Internal sales documents show Samsung has lost the war for tablet supremacy in the US - Page 3

Excellent example of your passive aggressive charm, thanks.  😃

More like attempted murder vs. murder.

"Your honor, my client may have fired an entire 15 round clip at the victim, but as you can clearly see, my client is a terrible shot and the victim is in good health."

Yes. Yes. Yes. I got it. You got it. I got it that you got it. 

 

Please, please go on to something else..... (I promise to try and avoid you as well).

It's not a "standard" if it takes certain hardware/software to read it. All that said, and you likely can't tri-force.

Really subtle humor is lost on you... It was soooo subtle it went over my head for the first few seconds. 

Hmmm.... I am still on 10.7, and I have no problem using this from 'Character Viewer' 😳 or this 👍 or this 👳 or 💤......?

First, it's been well established by Korean courts that Samscum is a criminal organization.

 

Secondly, criminal organizations have large incomes that they wash through banks.

 

How convenient it is that they have money losing segments of their organization where they can claim high profits to run through the banks.

 

So, in conclusion, Samscum is fighting this case to continue to have a division where they can wash their ill-gotten gains from other sources.

 

Of course it is. So USB isn't a standard because old computers don't have USB ports? So Thunderbolt isn't a standard because PCs don't have the drivers for it? By the way… 

  ▲

▲▲

Well, I'm 69 and I'm tech savvy enough to know that a watt-guzzling CPU is needed when the software and OS is not optimized for minimizing battery drain. THIS is why desktop specs don't translate over to portable devices. Brute force is dead. Long live tight programming.

You made my day.  

 

Of course Huddler inserts line spacing after each paragraph, but it's close. 

 

Smooth as the silk of a conjurer's bag in a Vegas stage show.

Edited by hill60 - 8/10/12 at 2:14pm

 

Nope they buy Amazon Kindle fires and Nexus 7's.

 

Quit trying to perpetuate the geeky "Android sells only high end" myth.

 

The fact is TouchWiz on low end hardware is "Android" for the majority.

 

Cool.

 

 

 

🐶

 

Well, we know where nine (three each!) of those Galaxy Tabs went.

 

😉

 

Murphy strikes again.

 

So which professor should "You guys" hire or did you mean "proof read"?

The 37,000 figure only represents the unit of sales of "accused" tablets. Samsung also sells windows-based tablets which haven't been accused of infringing Apple's patents for example..

- IDC

The title says it all to me, Samsung lost

 

Thats all that really needs to be said, "they are nothing, they lost, they are losers!" (points if you know where that is from)

 

Whats funny is their numbers are so poor they aren't even qualified to have lost to apple in the tablet industry, its more like they lost to the Kindle/xoom/random DOA IPAD killer.

Your parents must not be Chinese.

 

The Chinese have soundly rejected Acer, Asus, and other Android tablets in favor of the Apple iPad which zoomed to 72.5% of the market in China in 2011. It is now clear no one in China wants cheap Taiwanese and Korean Android tablets.

 

"As per the survey conducted, it has been found that iPad accounts for 72.5% of China’s tablet market in 2011, while Lenovo Group Ltd. accounts for 4.7% and Samsung for 4.6% market shares."

 

http://themarketsareopen.blogspot.com/2012/07/apple-incnasdaqaapl-open-slightly-lower.html

 

hmm, shocking indeed... however am I alone in not wanting the tablet industry to be dominated by Apple? Don't get me wrong, the new iPad is great, but if Apple maintains a monopoly on the sector I think its going to stifle innovation. When I see Apple dominating the sector year after year i see reason to worry, not celebrate.

I don't think you know what "monpoly" means, but let's say for sake of argument you think it means "majority market share". You're worried about stagnation from a company that had a "monopoly" on its own markets: Mac and iPod? And yet Mac and iPod were innovative, kept changing annually over the past decade, staying fresh, and dropping in price, and even morphing into the iPod Touch which is more like the iPhone than a traditional iPod. Stop this "stifle innovation" nonsense. There will always be competitors/copiers trying to shoot Apple down from the top perch. This ain't Microsoft from the 90s where Microsoft got fat and uncompetitive in their dominant market position.
Edited by Suddenly Newton - 8/10/12 at 11:53pm

lol, i'll ignore the candid condescending tone and address just the facts of what you've said. 

1. Apple does not have a good record in this respect. After the Apple II was a hit it continued being sold as Apple's primary product far into obsolesence. This happened after Steve Jobs left Apple in the 80's.

2. This stifle innovation "nonsense" applies to everyone, apple included. Consider things like copy and paste, the ability to download and use alternative browsers, Apple's upcoming maps application, all of these are products of competition with android, and they are better for it.

 

Nope. Try again with a real argument.

The Pad is Apple's idea.

There is no such thing a market for anything else similar to an iPad, that is stealing Apple's idea.

if you do not like that do not buy an iPad.

So far one out of nine Americans have bought an iPad from Apple. I do not see them complaining. It is strong testimony to Apple's attention to detail that over 90% of those are very satisfied with the Apple iPad, much higher than anything from the imitation world of stolen ideas using Android to rip Apple and loyal Americans off.

 They work on IE on windows phone but not IE on windows...

I don't mind clarifying my stance, which part is the issue?

 

Both the claim that Apple would not have added those features were it not for Android and the claim that Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or stifle actual innovations.

According to this logic Aple committed copyright infringement by making a touchscreen phone seeing how other touch screen phones also existed. "iPad" is nothing more than a brand moniker, the product is a tablet, a concept which has been executed numerous times prior to the iPad. Indeed the iPad has done it well and this is why it sold, but its nonsense to say that anything resembling an iPad in any way is copyright infringement.

 

 

 

Furthermore, I don't understand what national loyalty has to do wih this conversation. Apple contracts the vast majority of its work overseas, and Zteve Jobs has personally told Obama that unless expected wages for the same work goes down dlmestically he refuses to bring operations stateside. Don't be fooled into thinking that Apple's concerns in anyway align with national goals unless those goals get Apple more money. At the end of the day, its a business.

 

No, he said nothing of the sort. Unless you do mean "Zteve Jobs". Steve said nothing about "refusing" to do anything.

 

At the end of the day, Apple is more.

Lol, on phone so sorry for the silly spelling mistakes, no need to get petty. In your own link you don't disprove me all it says that Jobs unambiguously states that these jobs are not coming back. The reason why they would not be coming back is because labor wages in the U S of A are much higher than in other places.

What precisely do you mean that at the end of he day Apple is more? They function as a retailer and producer of electronics that we at this forum use and enjoy. In exchange for those electronics we pay the company for services and products rendered. They manufacture their products overseas because it is cheaper, its par for the course. The only reason this was brought up was to show that Apple is no more nationalistic than The Gap, Nike, or Google.

Also I will respond to your other post but am at work right now and can't.

 

Which isn't what you claimed, meaning you're disproven.

 

 

This is your conjecture.

 

Than just a company looking out for profit.

...I'm really not sure what you are arguing anymore. Steve did in fact claim the jobs weren't coming back anymore, and because the particular article that you provided didn't explicitly say it was because of cost it means my argument is invalid?

That's the equivalent of me saying that wheels are round and you providing an article saying that they are not square. That they are round is therefore conjecture on my part and my entire argument is thus flawed?

I'm completely open to any other reason why manufacturing jobs are not hosted state side, and if you can provide a logical and credible one I'd gladly agree with you. Unfortunately that is not the case, and as a publicly traded company, Apple's primary responsibility is to its stock holders, not any other purpose that you might think.

 

Ok, I said I'd address the claims you say I made, and here goes.

 

1. Apple would not have added these features were it not for Android

 

I did not say this. I agree that the idea that features such as copy/paste or the ability to install other browsers could ONLY have happened due to Android's existence is absolutely ludicrous, however, I do think that Android's implementation of these features before Apple certainly prioritized them. Furthermore, in an attempt for each to differentiate one another, both have come up with phenomenal platform specific technologies that are now starting to migrate to the other. For example on Google's side you have amazing mapping implementation on Android, something that Apple is now trying to address in iOS 6. In contrast, Apple redefined how voice-phone interaction works with Siri, something that lit a fire under Google's a** to better in their ecosystem.

 

2. Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or stifle innovation

 

It is in any company's interest to create a monopoly. In creating a monopoly they ensure that they always remain relevant. As for "attempting to stifle innovation", of course I don't believe Apple is consciously trying to do this, yet it is a by-product of any monopoly that has ever happened. You believe that Apple is somehow different, that it is special. I sincerely hope I do get proved wrong, because I'm loving the consistent leaps and bounds we're making in telecommunications technology. The iPad has only been out for 3 generations (years) now, if it still maintains market dominance by 2020 and keeps the same spirit, I'll gladly say I was wrong. But I'm not holding my breath. 

34 million iPads? It's more popular than I thought.

Wow that's a lot, but what do most people use a tablet for? It's something that has always baffled me, unless millions of people have the extra dough laying around I guess. Who is an ipad really geared towards? If anyone in particular. 

 

… Seriously? The tablet is the every-computer. It'll kill laptops and redefine desktops. It's for everyone.