or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple vs. Samsung docs reveal Galaxy Tab was a flop and Samsung knew it
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple vs. Samsung docs reveal Galaxy Tab was a flop and Samsung knew it - Page 4

post #121 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS9 View Post

Many people here claim Apple will lose the suit because they won't be able to prove a loss.  Samsung lied, these lies affected Apple stock prices. In fact  Samsung should be investigated for purposely misrepresenting their numbers which directly affected Apple stock. There may be enough to Charge Samsung with stock manipulation. 

In Korea of course since they don't have a presence in the US stock market.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #122 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


It was "out" in the last trial almost two years ago. Nothing in this story is actually new apparently. It's all old recycled stuff that was written about 18 months ago or more.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151854/quite-smooth-samsung-actually-sold-1-10-of-the-2-million-galaxy-tabs-it-claimed-in-2010

 

Not true. The U.S. information on three Tab models from 2012 was included at the bottom. When that was previously reported, there was great outcry from commenters like yourself who insisted that none of this was true. 

 

The new data pertains to global tablet sales and a detailed breakdown of US sales and competitors performed by Samsung.

 

So no, you’re just beside yourself desperately trying to spin things in a favorable light for Android, but have no direction to take them in, so you’re just making stuff up to cloud the water. As always.

post #123 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The typeface is getting bigger and brighter. Does that mean the comments are more important and deserve more consideration now? 1rolleyes.gif

Maybe it's just an indicator for readers to skip/block.
post #124 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post

 

I wonder how quickly Apple Insider pivots from going after Samsung to going after Amazon and Kindle. 

Maybe, maybe not.  I do agree that Amazon has a stronger ecosystem than Samsung which makes Amazon a sort of a competitor for Apple.  However, Apple and Amazon are still very different companies and Apple may realize that there is room for both, a content company (Amazon - books/products/sales medium/music/movies) and a hardware company (Apple).  Interestingly and quite ironically, I think that Amazon is more a competitor of Samsung.

post #125 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS9 View Post
 In fact  Samsung should be investigated for purposely misrepresenting their numbers which directly affected Apple stock.
There may be enough to Charge Samsung with stock manipulation. 

In Korea of course since they don't have a presence in the US stock market.

RS9 was apparently suggesting that Apple stock was criminally manipulated in the US. Usually, the way it works is you try to influence other investors to either buy or sell then you take an opposite position to either pump and dump or trash talk and short, but it might be a situation where Samsung just wanted to cause harm to Apple without actually taking a position in AAPL.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #126 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

The point still stands. Where did the money from the lost Apple sales claimed in that trial go? Was Samsung wildly profitable with garbage-bin devices like the Galaxy Ace?

 

You clearly don't understand patent law and the trials related to intellectual property. At all. Why are you commenting as if you do?

 

If it was as simple as "lost sales due to infringement", it'd be a matter of scouring some accounting ledgers, estimating losses, doing a little math and we're done.....

 

But it's not only that or remotely that simple. It's about how markets are created, what the measurable potential is, how much momentum is lost, how much licensable income is lost, and so on. It's intense and complex.

 

For example, how has the "Galaxy" line of products become viable AT ALL today? Well, in part by leveraging someone else's (Apple's) technology for a few years first, without paying even a license fee for the use of it. Some of Apple's "signature" features and patents (and design style) were copied whole cloth. Samsung knew full well it would take years to prosecute, and they could likely "settle" or walk away with the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. 

 

They are THE competitor in the iPhone-like smartphone space. Why? In part due to copying Apple. That alone weakened Apple's position. How do we measure THOSE losses. It isn't on a sales-only basis.

 

Some patent holding companies never produce a single thing with their patents, but they can legitimately sue for infringement and "damages" regardless. That fact alone should show you how oversimple your "standing point" is on these suits.

post #127 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post
 

As is evidence in Samsung's advertising and of the third party market/anecdotal research, as well as just asking any of your friends, colleagues or anyone you meet who have purchased the tabs, the most common response from them is, "It's outselling Apple, [so it must be better]."

 

The same has been declared for Samsung's smartphones. 

 

Interesting that the iOS gets such significantly high internet usage with such a smaller market? 

 

Obviously, one is myth, the other math. And for the ignorant, myth outsells math.

 

I do think Samsung out sells Apple in phones... pads... not so much.

And I think the old school argument of what is 'hot selling' (you better buy what others are buying) is the reason for fudging the numbers on sales.  

 

But in the end, (after about 3 phones or 5 years), people will buy the right phone for them.   

 

I also think people who know WHY they want to buy a smartphone or tablet  buy the right one for them

 

People who use the internet mobilely, buy the phone that is best for them

- we are seeing that in the stats

 

People who buy a phone for a phone and for just one or 2 apps.... or for size, buy that phone.

Most people buying smartphones for the first time are not avid internet users... they have dumb/feature phones and browsing if there at all is painful.   But they want FaceSpace or TweetsApp or RealHousewiveOnBravo App... and they see 'bigger' and 'same price' and buy that phone.   in 2 years they see all the other stuff they want to do... and decide, is this the phone for me?

 

And that's where I see Apple getting people who 'need' the internet...   

 

so... if 100 Million people buy a new smartphone this year for the first time, 50% are samsung, in 2 years (50 million), I suspect that 40% of those (20Million) will buy an iPhone in 2-4 years, because they see it as the right phone for the job the need the phone to do.

post #128 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

Happy with my Note 10.1

And Peter Bright is happy with his Windows 8.1

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #129 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post


Given that the markets have only just opened, and given that it is a blog news report, it may take a while for markets to react. If regulators here and elsewhere do go after Samsung, and can prove the assertion of lying to investors and regulators, the company may well wish that they had never seen an iPhone.

But, given the criminal legal history of one exec at Samsung, they may feel bullet proof. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/business/global/30samsung.html?_r=0). Fortunately, since they are listed on many nation's stock markets, being bullet proof could be a false feeling.

But, my money is on the concept that they will have a designated scapegoat far enough down the line that no high executive will ever have a problem. It's a shame there is no other way to punish the company legally for lying to investors.

 

Therein lies one of the inherent problems with "corporations are people, my friend".  A corporation enjoys all the rights of an individual, but almost none of the direct accountability. You won't hear of a corporation "going to prison" for a crime that any individual would do 10 years for...

 

Drilling down and plucking individuals out for prosecution leads to the inevitable "fall guy" or even "patsy" taking responsibility for the corporate-person. 

 

That's a law/definition that badly needs to change. Then we can exclusively hold responsible the people holding the reins, and provide no cover for malfeasance. 

 

Didn't it used to be a "crime" to use 'false advertising' and lying to the public about product performance, etc.?  What happened to the requirements for honesty? "Free Market" philosophies have sure changed, eh?

post #130 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If as you say Samsung isn't selling them anyway, they're only dust magnets, where's the loss to Apple or the profit to Samsung they want a piece of?
/s

Yeah, Samsung's smartphone marketshare is even smaller than their tablet marketshare!

 

/s

post #131 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This isn't a new story to Apple, Samsung investors, news media or long-time regular readers of AppleInsider.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/01/31/samsung_admits_its_ipad_rival_galaxy_tab_sales_were_actually_quite_small

Samsung pays the media too much for advertising, so the story sure bears repeating, doesn't it? Samsung is sleazy. Pass it on!

post #132 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In Korea of course since they don't have a presence in the US stock market.

Have you blown a neuron?

post #133 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

RS9 was apparently suggesting that Apple stock was criminally manipulated in the US. Usually, the way it works is you try to influence other investors to either buy or sell then you take an opposite position to either pump and dump or trash talk and short, but it might be a situation where Samsung just wanted to cause harm to Apple without actually taking a position in AAPL.

Thanks! Now his post makes sense. Nice to have folks like you step in to translate for some of us once in awhile 1embarassed.gif

With that out of the way could the SEC or some other government agency penalize Samsung if they really were attempting to manipulate Apple stock? I know nothing about it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #134 of 165

I already knew this was happening all along. Glad to see it's finally being brought to light in the courtroom how slimy Scamsung actually is! Hope their investors smarten up and A) dump their stock and B) initiate a class-action against them for fraud.

post #135 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post
 

Maybe, maybe not.  I do agree that Amazon has a stronger ecosystem than Samsung which makes Amazon a sort of a competitor for Apple.  However, Apple and Amazon are still very different companies and Apple may realize that there is room for both, a content company (Amazon - books/products/sales medium/music/movies) and a hardware company (Apple).  Interestingly and quite ironically, I think that Amazon is more a competitor of Samsung.

Your analysis is counter to mine. 

 

Apple and Amazon  are much closer than Samsung in terms of business model.   Different companies, but playing the same end game. and I think Apple sees quite plainly there isn't room for Apple as an ecosystem in Amazon's model.   Amazon quite simply want's all sales receipts to come through them. 

 

And I think in the end, you're looking at 2 different approaches coming from two different markets to the same end

- Amazon almost gives away good HW to get people to align with their GREAT consumables marketplace

    - started with hard goods, now is driving to digital content, and same day deliveries 

- Apple sells GREAT HW to get people to align with their good consumables marketplace.

    - started with digital content, now driving to be Point of Sale for physical purchases.

 

In the end, both want the same thing... if you use technology to buy something, they want their 3-30% of the transaction.   Apple makes more on the initial transaction... Amazon makes it up on volumen.

 

Also in the end, phones and tablets become commodities.  The margins will drop from 30% to <10%, where Amazon is now.  When that day comes, profits will be on consumer retention and satisfaction, or on mass sales.  (Nordstrom vs Walmart).

 

Samsung... wants to sell you their stuff.   They are more like MS (well the old MS), and classics like Sony, Mitsubishi etc... where Samsung doesn't see the end consumer their customer, but retail chains, carriers, device manufacturers instead.

 

Amazon and Apple feel they must disintermediate these middle men for the good of the consumer.   

post #136 of 165
In today's trial news there was a "gotcha" moment.

Apparently Samsung's attorneys got one of Apple's two expert witnesses on damages to admit his calculations relied on. . get this. . . the other expert witnesses damage calculations. 1bugeye.gif He admitted on the stand that if the other expert was wrong then he would be too. Doh!
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #137 of 165

Well said.  I don't disagree with you except for this:

 

Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
Also in the end, phones and tablets become commodities.  The margins will drop from 30% to <10%, where Amazon is now.  When that day comes, profits will be on consumer retention and satisfaction, or on mass sales.  (Nordstrom vs Walmart).

 

 

Margins for Apple will drop, but not to <10%...maybe to more like 25%.

Don't forget that computing devices continue to evolve, and with it, the need for higher margin/higher quality devices.

Apple will never get down to the <10% GM level.

post #138 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In today's trial news there was a "gotcha" moment.

Apparently Samsung's attorneys got one of Apple's two expert witnesses on damages to admit his calculations relied on. . get this. . . the other expert witnesses damage calculations. 1bugeye.gif He admitted on the stand that if the other expert was wrong then he would be too. Doh!

And these 'experts' charge how much? I can be just as incompetent for much less.
"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 #139 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post
 

Margins for Apple will drop, but not to <10%...maybe to more like 25%.

Don't forget that computing devices continue to evolve, and with it, the need for higher margin/higher quality devices.

Apple will never get down to the <10% GM level.

You're arguing a nit of the argument.   my argument really is that Amazon will drive the margins down, because they can.   and Apple will respond, because they can.  And everyone else will die or compete differently, because we will evolve away from a device driven market, to an ecosystem driven market. and those without ecosystems couldn't survive.  

 

Refactor for that and recompute.

post #140 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post
 

Since you are incapable of having a discussion without making accusations and insults, I have determined that you are unworthy of dialogue of any sort. Goodbye and have a nice life. 

An admission that your argument had no merit! Complete capitulation—good for you, mensmovement! Now we're getting somewhere…

post #141 of 165
Samsung and Android know people are sheep. IF people think Android is 80% of the market they believe that the sheep trait in humans will have them follow the same path. IT is somewhat true and the reason they implement this strategy. It is apple's fault for not going Jobs like thermonuclear on the false claims and numbers when the shenanigans started.

They should have either defended their numbers or discounted the competitions. Hire their own "research firms' to put out press releases with the numbers apple believes to be accurate and true.

The sad truth is these perceptions did help sales of apple's competitors products. To what extent we don't know exactly but it was significant. It didn't have to be that way had Cook done what Jobs or Musk would have done.
post #142 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

You're arguing a nit of the argument.   my argument really is that Amazon will drive the margins down, because they can.   and Apple will respond, because they can.  And everyone else will die or compete differently, because we will evolve away from a device driven market, to an ecosystem driven market. and those without ecosystems couldn't survive.  

Refactor for that and recompute.

Thank the DOJ for Amazon's monopoly and predatory pricing.
post #143 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6051 View Post

If this the truth, and Samsung fudged the figures to its shareholders, then there is greater at stake. Firstly the stockmarket would collapse the shares, indictments may commence against those who lied and manipulated the figures and shareholders generallly wont be too pleased so a general cleaning of house of upper management would occur. the company would be turned upside down and the stockmarket would take a while to trust the company again. This doesnt really seem to happening so the truth and veracity of all this of it may never be known.

 

Your naivete is charming.

 

Samsung grew from a family business that the mafia probably compares favorably to. The thing is, it amounts to roughly 20% of the entire GDP of South Korea. The _CEO_ of Samsung was convicted of bribing high officials, including the _President of that country_ . He was later pardoned by a subsequent "pro-business" president, and took back his post as Samsung's CEO, saying of the bribery "I didn't do it":

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/tax-evasion-bribery-and-pricefixing-how-samsung-became-the-giant-that-ate-korea-8510588.html

 

As we know, they've rigged (and then denied rigging) benchmarking tests, and recently sued a South Korean newspaper for millions, for suggesting that supplies of the optical sensor for the camera in the S5 may be constrained. They're suing Dyson for suggesting that the design of Samsung's Dyson-knockoff vacuum cleaner might have been borrowed a teensy bit. 

 

I'm not sure why the press is tiptoeing around the issue - maybe because they've been so successful in what they've done, or maybe they're literally afraid of Samsung's wrath, but this company is not like a typical large multinational corporation - it's really more of a family-controlled, corporate rogue state. 

post #144 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

You're arguing a nit of the argument.   my argument really is that Amazon will drive the margins down, because they can.   and Apple will respond, because they can.  And everyone else will die or compete differently, because we will evolve away from a device driven market, to an ecosystem driven market. and those without ecosystems couldn't survive.  

 

Refactor for that and recompute.

Refactor what? Apple may be forced to reduce GM, may go from 35% to 25% someday. Amazon is already at zero profit and can't go much lower. If anything, Amazon will raise margins in the future (e.g. Prime going from $79 to $99).  You're waaaay off if you think Apple will go down to <10% GM.

post #145 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post
 

Those years of Fandroid sheeps giving wonderful praises to their Samsung overlord, while knowing the Galaxy tablets were complete trash.

All the stores I walk into that have Galaxy Tabs show them gathering dust, not working, and simply just neglected.  The saddest ones are at the Costco stores in my area.  They place them fairly close to the entry of the warehouse, and each time I pass by it, not a soul in the area.

It's bad enough that Samsung tries to lie to everyone about it.  We know that's the only thing they do best.  What's really sad and pathetic, not to mention shameful, are the Fandroid kook-aid drinkers that always thought Samsung was the best-of-the-best.

How's that humble-pie tasting?

Tastes pretty bitter to me.

Relax, and learn to accept that some people have different preferences :-)

post #146 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post
 

 

You clearly don't understand patent law and the trials related to intellectual property. At all. Why are you commenting as if you do?

 

If it was as simple as "lost sales due to infringement", it'd be a matter of scouring some accounting ledgers, estimating losses, doing a little math and we're done.....

 

But it's not only that or remotely that simple. It's about how markets are created, what the measurable potential is, how much momentum is lost, how much licensable income is lost, and so on. It's intense and complex.

[...]

They are THE competitor in the iPhone-like smartphone space. Why? In part due to copying Apple. That alone weakened Apple's position. How do we measure THOSE losses. It isn't on a sales-only basis.

 

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that damages are computed using two concrete criteria: lost profits, and reasonable royalties. There are four factors involved in estimating lost profits:

 

 (1) demand for the patented product

 (2) absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes

 (3) his manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand, and

(4) the amount of the profit he would have made.

(Panduit Corp v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works 1978 http://www.leagle.com/decision/19781727575F2d1152_21511)

 

It would seem that these numbers are in fact obtained largely by "scouring accounting ledgers, estimating losses, doing a little math." 

 

"Calculating lost profits requires a two-prong analysis: first, calculate the lost revenues and second, calculate the cost associated with generating the lost revenues. The difference between the two generally constitutes the lost profits." (http://www.bpbcpa.com/fraud/calculating-lost-profits-by-richard-pollack/

 

 AI reported just a few days ago how Apple arrived at its damages estimate (emphasis mine): 

 

"Part of the claim is based on alleged lost profits due to customers buying Samsung products instead of the iPhone, while another portion was calculated on proposed royalties on more than 37 million accused infringing devices." (http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/08/apple-explains-full-22b-damages-against-samsung-come-from-lost-profits-royalties)

 

Apple is trying to convince the jury that the addition of the infringing features caused customers to buy the products on trial when they would have otherwise bought Apple alternatives. The Galaxy Tab is an example of a product that failed to sell despite imitating Apple's look and feel in addition to harboring all the "forbidden" software features like overscroll bounce or data detectors. In particular, the infringing features clearly did not cause people to choose it over Apple's devices. It seems at best a non-example for Apple's case.

post #147 of 165
Thankyou for that
so all appears to have been forgiven

Strange, i thought that it was quite serious to deliberately misrepresent facts and figures to the share market.

Any hoo
post #148 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

The Galaxy Tab is an example of a product that failed to sell despite imitating Apple's look and feel in addition to harboring all the "forbidden" software features like overscroll bounce or data detectors. In particular, the infringing features clearly did not cause people to choose it over Apple's devices. It seems at best a non-example for Apple's case.

 

Stealing doesn’t come with an automatic guarantee of success. Samsung’s inability to sell tablets isn’t proof that it didn’t infringe Apple’s IP. 

post #149 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post

Fair enough. My main point was that even if Samsung's tablets are flops, other quality Android tablets - Amazon's - are indeed selling. As a matter of fact, I will even say that Nexus almost selling as much as Samsung (despite not really trying) is good for the platform.

Yes... Amazon tablets are selling. Well we think they are. All we get are analyst's estimates of shipments.

Amazon only has significant Kindle Fire movement during the Holiday quarter. (but they're not really that great overall)

Last quarter (which included Christmas sales)... Amazon shipped 5.8 million Kindle Fire tablets... for 7.6% of the worldwide tablet market.

But the rest of the year Amazon doesn't ship too many Kindle Fires and thus doesn't have much market share. Amazon gets a boost during the Holidays... but they're not the powerhouse Android tablet manufacturer you think they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post

As a matter of fact, I will even say that Nexus almost selling as much as Samsung (despite not really trying) is good for the platform.

What?

Last quarter... Samsung shipped 14.5 million tablets for 18.8% of the tablet market.

Asus... who makes the Nexus 7... only shipped 3.9 million tablets for 5.1% market share.

These are shipments... not end-user sales... but I'm still not seeing how the Nexus 7 can possibly be selling as much as Samsung.

Samsung's number is more than 3 times higher than Asus' number.

Again... these are analyst's estimates... but the proportions are probably in the ballpark.
post #150 of 165
Wow, one of Apple's damages experts (Veltoro) has been paid $2.34 million so far! This stuff is expensive to litigate.

Another Apple internal doc submitted to, this one showing carriers beginning to limit iPhone sales due to costs.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #151 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Stealing doesn’t come with an automatic guarantee of success. Samsung’s inability to sell tablets isn’t proof that it didn’t infringe Apple’s IP. 

Yet you wrote this the other day claiming that it was indeed the pilfered patents that have led to Samsung's success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Microsoft announced it would spend $1B marketing Windows 8 and Surface, and again for 8.1 & Surface 2. Yet all those billions in brand marketing didn't result in blockbuster sales.

So for Samsung to claim that its pilfered features aren't attracting customers and that it's all brand advertising driving its sales is kind of nuts.
"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 #152 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Yes... Amazon tablets are selling. Well we think they are. All we get are analyst's estimates of shipments.

Amazon only has significant Kindle Fire movement during the Holiday quarter. (but they're not really that great overall)

Last quarter (which included Christmas sales)... Amazon shipped 5.8 million Kindle Fire tablets... for 7.6% of the worldwide tablet market.

But the rest of the year Amazon doesn't ship too many Kindle Fires and thus doesn't have much market share. Amazon gets a boost during the Holidays... but they're not the powerhouse Android tablet manufacturer you think they are.
What?

Last quarter... Samsung shipped 14.5 million tablets for 18.8% of the tablet market.

Asus... who makes the Nexus 7... only shipped 3.9 million tablets for 5.1% market share.

These are shipments... not end-user sales... but I'm still not seeing how the Nexus 7 can possibly be selling as much as Samsung.

Samsung's number is more than 3 times higher than Asus' number.

Again... these are analyst's estimates... but the proportions are probably in the ballpark.

Sammy hasn't released numbers and they have misled everyone before. Sammy probably did ship as many tablets as the Nexus, only it's probably closer to the latter's amount.
post #153 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Yet you wrote this the other day claiming that it was indeed the pilfered patents that have led to Samsung's success.

Didn't you say marketing led to Sammy's success as well?
post #154 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Didn't you say marketing led to Sammy's success as well?

I think it's a combination of things, but better marketing is definitely why they're beating the other manufacturers since they also infringe or have a license agreement with Apple (HTC).

Why hasn't Samsung's smartphone success transferred over to their tablets?
"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 #155 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I think it's a combination of things, but better marketing is definitely why they're beating the other manufacturers since they also infringe or have a license agreement with Apple (HTC).

Why hasn't Samsung's smartphone success transferred over to their tablets?

Better marketing now but they practically cloned the iPhone earlier down the color of the icons. None of the Android vendors did that.

As for Sammy's tabs, they weren't offering anything new or cheaper than the iPad.
post #156 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post
 

 

Your naivete is charming.

 

Samsung grew from a family business that the mafia probably compares favorably to. The thing is, it amounts to roughly 20% of the entire GDP of South Korea. The _CEO_ of Samsung was convicted of bribing high officials, including the _President of that country_ . He was later pardoned by a subsequent "pro-business" president, and took back his post as Samsung's CEO, saying of the bribery "I didn't do it":

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/tax-evasion-bribery-and-pricefixing-how-samsung-became-the-giant-that-ate-korea-8510588.html

 

As we know, they've rigged (and then denied rigging) benchmarking tests, and recently sued a South Korean newspaper for millions, for suggesting that supplies of the optical sensor for the camera in the S5 may be constrained. They're suing Dyson for suggesting that the design of Samsung's Dyson-knockoff vacuum cleaner might have been borrowed a teensy bit. 

 

I'm not sure why the press is tiptoeing around the issue - maybe because they've been so successful in what they've done, or maybe they're literally afraid of Samsung's wrath, but this company is not like a typical large multinational corporation - it's really more of a family-controlled, corporate rogue state. 

Don't forget this recent tidbit :

Quote:
 Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-Hee Summoned By India’s Top Court To Face Criminal Charges Over Non-Payment Of $1.4M In Dues Owed To Indian Company By UAE Subsidiary

He a criminal lol.

Here is a quote from the article at: http://www.ibtimes.com/samsung-chairman-lee-kun-hee-summoned-indias-top-court-face-criminal-charges-over-non-1566776

Quote:

The Supreme Court of India, the country’s highest court, ordered Lee Kun-Hee, the chairman of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (KRX:005935), to appear before a court in the city of Ghaziabad in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, to face criminal charges over non-payment of $1.4 million owed by the Korean company's subsidiary to an Indian vendor.

 Charging Lee of cheating, fraud and criminal conspiracy, the court said that the executive needs to appear before the lower court within the next six weeks, and if he fails to do so, Indian police will have orders to arrest him the next time he enters the country. The case was filed by JCE Consultancy, a New-Delhi-based maker of coke calcination packages, used in the aluminum industry.
post #157 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Sammy hasn't released numbers and they have misled everyone before. Sammy probably did ship as many tablets as the Nexus, only it's probably closer to the latter's amount.

You're right... Samsung doesn't release numbers at all.

The numbers we do get are from analysts using their own research, tracking methods and other sources.

I don't see how Samsung could possibly mislead people by fudging the numbers... when it's a bunch of 3rd parties who are gathering this data.

I might not have the highest regard for Samsung... but I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with the numbers presented by IDC, Strategy Analytics, etc. Those analytics firms are doing their own research.

The analysts might not be able count every single device shipment in the world... but they gotta be pretty close. If they say one company has 15% of tablet shipments compared to another company's 5%... you gotta figure it's at least somewhere in the ballpark.

As for the Nexus... it's another case of a particular device that we love to talk about on tech blogs... but that's not actually a big seller.

Asus hasn't released sales figures for the Nexus 7... and neither has Google. But analysts are saying roughly 4 million for all Asus tablets for 5% of the market.

If the Nexus 7 had sold 20 million in a quarter... someone would have said something about it 1smile.gif
post #158 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Fair enough. Perception doesn't pay as much tho. 1biggrin.gif

Ask Amazon....and Google...

post #159 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

You're right... Samsung doesn't release numbers at all.

The numbers we do get are from analysts using their own research, tracking methods and other sources.

I don't see how Samsung could possibly mislead people by fudging the numbers... when it's a bunch of 3rd parties who are gathering this data.

I might not have the highest regard for Samsung... but I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with the numbers presented by IDC, Strategy Analytics, etc. Those analytics firms are doing their own research.

The analysts might not be able count every single device shipment in the world... but they gotta be pretty close. If they say one company has 15% of tablet shipments compared to another company's 5%... you gotta figure it's at least somewhere in the ballpark.

As for the Nexus... it's another case of a particular device that we love to talk about on tech blogs... but that's not actually a big seller.

Asus hasn't released sales figures for the Nexus 7... and neither has Google. But analysts are saying roughly 4 million for all Asus tablets for 5% of the market.

If the Nexus 7 had sold 20 million in a quarter... someone would have said something about it 1smile.gif

Did you read the article? Analysts also created this "white box" segment too.
post #160 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Did you read the article? Analysts also created this "white box" segment too.

True... although I think it's more of a "black hole" 1smile.gif

So where do we go from here? In a couple weeks Apple will give their quarterly results. And shortly after... a dozen analysts will give their results. Will they really mean anything?

There will be an article on AppleInsider telling us how Apple is losing market share in tablets... prompting 600 comments... as usual.

And Apple will live to fight another day as one of the most, if not THE most profitable company on Earth... far from bankruptcy... as usual.

We've been here before.

I tried to look at it from the standpoint of the analysts... but nothing really changes. Apple will be a successful company despite all the doom and gloom that is published about them.

.
Edited by Michael Scrip - 4/12/14 at 2:32am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple vs. Samsung docs reveal Galaxy Tab was a flop and Samsung knew it
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple vs. Samsung docs reveal Galaxy Tab was a flop and Samsung knew it