Apple adds Samsung's flagship Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note to amended 'Galaxy Nexus' complaint - Page 6

and another one crawls from under his rock

 

 

"Relics":

 

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57398726-37/iphone-again-scores-top-spot-at-customer-satisfaction/

 

 

 

 

http://mashable.com/2011/09/09/apple-customer-satisfaction-survey/

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briancaulfield/2011/03/18/apples-iphone-tops-jd-power-customer-satisfaction-survey-again/

 

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/08/apple-again-tops-j-d-power-rankings-of-smartphone-consumer-satisfaction/

 

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/10/09/j-d-power-smartphone-study-ranks-iphone-1-in-customer-satisfac/

 

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2008/11/iphone-wins-top-business-smartphone-satisfaction-marks/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This one's interesting:

 

http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/01/09/iphone-satisfaction-at-75-closest-competitor-at-47/

 

 

 

 

Apple has consistenly topped rankings of this kind since the first or second year into the iPhone's release. 

 

EDIT: Correction, *first* year.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/orchant/iphone-satisfaction-numbers-are-unreal/523

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/44709-early-iphone-adopters-extremely-satisfied

 

 

No wonder Apple commands over 30% of the US market, with at most 2-3 phones, *all under the same roof.* NO OEMs, NO UNIVERSAL-LICENSING. 

 

I won't even mention satisfaction rates for iPads, iPods and Macs. It's all the same story across the board. For years now. 

Edited by Quadra 610 - 9/1/12 at 4:31pm

 

Oh, he means "all iPhones" are relics… I didn't get that at all. I thought he was singling me out for having a first-gen.

 

I would *love* a top-condition first-gen iPhone. It'll be worth plenty later on. 

apple just love sueing people

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/10/26/german-family-owned-cafe-battles-apple-over-logo-dispute/

 

 

 

 

 

thats the way the americans live , sue anyone and everyone

 

 

 

even apple fans not happy

 

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1245890_Apple_upset_over_a_German_woman_s_use_of_an_apple_in_her_cafe_s_logo.html

Quadra, I'm not on a quest against Apple so you don't need to convince me. I'm happy with iPad and Mac book but I'll trade them with easy heart if something better will came out. I'm as former owner of iPhone just happened to have my own opinion. Maybe it's biased by my frustration of release of 4s instead of 5. You don't need to eat me for that. If 5 will be amazing I'll just transfer one of my tmobile numbers to wife's Verizon. If not - will just continue to use company's S3, that replaced iPhone only month ago. I call it choise and this is difference Between gadget freaks and fanboys.

 

I'll have to keep that in mind… mine's in perfect condition.

So you're "frustrated" that absolutely every single aspect of the phone was updated to brand new hardware last year. Mhmm…

 

 

How about enlightening us as to the difference there, because they both sound pretty foolish. Spec whores are an even smaller portion of the market than company "fanboys".

 

 

As long as you can distinguish between "fact" and "anecdote", it's all good. 

 

 

 

Except no one really gave a damn. 

 

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/24/apple-announces-q1-earnings/

 

Apple even managed to sell 17 million (yes, 17 MILLION) "useless toys" (as trolls like to call them) called iPads last quarter. Others can barely move that many smartphones (never mind so-called "niche" products like tablets) in an entire year, never mind a single quarter. 

 

When the rubber hits the road, company litigation is way, way down on the average list of consumer concerns. 

 

 

(you really have nothing left to wield at Apple, do you?)  What'll you post next? Litigation from 20 years ago?

Under his rock trying to draw a Perfect Rectangle.

Ah, ic. No, I meant relic as something holy/sacred. This inside joke when my wife critisized me for trading iphone for s3 at work even though i had no choise. Now I understood your point about updates.

who gives a cr@p how much they made , if your gona go down that road then

 

apple has 60,000 employees

samsung have over 300k

 

apple = Revenue	US$ 108.249 billion (2011)

 

samsung=  Revenue	US$ 247.5 billion (2011)

Yeah but half of those Samsung employees are working on parts for Apple iOS devices.

lol yeah funny that .

 

 

 

apple have to buy parts from samsung ,that makes me smile even more.

 

 

By 2004 Samsung was the world's-largest manufacturer of OLEDs, with a 40 percent market share worldwide,^[39] and as of 2010 has a 98% share of the global AMOLED market.^[40] The company is leading the world OLED industry, generating $100.2 million out of the total $475 million revenues in the global OLED market in 2006.^[41] As of 2006, it held more than 600 American patents and more than 2,800 international patents, making it the largest owner of AMOLED technology patents.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm mid 40-s and 3,5' are no longer big enough for my eyes. I don't want to have phone only glasses. Thus my expectations were 4'++. I don't really care about multicore and retina on a phone. This is the only part I like about S3 - screen size. I hate touchwiz and I wish it have sense and their amazing weather gadget. Again, just an opinion.

Samsung sold 235 million mobile handsets in the year 2009.^[64] At the end of the third quarter of 2010, the company had surpassed the 70 million unit mark in shipped phones, giving it a global marketshare of 22 percent, trailing Nokia by 12 percent.^[65] Overall, the company sold 280 million mobile phones in 2010, corresponding to a market share of 20.2 percent.^[66] Partially owing to strong sales of the Samsung Galaxy range of smartphones, the company overtook Apple in worldwide smartphone sales during the third quarter 2011, with a total market share of 23.8 percent, compared to Apple's 14.6-percent share.^[67] Samsung became the world's largest cellphone maker in 2012, with the sales of 45 million smart phones in the first quarter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats why apple are p1ssed.

 

Find it as offensive as you want. The American companies aren't stealing IP from the South Korean companies. And, please, let's not pretend that South Korea hasn't benefited enormously from American blood and money, that's offensive. Not rather offensive, disgustingly offensive, sickeningly offensive.

 

This is completely meaningless. Apple doesn't use OLED.

 

Stop copying and pasting Wikipedia until you understand why you're doing it.

 

 

No, they're pissed, as the court ruled, because Samsung is using Apple's IP on a product running a universally licensed OS to begin with. And it's not just one product, but numerous Samsung products that have been named. And Samsung is flooding the market with them, irrespective of the quality of those products. 

 

And since Android is universally-lincensed, the door is open for OEMs to infringe on a massive scale. So absolutely, Samsung's sales figures are quite concerning in this regard. They're flooding the market with products containing Apple's rightful IP, and one of the primary reasons they'e selling is precisely *because* they've implemented Apple's IP so closely. This was part of Apple's claim in the US -  a claim which a court and jury thought was perfectly justified. 

I agree, but not "purely due".... Companies like Samsung (leader), with the business plan of copying and not just beening similar, but out right copying. was a good percentage of the reason for Sony fall from the top. The difference with Apple is upper management have the balls and a big big cash reserve to fight back Samsung tactics. This fight is not just about current wrongs but to prevent future blatant copying. Don't get me wrong they all including apple "borrow" from each other but it becomes a different story when someone just copy.

Check back next year. Yeah funny that! 

Methinks if this website only allowed forums for apple products only ( I'm not saying it should) and no other devices can post here then I'm sure iHaters will actually buy apple products so that they can post here about apple not innovating and blocking competition and all the other things being said here. Especially today. .

The German woman should have thought about that before opening up a cafe called Applebaby and then trying to trademark an Apple as their logo, when a certain tech company, the largest and most successful on the planet, already has kind of slightly been associated with that same fruit for many decades now.

Is copying really the sincerest from of flattery? I found this too funny:

http://dewith.com/2012/its-not-just-phones/

Per usual, it's the same old perps...

 

Finally a post from someone who gets it.

They aren't suing anybody over this, they send out a letter like this to satisfy the requirements of showing they are protecting their trademark, if they don't do this they risk losing it.

It's a necessary formality, no matter how much people want to build mountains out of molehills.

 

the logo looks nothing like apple inc . and i could understand if it was another tech company but for the love of god ,a coffee shop.

 

dam just shows how shallow apple are.

 

Yes, but this is a first step before suing. Of course they can also decide someone made a bad decision when sending this complain letter and they can decide not to sue. People make mistakes. It is not like they had a company board meeting and they decided they have to destroy this coffee shop no matter what. Lets see how it develops.

 

But I don't like to see Apple wants to ban Galaxy S III. Actually, I hate Apple for this. I have S II and it is a good phone and it is nothing like iPhone. I bought it because I think it is genuinely better. Without competition Apple will be stuck with their tiny 3.5" display.

Funny bc Apple filed for this data tapping patent in 1996, and Google didn't exist until 1998.

When did Android start development? 2004 or 2005,, 6-7 years after the data tapping patent was published to the public.

We're the original android developer or google not vigilant enough to search for Apple's data taping patent.?

The universal search was a feature of Apple's Sherlock App released in the late 1990s It allowed users universal search of both the computer and multiple web search engines at once in a unified interface. You could search thru multiple search engines through one interface

In today's world, it would be like searching Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc... And files on your computer all at once. (But Apple was doing that more than 12 years ago) The user would see all the results in one window, with rankings of relevance. IIRC, the Sherlock App didn't display ads? Which would explain why the app development was stopped, bc Bing, Google, and Yahoo make their money off of ads.

Apple has two swipe to unlock patents, I think the second more detailed one is at issue here?

IIRC, in the pre-iPhone era, almost all smartphones required the pressing of a hardware key to initiate an unlock screen dialog.

While some companies are contesting that patent on prior art, none of the prior art involved phones, IIRC.

Feel free to correct me with facts, but not ' it isn't fair opinions "

It's one thing to pay homage to your idol who created great design 50-60 years ago..
Who design products in a different industry.

It's a different situation to copy your current competitor's current devices aka Samsung

What happened to logic and reason? Has it escaped everyone?

Sometimes I wish there was a heavily moderated part of this forum that only allowed users to post based on their use of logic and reason. Yeah that's censorship, but I would rather engage in discussion with people that further intellectual discussions that iFans and Fandroids.

Not to worry, Tallest eventually will reach that big Four-Oh, and then he will understand your point. It sorta like my late dad once asked me about three years ago about getting him a phone with the biggest font and keys possible, so that he could easily read the screen, text a message and make phone calls easily. His eyesight was failing due diabetes, but he was still full of fight in him, so I researched then to find something that would fit his needs, but alas none was available at the time. If he were still with us, I would've given him either Galaxy Note II or Galaxy Tab 7.7 because either one of these gadgets was perfect for him. He could've zoomed through texts to his heart content and could've made his important phone calls with it as well. You just made me remember one of the guys I miss the most. 

Edited by mcrs - 9/2/12 at 1:56am

But, As I can remember correctly, back in the mid 90's, there was a search engine introduced by the DEC [now part of HPQ] called AltaVista. It was my go-to site for searching the web at the time. This search engine predated even Apple's Sherlock by at least two years because it was going online in the late 1995. It was later acquired by Yahoo. "At launch, the service had two innovations which set it ahead of the other search engines: it used a fast, multi-threaded crawler (Scooter) which could cover many more Web pages than were believed to exist at the time and an efficient search running back-end on advanced hardware." 

 

 

I actually don't think this one should annoy you so much. No comments are noted on trade dress. These are just utility functions which Apple feels violate certain functional patents regardless of whether they're identical. I'm not so much referring to slide to unlock either, even though I think that patent is silly and novel. It's more the universal search and the other one. Some of these things aren't necessarily copies. They're just overlapping functions. I don't agree with you on Apple becoming a charity either. They entered a somewhat conservative market with no baggage, no concerns over fragmentation of their line, and no old code in tow. I think especially in this case your use of burglary as an analogy is just totally off base.

 

Nope, the same thing happened with Woolworth's in Australia, a letter was sent showing Apple was actively protecting their trademark.

 

No-one got sued.

 

Woolworths didn't change their logo.

 

Again this is merely a necessary formality to ensure a trademark holder does not risk losing their trademark.

 

Tim Cook's smile is so convincing.  Doesn't look like it's forced one little bit.

The point of Apple's patent is that is also searches files stored locally on the device whether they are contacts, emails, Apps, songs etc.

 

This isn't about web search although that is also integrated.

Apple and Samsung are fighting with the patent and everything but they didn't notice there is a lot of China imitate product in the market. I think they better solve that first.

 

 

Not all apple sir!

This one's interesting. Look at the rankings: Apple leads by a long shot. Then HTC, LG, and Nokia. Samsung is near the bottom-and is declining year over year.

So much for the "Samsung succeeded by making quality products" argument that the trolls keep making. In reality, the companies which did not make slavish copies of Apple's products fell far behind in sales. Samsung makes slavish copies and passes all of the other Android OEMs.

And Apple's market cap is several times Samsung's. I guess the market understands that Samsung is simply a big copyist.

That's only a small part of the story. The real story is that Apple is pissed because Samsung moved from the bottom of the field to the top by stealing Apple's IP - as shown in the recent $1 B court case.

Please don't confuse the idiot trolls with facts. Their heads will explode and it leaves a horrible mess.