or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial - Page 2

post #41 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
 

Seems obvious to me. People who can't afford an Apple product hate the company because they can't afford it. 

 

This kind of dumbassery (your comment) is the reason some people hate Apple. 

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #42 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Apple ][ is that you?

:lol:

 

So right.

You talkin' to me?
Reply
You talkin' to me?
Reply
post #43 of 147

Forget it, I got it the wrong way around.


Edited by Zoolook - 3/28/14 at 1:24pm

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #44 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig View Post
 

I just tried to edit that page. Samsung reverted it within two minutes.

 

The section in question:

Quote:
 One 2005 design patent "at the heart of the dispute is Design Patent 504,889",[49] which consists of a one-sentence claim about the ornamental design of an electronic device, accompanied by nine figures depicting a thin rectangular cuboid with rounded corners.[50] A U.S. jury trial was scheduled for July 30, 2012[2] and calendared by the court through September 7, 2012. 

It's got nothing to do with Samsung. You deleted that section twice without any explanation (understandably reverted), and then deleted it saying "the deleted text implied that the legal case was about rectangles with rounded corners. In reality, the case was about direct and willful copying of multiple design elements". However, the statement about the details of the 2005 design patent is correct, and I think that it's arguably fair to describe it (with a source) as being 'at the heart of the dispute' given that it was the most hotly disputed part - there was a great deal of controversy and debate over this one patent. That said, you could argue over whether it was truly 'at the heart of the dispute' - and the place to do that is the talk page.

 

You were also deleting the sentence about when the trial was - presumably this was by mistake, but it's also another reason your edits were reverted.

 

edit: A user called Fishbert has suggested on the talk page that a better approach would be to call for a RFC or a dispute resolution as a solution, rather than edit-warring like this (which won't get anywhere productive). That might be worth following up if people are serious about getting it changed.


Edited by DarkLite - 3/28/14 at 1:35pm
post #45 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

My Kids school will not allow them to use wikipedia since it lack any facts and two the kid when they find out what others in their classes are researching would go on to wikipedia and edit the information to include random stupid things which most kids would just copy and use in class.

That is factually untrue. It arguably contains more factual data than any single source in the world, which includes the world's largest and most diverse physical libraries since there is scientific data to back up the "half-life of knowledge" theory which could obsolete a great deal of their printed non-fiction.

That is not to say that Wikipedia doesn't also contain a great deal of speculative, incorrect, and even outright falsified data, but the same could be said for even the best printed Encyclopedia. Even if we assume a much lower ratio of occurrence no source is perfect; and an old, printed encyclopedia has the aforementioned consideration of the "half-life of knowledge" which doesn't afflict Wikipedia to the same degree.

You'll notice on most (if not all) comprehensive Wikipedia pages there is considerable sourcing and long discussion pages as to what gets added and why. I feel that Wikipedia is an invaluable tool and an excellent source for helping a child learn to think critically. In the past decade, Idoubt there has been scarcely a day that has gone by that I haven't used Wikipedia in some fashion, even if just a jumping off point to another site.


Edited by SolipsismX - 3/28/14 at 5:15pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #46 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

You have to wonder why didn't DED just correct these erring articles if it is so important.

Rubbish. This observation makes absolutely no sense when you consider that the article is part of a series in which the Wikipedia discussion is only one component. Are you suggesting that DED should make it his business to publish the entire series on Wikipedia somehow?
post #47 of 147

My ultimate dream is for DED to write an exposé on his own articles and how they obscure reality.  I am concerned, though, that such an article may cause a feedback loop that brings down the internet...

post #48 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

You have to wonder why didn't DED just correct these erring articles if it is so important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post
 

Yeah I know.  The time spent creating this article could have been spent correcting the Wikipedia page, assuming it's of any importance at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post
 


You honestly think shaming them is going to work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post
 

DED seemingly..

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Funny indeed, but did little to sway the case.

 

And not a single word of condemnation from you guys against the company/individuals modifying Wikipedia to mislead others, a perversion of one of the very principles that made the internet so great: the open, accurate, sharing of information.

 

It says a lot about your characters.

Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #49 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

And not a single word of condemnation from you guys against the company/individuals modifying Wikipedia to mislead others, a perversion of one of the very principles that made the internet so great: the open, accurate, sharing of information.

It says a lot about your characters.

"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 #50 of 147
At least, here, no-one is biased!
post #51 of 147

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.&action=history

 

A user with ip 76.4.247.152 edited the article several times.  They are deleted by user Ging287 who claims he/she is " Hello. I am a casual user and minor contributor to Wikipedia. I mostly try to find typos and unsourced claims and fix/remove them."  Wikipedia does allow you to trace facts.  The ability to trace is very important in this internet age.


Edited by tzeshan - 3/28/14 at 2:43pm
post #52 of 147

Sloppy facts about a subject that 99% of the population has no interest in understanding and could care less. When is Apple not at war with someone? No one is paying attention. Customers at Best Buy were purchasing  a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and thought they were buying an iPad. Yep the world has their finger on the pulse of this trial. 

post #53 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post
 

My ultimate dream is for DED to write an exposé on his own articles and how they obscure reality.  I am concerned, though, that such an article may cause a feedback loop that brings down the internet...

 

Can you outline a few DED "reality obscuring" problems? There are literally hundreds of DED articles up on a wide range of subjects, so it should be easy for you to find and describe lots of serious problems if DED can outline half a dozen major problems in a single Wikipedia article. Or are you simply creating a false equivalency and not backing up your accusations with any facts in a lazy effort to discredit actual journalism?

 

That’s not something to be proud of. 

post #54 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Apple ][ is that you?

LOL, that was my reaction too.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #55 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

At least, here, no-one is biased!

You got that damn straight!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #56 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.&action=history

 

A user with ip 76.4.247.152 edited the article several times.  They are deleted by user Ging287 who claims he/she is " Hello. I am a casual user and minor contributor to Wikipedia. I mostly try to find typos and unsourced claims and fix/remove them."  Wikipedia does allow you to trace facts.  The ability to trace is very important in this internet age.

That went really well didn't it? The IP in question originates from Las Vegas, NV.

 

Looks like DED's article inspired a few people to vandalize the page and insert their own biased remarks. At this point it appears that cooler heads, with actual Wikipedia trusted user status need to edit the page and include references and make notes regarding the reason the edits were necessary. Going in there with just an IP address sans user name and writing "Samsung go suck a duck" is of course going to be reverted. What did you expect?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #57 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

Can you outline a few DED "reality obscuring" problems? There are literally hundreds of DED articles up on a wide range of subjects, so it should be easy for you to find and describe lots of serious problems if DED can outline half a dozen major problems in a single Wikipedia article. Or are you simply creating a false equivalency and not backing up your accusations with any facts in a lazy effort to discredit actual journalism?

 

That’s not something to be proud of. 

 

Seriously though. you don't need to defend him, he can defend himself.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #58 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
 

 

Seriously though. you don't need to defend him, he can defend himself.

 

He is defending himself.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #59 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

You want to know another good one?

Try to find an original PDF user manual for the Neonode n1m (the phone Apple haters claim is prior art for slide to unlock). They have all been removed, even from Neonodes own support site. The ones you can still find are "edited" versions. What's been edited? The phrasing about unlocking your phone now says "Slide to Unlock". The original said something like "swipe right to accept".

Wow. Getting info on the N1m was quite hard to find info on in the first place.

I wonder if Myriam Joire's demo is still on YouTube? [edit: still there on youtube]
Edited by THT - 3/28/14 at 3:55pm
post #60 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust Wikipedia as a single source for knowledge.

Why single out WikiPedia? Just change the sentence a little and you're done ...

Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust "Authority X" as a single source for knowledge.

The TV, magazines, the government, politicians, corporations, newspapers and more all have an angle. In this information overloaded age, we are lucky to be able to easily cross-reference against other reports and interpretations. Essential if you want to have any hope to find out what's really going on around us.

As an ex of mine said .. The only place you can find "objectivity" is in the dictionary. :-)
post #61 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

Can you outline a few DED "reality obscuring" problems? There are literally hundreds of DED articles up on a wide range of subjects, so it should be easy for you to find and describe lots of serious problems if DED can outline half a dozen major problems in a single Wikipedia article. Or are you simply creating a false equivalency and not backing up your accusations with any facts in a lazy effort to discredit actual journalism?

 

That’s not something to be proud of. 

 

From http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/03/googles-mystery-barge-ordered-to-stop-construction-work-leave-san-francisco-bay

 

"Google's plans to bypass environmental review backfires



The floating project appeared aimed to skirting environmental review and public planning procedures, regulations that can add significant cost or delay."

 

There is no evidence to back up your claim that Google aimed to skirt environmental review.  It is pure speculation.

 

 

From http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/22/apples-iphone-5c-failure-flop-outsold-blackberry-windows-phone-and-every-android-flagship-in-q4

 

"The primary data point supporting the "5c Failure" propaganda campaign is that the cheaper model hasn't been able to outsell Apple's top of the line 5s, as if Apple would prefer to sell the 5c and collect at least $100 less per sale."

 

No, the primary data point was Tim Cook's admission that iPhone 5c demand was lower than thought, as discussed in this article http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/27/tim-cook-admits-iphone-5c-share-lower-than-expected-says-demand-was-different-than-we-thought

 

From the same article, "Imagine General Motors being upset to find that the majority of its customers preferred to pay a 20 percent premium for an option package that included fancier trim, greater horsepower and a lucrative technology/convenience package."

 

Your analogy twists the purpose of the 5c, which was to expand Apple's appeal to new customers in the mid-range market.  It wasn't intended to drive customers to the 5s, although that trend certainly does benefit Apple.

 

 

I'll do some more research later, and I'll be sure to point out your distortions in future articles.

post #62 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


No, the primary data point was Tim Cook's admission that iPhone 5c demand was lower than thought, as discussed in this article http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/27/tim-cook-admits-iphone-5c-share-lower-than-expected-says-demand-was-different-than-we-thought

Your analogy twists the purpose of the 5c, which was to expand Apple's appeal to new customers in the mid-range market.  It wasn't intended to drive customers to the 5s, although that trend certainly does benefit Apple.


I'll do some more research later, and I'll be sure to point out your distortions in future articles.

Wiki is advertised as an online encyclopedia.

Cook said the mix was off but the 5C did outsell the 4S in the same period last year.

So you know that's what the 5C was suppose to do or are you speculating.
post #63 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

He is defending himself.

The whole 3rd person thingy threw him off.
"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 #64 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The whole 3rd person thingy threw him off.

Maybe I needs a /s ?
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #65 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

You want to know another good one?

Try to find an original PDF user manual for the Neonode n1m (the phone Apple haters claim is prior art for slide to unlock). They have all been removed, even from Neonodes own support site. The ones you can still find are "edited" versions. What's been edited? The phrasing about unlocking your phone now says "Slide to Unlock". The original said something like "swipe right to accept".

Pathetic that people try to rewrite history of the Neonode by using the same phrasing Apple does in place what Neonode originally wrote. I still have an original kicking around - if anyone's interested I'll post it up.

Yes, please post it!
post #66 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Maybe I needs a /s ?

Or just do a better job sounding sarcastic. lol.gif
"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 #67 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


Maybe I needs a /s ?

 

I should have known better. lol

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #68 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Last I checked some of Samsung's devices cost just as much as Apple's, and in some cases more.

Some of Samsung's devices are flagship models that are on-par with Apple's prices. But not all Samsung phones are like that.

The Samsung Duo Y sold in India, for instance, is roughly $108

Apple does not have any models in that price range. Apple's phones start at $450... but the majority of iPhones sold are actually the $650+ models.

Android phones, in general, have an average selling price of around $300

But the iPhone's average selling price is above $600

It's really not difficult to see why people say Apple's phones are "expensive"
post #69 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Some of Samsung's devices are flagship models that are on-par with Apple's prices. But not all Samsung phones are like that.

The Samsung Duo Y sold in India, for instance, is roughly $108

Apple does not have any models in that price range. Apple's phones start at $450... but the majority of iPhones sold are actually the $650+ models.

Android phones, in general, have an average selling price of around $300

But the iPhone's average selling price is above $600

It's really not difficult to see why people say Apple's phones are "expensive"

I agree, but the OP makes it seem like all of Samsung's offerings are of the cheap variety.
"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 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

This kind of dumbassery (your comment) is the reason some people hate Apple. 

Look at this entire thread. Look at the amount of time and effort this website devotes to bashing Samsung.

It's really embarrassing that these people exist.

DED is pretty much the Fox News of tech reporting, and everything he writes is a hit-piece.

I start visiting this site, browse through a bit to see when the updates are coming, and then one of these steaming piles always turns me away again.

Without this garbage this site would be so, so much better.
post #71 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post
 

 

From http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/03/googles-mystery-barge-ordered-to-stop-construction-work-leave-san-francisco-bay

 

"Google's plans to bypass environmental review backfires



The floating project appeared aimed to skirting environmental review and public planning procedures, regulations that can add significant cost or delay."

 

There is no evidence to back up your claim that Google aimed to skirt environmental review.  It is pure speculation.

 

From http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/22/apples-iphone-5c-failure-flop-outsold-blackberry-windows-phone-and-every-android-flagship-in-q4

 

"The primary data point supporting the "5c Failure" propaganda campaign is that the cheaper model hasn't been able to outsell Apple's top of the line 5s, as if Apple would prefer to sell the 5c and collect at least $100 less per sale."

 

No, the primary data point was Tim Cook's admission that iPhone 5c demand was lower than thought, as discussed in this article http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/27/tim-cook-admits-iphone-5c-share-lower-than-expected-says-demand-was-different-than-we-thought

 

From the same article, "Imagine General Motors being upset to find that the majority of its customers preferred to pay a 20 percent premium for an option package that included fancier trim, greater horsepower and a lucrative technology/convenience package."

 

Your analogy twists the purpose of the 5c, which was to expand Apple's appeal to new customers in the mid-range market.  It wasn't intended to drive customers to the 5s, although that trend certainly does benefit Apple.

 

 

I'll do some more research later, and I'll be sure to point out your distortions in future articles.

 

So when Google lied about its secret plans, hid them from regulators and was then forced by the government to move its illegal construction project out of the Bay Area, you think its "speculation" to report what happened and that’s your best example of misleading the public.

 

But when people speculate about how many 5c units Apple planed to sell and why, you just know in your heart that Apple failed. 

 

Save your research, I’ve written you off as a Thom Holwerda. You can believe what you like. 

post #72 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

But when [Tim Cook] speculates about how many 5c units Apple planed to sell and why, you just know in your heart that Apple failed. 

Yeah. I've never trusted that guy either.
post #73 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

So when Google lied about its secret plans, hid them from regulators and was then forced by the government to move its illegal construction project out of the Bay Area, you think its "speculation" to report what happened and that’s your best example of misleading the public.

But when people speculate about how many 5c units Apple planed to sell and why, you just know in your heart that Apple failed. 

Save your research, I’ve written you off as a Thom Holwerda. You can believe what you like. 

That's not evidence supporting your claim that Google tried to skirt environmental review.

Apple didn't fail with the 5c and Tim Cook isn't just any person. If it was CNET saying Apple missed the mark, then I would take it with a grain of salt.

I'll do the research anyway when I've got some time, and I'm going to start with finding out who this Thom Holwerda person is.
post #74 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

No one forced you to read it.

Yeah, but it's like a trainwreck, you can't help it, and anyway the iPhone 6/rMBP updates are months out.
post #75 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I guess you were absent the day they taught diplomacy.

And most likely the days that they highlighted some of the finer points of say, grammar and punctuation.

But even if it were the case that he had a PhD, it would only be proving my original point that much more emphatically. I'd be inclined to say, as forcefully as fists of ham pounding away at a keyboard on an Apple forum. 1wink.gif
post #76 of 147

 

I see our friends from Seoul and Mountain View are out in force tonight.  DED must have hit a nerve.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

The lamestream tech press is biased against Apple.  If you want fair and balanced factual reporting that isn't grossly slanted toward one perspective, come to Apple Insider!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

You have to wonder why didn't DED just correct these erring articles if it is so important.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post
 

Yeah I know.  The time spent creating this article could have been spent correcting the Wikipedia page, assuming it's of any importance at all.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post
 

How will this "shame" Wikipedia?

 

Do you think Jimmy Wales will read this and have a sudden epiphany that a community curated encyclopedia is a bad idea?  The whole point of Wikipedia is that people who supposedly know more about a topic have the freedom to correct errors.  By complaining about it on another website you completely defeat the purpose of it.

 

Everyone (at least, everyone with any brain), knows not to trust Wikipedia as a single source for knowledge.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post
 

Awesome article DED, Thank you for this! wikipedia is biased.. just now used it and i can give some expamples like Wolverine (comicbooks): last time i checked Wolverine's Adamantium was virtually indestructible not near-indestructibl, is also an antihero not just a superhero and who'd the heck is James Howlett no i didn't read 2002 Wolverine comicbook or watch that terrible movie, even now i remember when iPhone 5 launched apple maps was all over wikipedia page

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
 


You are too logical.  That would deprive DED/Corrections of ammunition in his ongoing rail against Samsung - who are so terrible that Apple themselves seem to be doing ever more business with them as time passes.  Fixing the article would just remove one more picturesque windmill from the landscape for Don Quixote to tilt his lance at.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

How the hell is this even worthy of an article?
post #77 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Can you outline a few DED "reality obscuring" problems? There are literally hundreds of DED articles up on a wide range of subjects, so it should be easy for you to find and describe lots of serious problems if DED can outline half a dozen major problems in a single Wikipedia article. Or are you simply creating a false equivalency and not backing up your accusations with any facts in a lazy effort to discredit actual journalism?

That’s not something to be proud of. 

Daniel, why do you refer to yourself in the third person when you post under the Corrections user?
post #78 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Last I checked some of Samsung's devices cost just as much as Apple's, and in some cases more.

And those are precisely the ones that don't sell. The Samsung (and other Android) phones that sell are the cheap ones, as this site has pointed out (with the numbers to back it up) many times.

post #79 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

And those are precisely the ones that don't sell. The Samsung (and other Android) phones that sell are the cheap ones, as this site has pointed out (with the numbers to back it up) many times.

There seems to be plenty of evindence that Samsung's flagship phones sell very well. From their domination of the Android-based device profits, to them being the other cellphone vendor making any real money besides Apple, too independent reports — posted right here on AI recently — of the Samsung Galaxy S4 being either the 2nd or 3rd most popular device on the US' four major carriers.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #80 of 147

Originally Posted by DeanSolecki View Post



Yeah. I've never trusted that guy either.

It's obvious by your comments that you live in your own fantasy world.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial