or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC judge: Samsung should post massive bond ahead of US sales ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC judge: Samsung should post massive bond ahead of US sales ban - Page 2

post #41 of 123
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post
Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling yourself to an advertising machine…

 

B-b-b-b-but, APPLE is the marketing company!

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #42 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

B-b-b-b-but, APPLE is the marketing company!



Courtesy of CNN Money

The truth is that Samsung outspent every other company on the planet in 2012 in advertising and marketing.
post #43 of 123
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

 

At a glance it looks like Samsung spent more this year than Apple, Dell, and HP spent in the last four years combined.


…Samsung's galactic marketing budget…

 

*shudder* That's not how you use galactic… lol.gif

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #44 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this stops Android's momentum and inevitable eclipsing of Apple on both smartphones (already) and tablets (within 2 years max).

The problem with your argument starts with the fact that by every other important metric (revenue, developer support, stickiness, internet usage) andriod is far behind iOS.  Apple is also taking control of their processor destiny and if the current trend tells us anything they'll continue to widen the gap between the competition.  Also Andriodians are betting on Apple standing still with innovation in ios and services.  Sorry to burst your bubble - Apple will innovate vigorously - it's in their DNA.  Finally look at how wonderfully Apple is established with its stores expanding around the globe - they are in so many markets and will continue to grow by opening into new ones.

 

Having the bottom position of the market - even if it is the majority - is not a position of power.  Hi-end means apple, so even if ios devices end up with the kind of market that apple laptops are in, it still will be good enough to lead the industry and garner the take-it-to-the-bank support of developers and loyal users.

post #45 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


If it wasn't for Google, WP7, and even Palm might have been doing better, both of which weren't iOS rip-offs. ...

 

Fixed it for ya.  1smile.gif

 

Samsung and all their phones would be in the same place as Palm and Microsoft if not for Android and Google.  Android is the culprit that effectively killed off Palm (that and HP only waiting a nano-second to see if the products took off).  If it wasn't for Google ripping off iOS and Java to create Android, iOS would still be the dominant OS, but the alternatives would be more different things like WebOS and WP7.  

 

The alternatives are being killed off because they aren't similar enough to the market leaders for anyone to figure out or care about.  The perfect example of this being Microsoft's "Metro" which is a perfectly useable OS, but confusing, different, and basically "not iOS," (or a copy of iOS).  Instead of a healthy situation where there are several competing alternatives that all do things different ways but are all equally valid ways to do stuff, we just have iOS and an iOS imitation (Android).

 

Since people have shown quite clearly that they don't actually wan't anything different from iOS (at least in any large numbers), this is of course the winning strategy financially for Google.  It's arguable that even if WebOS had survived that combined with WP7 it would still only amount to a small percentage of users, so again, this is financially, the best way to go.  What's good for the players financially though, is not necessarily good for the users.  

 

My point is however, that Samsung isn't at fault here.  They simply followed the market, used a freely available iOS clone/alternative and marketed the hell out of it.  They shamelessly copied iOS for certain, but they merely followed Googles lead in that area.  They seemed, and still seem from all press accounts I have read, to believe they did nothing wrong in this copying.  With the example set by Google, a world-leading software designer and vendor, it's hard to disagree with them.  

 

The real fault here is and always has been with Google.  They did a very wrong thing in ripping off iOS design, and these are the consequences.  They legitimised copying iOS.  They used all their power and influence, not to create a real alternative, but to basically just say "it's okay to copy this stuff." In their defence, they have that idealistic FOSS point of view on the world that everything should be free etc., but idealism doesn't excuse the stealing.  It's good to argue that all software should be free and open source, but if someone doesn't want to play your game, stealing their stuff is still wrong.  

 

When the history is written, it will be Google's fall from it's moral high-chair into the depths of corporate thievery that will be the real culprit in terms of nudging out any legally and morally superior, mobile OS alternatives. 


Edited by Gazoobee - 12/30/12 at 1:38pm
post #46 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Apple has closed the doors of many companies they've acquired in the past, although they have kept certain staff on. I still have no idea how HP managed to push through such a purchase without a viable business plan in place. They bought Web OS and fired the only people who understood it.

 

 

Yes, Apple has shut down quite a few companies, but Apple did indeed put a bid in on Palm, and although I take it with a grain of salt, supposedly people in the know thought Apple was going to keep it operating. It would have made sense considering PALM could sell phones on Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, while Apple could not. Apple would have also acquired the Web OS engineers who would have been a valuable addition to iOS (more so at the time). Many were former Apple employees. 

 

Apple also has owned a few companies and let them run independently. For instance, Claris and File Maker. 

 

Yes, the HP purchase would have made sense if HP followed through on it's plan. I thought it was intriguing that HP was going to make dual boot systems that could boot both into Windows and Web OS. Eventually when enough developers were on board, you could see HP dropping Windows. HP made a mistake in bringing out an expensive tablet to compete with the iPad first, and then abandoning the whole plan based on just one failure. 

post #47 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


I remember watching the HP keynote after they purchased Palm. I was elated at the possibilities, as I am certain many others were. Really a shame.

 

 

Yes, the possibilities were very interesting. I thought making the desktops dual boot Windows and Web OS machines (as was part of the stated plan) would have been very cool. It should have focused on that first, which would have brought developers on board and then went for tablets. I also couldn't understand why it killed the smartphones. With HP's marketing, it could have had more success with the Smartphones. 

post #48 of 123
At the rate upon which tablets are expanding and Apple is actually growing its share, this 24 month claim is a pipe dream.
post #49 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post



Courtesy of CNN Money
The truth is that Samsung outspent every other company on the planet in 2012 in advertising and marketing.

 

To be fair, Samsung Electronics includes a LOT of products besides phones & tablets. I think comparing Apple to Dell or HP is more applicable since they sell so many of the same things. Even then it shows Apple doesn't spend any more than other companies.

 

As to the Samsung commercial, I find it funny that they are enabling support for running two Apps not only on the Note but also on the GS3. Android users complain about the iPhone having a small screen and they're going to take their screen and split it in HALF to run two Apps at the same time? Why would you want to look at two tiny Apps at the same time?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #50 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


What can even be said of that? The video epitomizes everything that is wrong with Samsung.

"I will gladly take/copy/steal your stuff (in the video, quarterly earnings report) and say it is mine".

Par for the course...

post #51 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

"I will gladly take/copy/steal your stuff (in the video, quarterly earnings report) and say it is mine".
Par for the course...

Indeed. Gazoobee is arguing above that this theft MO starts with Google, and gives license to Samsung to do the same. I wonder what others think of this. He has me on ignore, right up there with DaHarder, or I would take it up with him.
post #52 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

B-b-b-b-but, APPLE is the marketing company!

You're only trolling yourself.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

Yes, Apple has shut down quite a few companies, but Apple did indeed put a bid in on Palm, and although I take it with a grain of salt, supposedly people in the know thought Apple was going to keep it operating. It would have made sense considering PALM could sell phones on Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, while Apple could not. Apple would have also acquired the Web OS engineers who would have been a valuable addition to iOS (more so at the time). Many were former Apple employees. 

 

Apple also has owned a few companies and let them run independently. For instance, Claris and File Maker. 

 

I had to google Claris.  I was completely unfamiliar with the name. I forgot File Maker was owned by Apple. That's a very good point regarding branching out on carriers.

 

 

Quote:

Yes, the HP purchase would have made sense if HP followed through on it's plan. I thought it was intriguing that HP was going to make dual boot systems that could boot both into Windows and Web OS. Eventually when enough developers were on board, you could see HP dropping Windows. HP made a mistake in bringing out an expensive tablet to compete with the iPad first, and then abandoning the whole plan based on just one failure. 

 

I remember reading that they laid off the development staff from Palm. That was what made it appear that they didn't have a real plan. Obviously the board would have reviewed a plan before approving a bid on the company, but I don't know where to find detailed information on it. 

post #53 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post



Courtesy of CNN Money
The truth is that Samsung outspent every other company on the planet in 2012 in advertising and marketing.

 

 

And in R&D and CapEX as well.  Not sure what your point is?

post #54 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Indeed. Gazoobee is arguing above that this theft MO starts with Google, and gives license to Samsung to do the same. I wonder what others think of this. He has me on ignore, right up there with DaHarder, or I would take it up with him.

Google is a thief. Google's business model is to appropriate intellectual property as well as products and services protected by copyright then offer the product or service for free by underwriting the product or service with advertising. Brilliant business model but extremely unethical regardless of your motives and Google's motives are not morally superior.
post #55 of 123
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
You're only trolling yourself.

 

They just CANNOT resist doing this, can they?!

Please take note: you are not the third guy. You are the first two. The third guy is people like TECHSTUD who try to hide behind multiple accounts.  I am the announcer.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #56 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


Courtesy of CNN Money
The truth is that Samsung outspent every other company on the planet in 2012 in advertising and marketing.

The funny thing is that so many people argue that Apple's success is completely due to marketing - yet Apple's budget is less than Dell, HP, Samsung, or Microsoft.
"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 #57 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

You'd be surprised for me to say this, but Samsung deserves this. I still think though Schmidt and Google should balls up and take some of the heat instead of cruising by untouched.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this stops Android's momentum and inevitable eclipsing of Apple on both smartphones (already) and tablets (within 2 years max).

There is no indication Android has eclipsed iOS in cell phones and Android has, at best, 15% market share on tablets. Now I admit here are 100's of millions Android phones that are used as feature phones with 3.5" low test screens and there might be lots of Android tablets sitting on shelves collecting dust, but they do nothing to strengthen the Eco-system and are easily discounted.
post #58 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

What can even be said of that? The video epitomizes everything that is wrong with Samsung.

This commercial has been airing almost every 10 minutes today on FOX during the football games. It doesn't make me want to buy one...
post #59 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

My point is however, that Samsung isn't at fault here.  They simply followed the market, used a freely available iOS clone/alternative and marketed the hell out of it.  They shamelessly copied iOS for certain, but they merely followed Googles lead in that area.  They seemed, and still seem from all press accounts I have read, to believe they did nothing wrong in this copying.  With the example set by Google, a world-leading software designer and vendor, it's hard to disagree with them.  

 

The real fault here is and always has been with Google.  They did a very wrong thing in ripping off iOS design, and these are the consequences.  They legitimised copying iOS.  They used all their power and influence, not to create a real alternative, but to basically just say "it's okay to copy this stuff." In their defence, they have that idealistic FOSS point of view on the world that everything should be free etc., but idealism doesn't excuse the stealing.  It's good to argue that all software should be free and open source, but if someone doesn't want to play your game, stealing their stuff is still wrong.  

 

When the history is written, it will be Google's fall from it's moral high-chair into the depths of corporate thievery that will be the real culprit in terms of nudging out any legally and morally superior, mobile OS alternatives. 

 

 

Though I agree that Google is very much at fault and would love to see them taken down, I can't agree that Samsung "isn't at fault here". They are definitely at fault and what we had here was the confluence of two independent philosophies that stealing is ok. Google has taken it from the Linux-free-software philosophy and Samsung from the entrenched idea in Asian culture that complete imitation is a form of excellence in itself. This is why Samsung can't quite grasp that what they have done is wrong: for them plagiarism is how one does well. Originality is not valued. Copying perfectly is valued. (How Asian culture arrived at this terrible idea is a question that we may never see answered.)

 

I'm afraid I see this all the time in Asian (mainly Korean and Chinese) students. They think they should do very well; they also think that it is ok to plagiarise even though they are told explicitly that it is not allowed. This is a huge problem for Australian Universities, who desperately want Asian money, and are going through hoops to get it, but who also have to uphold the philosophy that plagiarism is wrong and a reason to fail a student. If they allow plagiarism they could face a corruption enquiry and yet they know that it is happening all the time. So lecturers who report plagiarism cases are subtly punished for doing so: they must do a lot of work only to have some administrator let the student off the hook, quietly. And then it is a black mark against the lecturer. And no one — I mean no one — is allowed to talk about this issue in the press.

 

So Samsung are a symptom of a very wide problem. They think that when the copy Apple and steal their IP it just shows that they are better than Apple.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #60 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

 

And in R&D and CapEX as well.  Not sure what your point is?

 

You're back with that lame argument again? After I tore it apart two previous times (and you ran away from the discussions with your tail in between your legs never to return).

 

Samsung might spend more on R&D than Apple, but they spread that R&D out over 1,001 products. Apple only has a few very specific products to spend their R&D on. Apple is also highly successful which makes their R&D as a % of revenues look smaller than other companies.

 

You could also look at it another way: Apple is much more efficient than other companies as they get a far greater ROI for their R&D spending vs other companies.

 

As far as capex, why even bring that up? Apple contracts out their manufacturing to other companies instead of spending money to do it themselves. So of course their capex is going to be insignificant when compared to companies that actually manufacture components and need to build factories.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #61 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

To be fair, Samsung Electronics includes a LOT of products besides phones & tablets. I think comparing Apple to Dell or HP is more applicable since they sell so many of the same things. Even then it shows Apple doesn't spend any more than other companies.

 

A good point.   Besides phones, Samsung Electronics sells billions in electronics parts.

 

As any engineer can tell you, the Promotion costs for that must be enormous:

 

Expensive sample parts, constant exhibits at trade shows all around the world, roving teams of salespeople going after new business with all the related expenses of getting new customers, etc.

 

It's no wonder that their Sales Promotion expenses are far beyond the other companies on that chart.

post #62 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard View Post

(How Asian culture arrived at this terrible idea is a question that we may never see answered.)

Interestimg post. Just an offhand suggestion:

Marshall McLuhan would probably ascribe it to the use of ideographic writing, where the clarity of communication depends on the precision of copying complex characters with many times the pictorial detail of Western analytical alphabets. Fosters an imitative habit of mind, as well as a heightened awareness of aesthetic detail. But not adventurousness, necessarily.

I'm sure the Asians among us here are going to just love this casual generalizing. Apologies in advance!

Edit: And the Korean alphabet and its history would have to be squeezed into this theory somehow. It could be done, but do these kinds of "explanations" ever describe any culture fairly? How do Westerners feel when McLuhan says that intellectual property is such a Western obsession because the alphabet and the printed book have created an ethic of individual thought?
Edited by Flaneur - 12/31/12 at 8:48am
post #63 of 123

I'm not sure how this got into a debate about advertising.

 

However, we do have access to US figures for iOS/Android, so let's look at those. The data comes from Apple revelations at the recent CA trial, and from AdAge reports.

-- Some actual Galaxy and iOS ad budgets for the US (phones and tablets) ---

In 2008:

  • Apple - $98 million for iOS ads
  • Samsung - ?

In 2009:

  • Apple - $150 million for iOS out of a $501 million total ad budget
  • Samsung - ?

In 2010:

  • Apple - $346 million for iOS out of $691 million total ad budget
  • Samsung -$79 million for Galaxy products

In 2011:

  • Apple - ~$450 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $933 million total
  • Samsung - $142 million for all Galaxy devices; of which $64 million was for the SII phone.

In 2012:

  • Apple - ~$500 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $1B total
  • Samsung - $300 million + expected for Galaxy advertising out of $3B total

So while we haven't calculated figures for the rest of the world, apparently Apple has always outspent Samsung for phone/tablet ads in the USA although Samsung is increasing their budget quickly.

 

Then there's the whole debate about whose ads make more sales.  And so forth.  Of course, in ten years none of us will remember this conversation.

post #64 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

I'm not sure how this got into a debate about advertising.

However, we do have access to US figures for iOS/Android, so let's look at those. The data comes from 
Apple revelations 
at the recent CA trial, and from 
AdAge reports
.




-- Some actual Galaxy and iOS ad budgets for the US (phones and tablets) ---




In 2008:

[*] Apple - $98 million for iOS ads
[*] Samsung - ?

In 2009
:

[*] Apple - $150 million for iOS out of a $501 million total ad budget
[*] Samsung - ?

In 2010
:

[*] Apple - $346 million for iOS out of $691 million total ad budget
[*] Samsung -$79 million for Galaxy products

In 2011
:

[*] Apple - ~$450 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $933 million total
[*] Samsung - $142 million for all Galaxy devices; of which $64 million was for the SII phone.

In 2012:

[*] Apple - ~$500 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $1B total
[*] Samsung - $300 million + expected for Galaxy advertising out of $3B total



So while we haven't calculated figures for the rest of the world, apparently Apple has always outspent Samsung for phone/tablet ads in the USA although Samsung is increasing their budget quickly.


Then there's the whole debate about whose ads make more sales.  And so forth.  Of course, in ten years none of us will remember this conversation.

Just curious - why are you comparing Apple's entire iOS advertising budget (iPhone, iPod, iPad, iTunes, iCloud, etc) to Samsung's spending for a single product (Galaxy)? (and that even assumes that your numbers are correct).

Hint: not all Samsung mobile devices are labeled 'Galaxy'. For some examples, have a look here:
http://reviews.cnet.com/samsung-cell-phones/
"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 #65 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

I remember watching the HP keynote after they purchased Palm. I was elated at the possibilities, as I am certain many others were. Really a shame.

Agree.
post #66 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

At a glance it looks like Samsung spent more this year than Apple, Dell, and HP spent in the last four years combined.

Go to LAX. Samsung Mobile is EVERYWHERE.

Every 25 feet there is a Samsung display case.

Every 50 yards there is a Samsung charging point.

Every 100 yards there is a Samsung "rest area". Comfy chairs and tables, charging points, wifi.

post #67 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard View Post


Though I agree that Google is very much at fault and would love to see them taken down, I can't agree that Samsung "isn't at fault here". They are definitely at fault and what we had here was the confluence of two independent philosophies that stealing is ok. Google has taken it from the Linux-free-software philosophy and Samsung from the entrenched idea in Asian culture that complete imitation is a form of excellence in itself. This is why Samsung can't quite grasp that what they have done is wrong: for them plagiarism is how one does well. Originality is not valued. Copying perfectly is valued. (How Asian culture arrived at this terrible idea is a question that we may never see answered.)

I'm afraid I see this all the time in Asian (mainly Korean and Chinese) students. They think they should do very well; they also think that it is ok to plagiarise even though they are told explicitly that it is not allowed. This is a huge problem for Australian Universities, who desperately want Asian money, and are going through hoops to get it, but who also have to uphold the philosophy that plagiarism is wrong and a reason to fail a student. If they allow plagiarism they could face a corruption enquiry and yet they know that it is happening all the time. So lecturers who report plagiarism cases are subtly punished for doing so: they must do a lot of work only to have some administrator let the student off the hook, quietly. And then it is a black mark against the lecturer. And no one — I mean no one — is allowed to talk about this issue in the press.

So Samsung are a symptom of a very wide problem. They think that when the copy Apple and steal their IP it just shows that they are better than Apple.

Absurd stereotype that you'd only have the guts to write in a forum where you are a nobody.
post #68 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Go to LAX. Samsung Mobile is EVERYWHERE.
Every 25 feet there is a Samsung display case.
Every 50 yards there is a Samsung charging point.
Every 100 yards there is a Samsung "rest area". Comfy chairs and tables, charging points, wifi.

Good point. The Samsung corporate image advertising contributes to the mobile division.

Apple doesn't do much (if any) corporate advertising and most of their money is spent on products.
"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 #69 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The funny thing is that so many people argue that Apple's success is completely due to marketing - yet Apple's budget is less than Dell, HP, Samsung, or Microsoft.

More money does not make for more effective marketing.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #70 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


More money does not make for more effective marketing.

 

No, what makes for more effective marketing are more effective products.

post #71 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


More money does not make for more effective marketing.

 

That may be true, but when one gets bombarded with a brand, even if the marketing campaign is not very effective, it still increases the mindshare of the brand through sheer volume, alone.

 

Apple's marketing department are like snipers while Samsung does ....carpet bombing. Just like Microsoft, they have no taste.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #72 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

I'm not sure how this got into a debate about advertising.

However, we do have access to US figures for iOS/Android, so let's look at those. The data comes from 
Apple revelations 
at the recent CA trial, and from 
AdAge reports
.




-- Some actual Galaxy and iOS ad budgets for the US (phones and tablets) ---




In 2008:

[*] Apple - $98 million for iOS ads
[*] Samsung - ?

In 2009
:

[*] Apple - $150 million for iOS out of a $501 million total ad budget
[*] Samsung - ?

In 2010
:

[*] Apple - $346 million for iOS out of $691 million total ad budget
[*] Samsung -$79 million for Galaxy products

In 2011
:

[*] Apple - ~$450 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $933 million total
[*] Samsung - $142 million for all Galaxy devices; of which $64 million was for the SII phone.

In 2012:

[*] Apple - ~$500 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $1B total
[*] Samsung - $300 million + expected for Galaxy advertising out of $3B total



So while we haven't calculated figures for the rest of the world, apparently Apple has always outspent Samsung for phone/tablet ads in the USA although Samsung is increasing their budget quickly.


Then there's the whole debate about whose ads make more sales.  And so forth.  Of course, in ten years none of us will remember this conversation.

Are you still posting that old AdAge report with the line "Although Samsung declined to provide specifics on spending on the phone," and only for measured media? Give it a rest as your post has been divi stated time and time again.
post #73 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

That may be true, but when one gets bombarded with a brand, even if the marketing campaign is not very effective, it still increases the mindshare of the brand through sheer volume, alone.

Apple's marketing department are like snipers while Samsung does ....carpet bombing. Just like Microsoft, they have no taste.

Doesn't mean it works. Not matter how many Budweiser commercials I see I'm not gonna drink it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #74 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


Absurd stereotype that you'd only have the guts to write in a forum where you are a nobody.

 

The idea that every negative sounding generalisation one can make about people in other cultures must be false is one of the stupidest ideas whether on the internet or in the real world. I'm sorry that you are so half-baked. As for being a nobody here — trust me, I'm perfectly ok with that.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #75 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Pathetic, isn't it?

video: http://youtu.be/Itb0s5jTJHY

I've liked a lot of their ads in the past. I think they've really hit the mark on the anti-Apple market that isn't sure which anti-Apple device to buy. But this one seems really bad all around. I see nothing redeeming about it at all.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #76 of 123

The worst example of misleading advertising on a smartphone is Samsung's NFC transferring a video by kissing phones for about 2 seconds. That must be some absurdly impressive data bandwidth and transfer rates, Samsung.

 

The Taxi cab with the kids giving daddy separate videos of themselves saying goodbye for the plane and then his wife implying a ``for his eyes only'' video not to be seen on the plane by a simple kiss of the phone.

 

I guess if they had to hold the phone for a solid 30 seconds they overrun commercial time, but be more accurate.

post #77 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Fixed it for ya.  1smile.gif

 

Samsung and all their phones would be in the same place as Palm and Microsoft if not for Android and Google.  Android is the culprit that effectively killed off Palm (that and HP only waiting a nano-second to see if the products took off).  If it wasn't for Google ripping off iOS and Java to create Android, iOS would still be the dominant OS, but the alternatives would be more different things like WebOS and WP7.  

 

The alternatives are being killed off because they aren't similar enough to the market leaders for anyone to figure out or care about.  The perfect example of this being Microsoft's "Metro" which is a perfectly useable OS, but confusing, different, and basically "not iOS," (or a copy of iOS).  Instead of a healthy situation where there are several competing alternatives that all do things different ways but are all equally valid ways to do stuff, we just have iOS and an iOS imitation (Android).

 

Since people have shown quite clearly that they don't actually wan't anything different from iOS (at least in any large numbers), this is of course the winning strategy financially for Google.  It's arguable that even if WebOS had survived that combined with WP7 it would still only amount to a small percentage of users, so again, this is financially, the best way to go.  What's good for the players financially though, is not necessarily good for the users.  

 

My point is however, that Samsung isn't at fault here.  They simply followed the market, used a freely available iOS clone/alternative and marketed the hell out of it.  They shamelessly copied iOS for certain, but they merely followed Googles lead in that area.  They seemed, and still seem from all press accounts I have read, to believe they did nothing wrong in this copying.  With the example set by Google, a world-leading software designer and vendor, it's hard to disagree with them.  

 

The real fault here is and always has been with Google.  They did a very wrong thing in ripping off iOS design, and these are the consequences.  They legitimised copying iOS.  They used all their power and influence, not to create a real alternative, but to basically just say "it's okay to copy this stuff." In their defence, they have that idealistic FOSS point of view on the world that everything should be free etc., but idealism doesn't excuse the stealing.  It's good to argue that all software should be free and open source, but if someone doesn't want to play your game, stealing their stuff is still wrong.  

 

When the history is written, it will be Google's fall from it's moral high-chair into the depths of corporate thievery that will be the real culprit in terms of nudging out any legally and morally superior, mobile OS alternatives. 

 

 

Google shamelessly steals, for sure. Regarding iOS copy, this is in fact the situation which occurred in the PC world, after Microsoft issued its pale copy of Mac GUI, with Windows. History repeats, in a sense : once Apple issues radically new design principles, it appears that copies of it only try to sustain competition.

 

Although probably not the only explanation, I think this has something to do with corporate cowardness. The real innovation route always appears to be more risky than the copy of a successful ideas (I am not currently justifying copy, of course).

 

I am not exonerating Microsoft from "corporate cowardness", either. I think the only reason why they invented this crazy Metro idea is that they just could not devise a way to implement Office in a pure touchscreen environment.


Edited by umrk_lab - 12/31/12 at 12:19am
post #78 of 123
Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I had to google Claris.  I was completely unfamiliar with the name. I forgot File Maker was owned by Apple. That's a very good point regarding branching out on carriers.

 

 

I remember reading that they laid off the development staff from Palm. That was what made it appear that they didn't have a real plan. Obviously the board would have reviewed a plan before approving a bid on the company, but I don't know where to find detailed information on it. 

 

 

They did have a plan, but they changed it sometime around the time when they discovered the sales of its first product wasn't selling. Then instead of regrouping, they started getting rid of the talent. It's mistake was chooses to go after the iPad as its first endeavor before there were a lot of developer support. It should have turned web os into a desktop OS first (e.g. Chrome). 

post #79 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


More money does not make for more effective marketing.

 

 

True, but you would think if Apple was nothing but a marketing company, it might spend more at it then it's closet competitors (considering how much money it makes). I think it more fair to say, Google is a marketing company. 

post #80 of 123
I could careless about Samsung's cell phones. Ingot the 16 gig iPhone 5 last week and it is simply breath taking. I have seen the Galaxies and they are not impressive. Big screen yeah but after playing with one I just yawned.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC judge: Samsung should post massive bond ahead of US sales ban