or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Schiller takes stand in Apple v. Samsung retrial, says iPhone was 'bet-the-company' product
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Schiller takes stand in Apple v. Samsung retrial, says iPhone was 'bet-the-company' product - Page 2

post #41 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

Designed in every way by Apple yes

Thank you for finally getting the point.

1wink.gif
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #42 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

But that doesn't mean a component can't be a product. The chips are produced by Samsung and sold to Apple.

Ah, but Samsung components become Apple products once assembled, so his original statement is correct.

Not that you guys are desperately splitting hairs or anything.

1wink.gif
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #43 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

That doesn't change the fact that you're helping Samsung's bottom line with every Apple device that you buy.

But he never claimed he wouldn't help their bottom line, did he?
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #44 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

And still the true villain in all this, Google, stay out of the fight. What use would iPhone clones have been without the iOS rip off aka Android?

Do you really think if there had been no Android that there wouldn't have been iPhone clones?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #45 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Ah, but Samsung components become Apple products once assembled, so his original statement is correct.

Not that you guys are desperately splitting hairs or anything.

1wink.gif

Semantics and self deceiving philosophy.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #46 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

But that doesn't mean a component can't be a product. The chips are produced by Samsung and sold to Apple.

Name a phone, tablet or computer that doesn't have Samsung components inside? They all do, I just won't buy a product with their name on the outside which promotes the company and give them even more of my money. I'm not so upset with their component division over this as I am with their phone/tablet division. They are the ones that copy cat other company's products. And I know that it's a matter of time for apple to start using TSMC for processors and hopefully someone else for panels.
post #47 of 68
'bet-the-company' product ...

YES, I believe this. They worked their a$$ off and risked everything to get it out ... but not for that idiot f*** Andy Ruben, google and Samsung to copy the shit out of their work.

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #48 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Semantics and self deceiving philosophy.

It is a terrible habit of yours but what are we going to do?

1wink.gif
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #49 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


(very subtle bit in here as well)

Did you mean bit, or by... I mean, bite? 1wink.gif

The sig from asdasd or whatshisname.

"I wanted dsadsa bit it was already taken"

I always feel the need to ask for a correction, but am too lazy to post. Well, maybe he reads this post.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #50 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Semantics and self deceiving philosophy.

It is a terrible habit of yours but what are we going to do?

1wink.gif

No need for us to do anything, as he can deceive himself.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #51 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

No need for us to do anything, as he can deceive himself.

Actually we all do it and it's healthy for our mental health.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Actually we all do it and it's healthy for our mental health.

Cool! A double positive!
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #53 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Cool! A double positive!

Are you positive it was positive?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #54 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Name a phone, tablet or computer that doesn't have Samsung components inside? They all do, I just won't buy a product with their name on the outside which promotes the company and give them even more of my money. I'm not so upset with their component division over this as I am with their phone/tablet division. They are the ones that copy cat other company's products. And I know that it's a matter of time for apple to start using TSMC for processors and hopefully someone else for panels.

That's a much more reasonable explanation. I wonder if Samsung's lawyer took a page out of Burger King's book in which they copied the Big Mac and readily admitted it.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #55 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Are you positive it was positive?

Positively positive.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #56 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Cool! A double positive!

I got distracted for a second and didn't realize I wrote health and healthy in the same sentence. Doh!!
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #57 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


That doesn't change the fact that you're helping Samsung's bottom line with every Apple device that you buy.

I'm not helping their phone/tablet division's bottom line if I buy an Apple device.  Plus, I don't have Samsung's name on a product promoting the brand when people come to my home or I travel around with a Samsung label on my smart device.  It's kind of impossible to get away from buying certain devices with Samsung components inside.   Other products i buy may have their components inside, but I don't always know that since we can't always see the guts of the products we purchase,but if the name is on the outside, then I know who benefits the most and in my case it's not going to be Samsung and I don't know why you are dragging out your pathetic attempts to piss me off.

 

Why don't you just change YOUR discussion away from this.    Name a similar product that doesn't use any Samsung components that use Apple's OS's legally.   At least Apple has a plan to remove Samsung from their component vendors.

 

Please go grasp straws elsewhere.

post #58 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I'm not helping their phone/tablet division's bottom line if I buy an Apple device.  Plus, I don't have Samsung's name on a product promoting the brand when people come to my home or I travel around with a Samsung label on my smart device.  It's kind of impossible to get away from buying certain devices with Samsung components inside.   Other products i buy may have their components inside, but I don't always know that since we can't always see the guts of the products we purchase,but if the name is on the outside, then I know who benefits the most and in my case it's not going to be Samsung and I don't know why you are dragging out your pathetic attempts to piss me off.

Why don't you just change YOUR discussion away from this.    Name a similar product that doesn't use any Samsung components that use Apple's OS's legally.   At least Apple has a plan to remove Samsung from their component vendors.

Please go grasp straws elsewhere.

You obviously didn't read my last reply to you.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


That's a much more reasonable explanation. I wonder if Samsung's lawyer took a page out of Burger King's book in which they copied the Big Mac and readily admitted it.

I guess I assumed that everyone knows that practically all smartphones/tablets/computers use Samsung components on some level, whether it's NAND, RAM, SSD, panels, or whatever else they make.  My mistake for assuming that people actually know these things.

 

I'm not exactly keen on Samsung component division as they have been caught TWICE for price fixing.  Whether they've done it more than that, but just haven't gotten caught, i don't know. But getting caught price fixing TWICE is a sure indicator that Samsung is NOT a very honest company.

 

I personally think that Samsung should NOT be allowed to be a component supplier to the computer, tablet, and smartphone industry and make finished goods that compete with their component customer's products as that is conflict of interest. I wonder if Samsung computer/mobile division pay less for the exact same components they sell to other companies.  It wouldn't surprise me if they did, which would unfairly bring down the costs of their finished goods.

post #60 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I guess I assumed that everyone knows that practically all smartphones/tablets/computers use Samsung components on some level, whether it's NAND, RAM, SSD, panels, or whatever else they make.  My mistake for assuming that people actually know these things.

I'm not exactly keen on Samsung component division as they have been caught TWICE for price fixing.  Whether they've done it more than that, but just haven't gotten caught, i don't know. But getting caught price fixing TWICE is a sure indicator that Samsung is NOT a very honest company.

I personally think that Samsung should NOT be allowed to be a component supplier to the computer, tablet, and smartphone industry and make finished goods that compete with their component customer's products as that is conflict of interest. I wonder if Samsung computer/mobile division pay less for the exact same components they sell to other companies.  It wouldn't surprise me if they did, which would unfairly bring down the costs of their finished goods.

I think that you'd have a very short list of who you'd buy products from if you looked into most companies business practices. Try to find one that hasn't done anything unscrupulous.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #61 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Cool! A double positive!

Are you positive it was positive?

LOL!

Plus one
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #62 of 68
Samsung should not be allowed to make phones and tablets anymore, the company should be abolished from stealing from Apple.
post #63 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It's really common business practice to copy what the competition is doing. Google isn't the only company to do it. Phillips was the first company to introduce the flat panel TV to consumers and the other manufacturers quickly followed suit. Most cars look very similar. Whenever a company comes up with the new 'it' thing it is simply going to be copied in some fashion.

Exactly.

Apparently there was only one way to design a car back then.

I'm glad they started branching out and exploring new designs today!

post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

I personally think that Samsung should NOT be allowed to be a component supplier to the computer, tablet, and smartphone industry and make finished goods that compete with their component customer's products as that is conflict of interest. I wonder if Samsung computer/mobile division pay less for the exact same components they sell to other companies.  It wouldn't surprise me if they did, which would unfairly bring down the costs of their finished goods.

And who, exactly, has the authority to tell Samsung what they can/can't make?  Its Apple's decision to continue to have components manufactured by Samsung, no-one's forcing them.  If they don't like it, they can go and find someone else to do it.  If they can't find anyone else who can manufacture to the quality/quantity required, then that's unfortunate but a pill they have to swallow.

post #65 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid View Post
 

And who, exactly, has the authority to tell Samsung what they can/can't make?  Its Apple's decision to continue to have components manufactured by Samsung, no-one's forcing them.  If they don't like it, they can go and find someone else to do it.  If they can't find anyone else who can manufacture to the quality/quantity required, then that's unfortunate but a pill they have to swallow.

 

so, you don't see anything wrong with a company that makes key components and then turns around and competes with their component customers?  They have an unfair advantage as they know who buys which products, how much they pay and when they get shipments.  It's VERY easy (although very hard to prove) that Samsung favorites their own Mobility division in terms of pricing, and product shipments.

 

Have you ever heard of the term "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"?

 

Why do you think that Samsung is the only company that seems to have much in the way of Sales and profits amongst the Android mfg.

 

What Samsung is doing is practicing unfair business practices.  I can't wait for Apple to get off of Samsung completely, unfortunately it may take them a little while longer until they can get other suppliers up to speed with products, but at least Apple doesn't buy NAND, RAM, or SSD memory from them anymore that I'm aware of.  Apple just buys some panels and the ARM processors (until TSMC gets up to speed, which may be next year) from Samsung until they can find another supplier that can do it.  But hopefully they'll get 100% away from them in about a year.

post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

so, you don't see anything wrong with a company that makes key components and then turns around and competes with their component customers?  They have an unfair advantage as they know who buys which products, how much they pay and when they get shipments.  It's VERY easy (although very hard to prove) that Samsung favorites their own Mobility division in terms of pricing, and product shipments.

 

No, I don't see anything wrong with that.  Every single one of Samsung's component customers know that Samsung competes with them in the consumer sector.  If they then choose to continue to use Samsung as a supplier, how is that Samsung's fault?  All of their customers have a choice, if they don't like it use a different supplier.  Its called a free market.

post #67 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid View Post
 

No, I don't see anything wrong with that.  Every single one of Samsung's component customers know that Samsung competes with them in the consumer sector.  If they then choose to continue to use Samsung as a supplier, how is that Samsung's fault?  All of their customers have a choice, if they don't like it use a different supplier.  Its called a free market.


You don't see anything wrong with conflict of interest?  You must not have any integrity in your methods of doing business.  It's similar to Microsoft selling a product that competes with their OEM Windows customers.  A bunch of Microsoft OEMs were discussing the possibility of going after Microsoft when they released the Surface products since that's conflict of interest because Microsoft charges their OEMs money for Windows OS licenses as well as Office, but with Microsoft, they absorb those costs. Whether or not they actually take action, that's another discussion.  Since Microsoft isn't doing that well in terms of Surface sales, so they might not bother, but that is conflict of interest.  

 

It's not Samsung's fault for the OEM to buy components from them, but it IS Samsung's fault for competing against them with similar products with similar configurations and pricing.

 

If you don't see a problem with Samsung's Mobility unit, then you obviously haven't studied business law.  it's not Kosher to do what Samsung is doing.  The problem is deciding to take legal action, which costs a lot of money, takes a long time to get resolution.  It would be more effective if there was a class action, but for the OEMs to do that may take a while. 


I think it's wrong to do that.  What do I know, I only got A's in Business Law.  What did you get when you took that course?

post #68 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


That doesn't change the fact that you're helping Samsung's bottom line with every Apple device that you buy.

Well, I can't help that.  But I haven't bought any computing device in now a year, so I'm hoping that Apple will eventually be 100% Samsung free when I replace anything that I currently own.   The only two things that I know Apple still uses from Samsung is still panels for some products and ARM processors.  But I'm going to replace my iPhone (which is 2 years old) when they release the larger screen model, which hopefully will be 100% Samsung free.  I'm not planning on replacing my iPad until next year's model, which I hope will be 100% Samsung free.  But I'm not going to buy something with Samsung's name on the OUTSIDE of the product.

 

A component is far different than an actual product.  Samsung won't be selling me a TV, Washer, dryer, refrigerator, etc. and those things aren't cheap.  Nothing in my home has EVER had the name Samsung on the outside of the product and I can't always look inside to see what was used by Samsung.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Schiller takes stand in Apple v. Samsung retrial, says iPhone was 'bet-the-company' product