone but Apple, that is), I imagine Samsung is capable of figuring this out. That is, the very thing that would make Android a much larger profit center for Samsung is the very thing that makes it a profit center for Google-- services. In that sense, Google and Samsung are potentially competitors.

The only thing Google has to keep hardware licensees in check is the threat of denying them access to the market, but Amazon has already demonstrated that it's possible to make an end run around that problem.

As long as there are a lot of Android licensees competing for customers, and consumer perception of magic Google pixie dust as being a positive persists, Google can walk this line. But the Fire already starts to erode the idea of "Android" necessarily being "Googley"; if Samsung becomes sufficiently dominate there really isn't much standing in the way of them deploying their own apps store, their own services and their own media streaming. And, of course, very handset that isn't running a Google service is money out of Google's pocket-- money that, ironically, they probably would have gotten had they done nothing, since prior to Android there wasn't any compelling reason of reinvent that wheel.

If LG or HTC were selling all the phones I probably wouldn't be wondering about this, but Samsung seems to have been driven mad by their own success-- their hubris is palpable. They seem to see themselves as the rightful heir to Apple, which means they need to bring more and more of the user experience in house. That doesn't mean I think they can actually do a superior job of delivering that experience, but if they manage to corner the Android market it won't really matter.

A minor quibble in an otherwise very good post: Google claims to only count Android activations on devices that offer licensed Google services, which would not include the Fire AFAIK.

Yes, yes, yes.

But the iPhone is still MUCH better.

You don't understand. No matter how much better your Samsung is, it is still not as good as the iPhone.

Horse Patootie!

masturbate herself?

seriously, what is the point of your post?
i can do the same with my xperia.

i can go buy something in a fiat just like i can go in a ferrari.

what were you trying to say? smartphones are smartphones?

samsung makes good low-end smartphones and that's it. they are all low-end. a 500hp renault isn't the same as a mclaren. a galaxy S2 isn't the same as a iPhone, it's a big ugly clunky "renault" when compared to a "mclaren" (iPhone). it is less responsive, it's huge, it has much worse graphics, worse sound, worse applications, joke ecosystem and it is really expensive for a "renault", even if it has 500hp.

You may be right, but I don't think Google is entirely forthcoming about these kind of figures. Does "licensed Google services" mean any Google service? That is, does running Gmail or Google Maps or using Google as the default browser make you an official Android device? Or does it require access to the Android Apps Market?

If the latter, then we really are entering a weird world where what may prove to be the best selling Android tablet to date doesn't contribute to Android tablet sales.

More generally, Amazon's play with the Fire may get a lot of marketing departments thinking. If you can let Google do the heavy lifting, then rebrand Android as a proprietary device (assuming you can run your own or license third party services) then you get to keep the money and the focus on you. Amazon isn't being seen as "another Android tablet maker", they're being seen as an Amazon tablet maker. I suspect other manufacturers are taking note.

I was responding to someone who made diehard fanboy assumptions like you ('Samsung makes good low-end smartphones and thst's it', you said), just to tell my expereince about Samsung smartphones in a hope that somehow he figure out the world is changing.

By the way, have you not heard of Galaxy Note?. It flies.

And recently survey in England said that Samsung had No1, No3, No7 and No8 best selling smartphones, and they are all high-end. Iphone was No2.

http://www.planetinsane.com/samsung-...in-uk/2625570/

IIRC, access to the Android market is part of the licensing of Google services.

that's not a renault.. that's a truck. fanboy? what's that?i tried a sgs2, i know what i am talking about.
and yes, the ace is so high-end.

sorry.. low quality components put together does not make that thing (all same sung devices) high-end.
I hope you saw the reason for that list. put all same sung "high-end" devices together. apple outsells them by how much? 12 to 1?more?

. . . Probably closer to 4-1 or less. They sold 10M of their flagship S2's in less than five months, 30 million of just the S series in 16 months. Those aren't Apple-like numbers but not as shabby as you're making them out to be.

You know. My brother-in-law told me that someone he knew gone from S2 to Iphone4. Obviously he needed a phone not a smartphone. Not all people could handdle S2 or in fact any other Samsung smartphones or android smartphones I beleive. You need to play with it to customise your requirements.

Sorry for the Ace, I just notice that the Ace is 3rd.

So you are basically saying that it requires a person with higher IQ to deal with android?

Let me tell you this..

Someone has to be real stupid to buy such expensive smartphone (all "high-end androids") and losing precious time "customizing", precious time finding ways to have more up-to-date software, etc. i don't know what you think, but this isn't the purpose of smartphones. they were made to be effective and to be a tool (for work or pleasure)

Installing ROMS and customizing working tools instead of actually working isn't smart. it's stupid.

I bought a smartphone for 200, 10 year old smartphone. guess what, android 2.1.

75% of the world population can (if they try) root their phones and flashing ROMS. +90% of those able to afford high-end smartphones (there's lots of people who can't) can do it too.. but guess what, most of them are "educated" enough to realize how stupid and dumb that is, so they buy a smartphone that just works.

if you can't see this, i'm sorry. there's nothing i can do but laugh and mock people like you.

they "shipped" less than 10M of S2's.. they sold what? maybe half of them? let's be realistic here please. same with all S series. maybe half that number is correct.

yes.. maybe apple outsells them 10 to 1. (at least 8). maybe apple outsells the whole "high-end androids" by 6 to 1. that says that 5/6th of high-end buyers have brains, 1/6th are:

a) stupid
b) don't have iPhones available
c) need those to programming for android and stuff like that.

sorry for you and others like you, so hypocrites, coming to apple sites just to "defend" android, trolling.. etc.

Sorry but those figures reported back in September were channel sales, not simply shipped. That's the same way Apple officially recognizes device sales. Whether purchased by Verizon, Best Buy or an end-user, it was still bought and paid for.

That's not any defense of Android, as I already noted those aren't Apple-esque numbers. By the same token there's no reason to make stuff up to make Apple look to be successful. They have plenty going for them without the misleading claims about competitors.

Wow. What a fine display of debating skills.