It's cheaper to copy someone else's work than it is to innovate.
Because the market punish innovation. e.g. Kyocera Echo is different, but people just hate it.
Nowadays, consumers are just sheeps, who'd use facebook/twitter/google/amazon etc just because that's what everybody is using. Apple is the only company would can innovate because, unfortunately, that the sheeps also buy Apple products because it's Apple. It's not that Apple's products aren't innovative, but because if your consumer is just some 60-year-old dude who knows very little about technology, anything too different would be confusing. That's why iOS evolves slowly. It has no choice.
< I just think people shouldn't underestimate a company the size of Samsung. Its size really does make Apple look like a start-up.
>
suggest you look at the bottom line of apple vs samsung and reconsider your comment that apple looks like a 'start-up'.
apple has more net cash and more yearly profit than samsung. it surely has a better management.[/QUOTE]
Actually, in 2010 Apple had about 14 billion in profits and Samsung 15 billion. In 2010 Apple had about 75 billion net assets whereas in 2009 Samsung had 276 billion. Apple now has an equity of around 60 billion while Samsung in 2009 had 112 billion. But I'm not here to argue that or to defend Samsung; and I probably exaggerated a little when I used the Start-up analogy.
I just want people to understand that Samsung is not just an electronics company, it is a huge conglomerate that is well protected by the Korean Government. The iPhone was held out of Korea for two years by the Government regulators so that Samung had time to enter the market with a competitive phone. Now that's not official obviously, but as a resident of Korea the word on the street is it had nothing to do with wireless incompatibilities. So I think Samsung should have hell sued out of them for copying, as it is ingrained in the culture over here. Just don't assume it will be a walk in the park for Apple.
Is it just me or do a lot of cars made by Hyundai resemble other cars made by other car manufacturers as well? With a lot of the same styling cues. Hyundai, like Samsung are both made/designed in South Korea. I think it's an excepted business practice in Korea to see something being preceived as successful and desired by the masses and want to emulate that success for themselves. Is it right they way they go about it, probably not, the courts will decide that in this case. But the market place has proved time and again that there are people willing to buy a copy of a successful original. And the reason is usually based on price.
Because the market punish innovation. e.g. Kyocera Echo is different, but people just hate it.
Have you used the Echo yet? It sucks. It's slow, it's ugly, and it feels really cheap in your hand, like the hinges holding the screens together could come apart at any moment.
The market doesn't punish innovation if the innovation is smart, useful, and/or attractive. Apple products are generally a good example of this fact.
"When there is a market need for our own software, we will consider it," said Younghee Lee, senior vice president of sales and marketing with Samsung. "But that's not our plan at the moment."
This just shows the mindset of Samsung execs. The battle is over. It's iOS and possibly, maybe Android for the tablet market. Samsung would face the task of developing its own ecosystem for its own mobile OS, luring developers to it, opening its own app store, just like Apple did. It's too late in my opinion, for yet another mobile OS to enter the market. Even Android is struggling in the tablet market at present.
Bingo! I thought?"what a contemptous attitude!" Software is secondary, right? We will just borrow Android for now.
IMO, Apple gets its leverage via great software and great hardware design.
I think this is typical of an early evolution of any new technology not just smart phones. Eventually all smart phones should be basically the same in terms of the controls. An example is the early automobile. There were all kinds of crazy controls with levers and sliders and pull type throttles. It was several years before the industry settled on the current layout of a steering wheel, clutch, gear shift, brake, and throttle pedal. Now you can get into any brand car and just drive it. That is the way smart phones should be. You just pick it up and use it without having to read the manual. So yes, the contacts button and the phone button, etc should look and behave the same on all phones.
Samsung execs don't see an issue. The reason for this narrow view is that these Korean companies were built up on copying each others design and tech. As far as they are conceded this is just doing business.
Once they lose in court for copying Apples trade dress they might come to think differently.
I know that many say this is business as usual, but I can't help but think that Apple would be wise to start lining up alternate suppliers. Even better would be to use some of its cash to start a dedicated component manufacturer. Doesn't have to have Apple's name on it, just fund and own it. They could even contract out to supply others to make it self-supporting. Put it in Taiwan where the U.S. has more leverage.
My last post got me wondering. How much of the process could be robotic? Since labor costs are what drives manufacturing overseas, what if all the labor could be done by machines? Big cost up front, but once in operation, machines don't draw salary or bennies. Small work force to maintain and re-program when required. Pipe dream? Maybe. But Apple has resources to try it out in the U.S. on a proof-of-concept basis for some small but significant component.
I know that many say this is business as usual, but I can't help but think that Apple would be wise to start lining up alternate suppliers. Even better would be to use some of its cash to start a dedicated component manufacturer. Doesn't have to have Apple's name on it, just fund and own it. They could even contract out to supply others to make it self-supporting. Put it in Taiwan where the U.S. has more leverage.
My last post got me wondering. How much of the process could be robotic? Since labor costs are what drives manufacturing overseas, what if all the labor could be done by machines? Big cost up front, but once in operation, machines don't draw salary or bennies. Small work force to maintain and re-program when required. Pipe dream? Maybe. But Apple has resources to try it out in the U.S. on a proof-of-concept basis for some small but significant component.
I would imagine that almost all the components are manufactured using a high degree of automation. It is the final assembly that is the most difficult to automate. A human has two highly dexterous robotic-like mechanisms which can work in tandem, known as hands. Today's robots just can't match the ability of human hands when it come to complicated motions like assembling iPhones.
Not sure this means they have a case. I believe Samsung has been asked to hand over as yet unreleased prototypes for the court to look at.
I think personally this one will be hard to prove as there are only so many ways you can make a device look that is a a big screen with a button on the front. in just the same way as previous phones with keyboards would equally have some very similar looks.
And as Samsung have been in the mobile game for many many years, they probably have a few patents and I imagine some prior art, which could prove interesting
Actually, in 2010 Apple had about 14 billion in profits and Samsung 15 billion. In 2010 Apple had about 75 billion net assets whereas in 2009 Samsung had 276 billion. Apple now has an equity of around 60 billion while Samsung in 2009 had 112 billion. But I'm not here to argue that or to defend Samsung; and I probably exaggerated a little when I used the Start-up analogy.
Yes, Samsung had $15B in operating profit at end 2010 (but Apple had $18.4B in OP), but the other numbers you quote are completely irrelevant.
Apple had ~$60B in cash at the end of 2010, compared to ~$20B for Samsung. Most importantly, Apple's market cap -- the only relevant measure of a company's financial worth -- is $310B, compared to Samsung's $120B.
You didn't just "....probably exaggerate a little....." You (probably) thought (a little) that people would not notice.
Is it just me or do a lot of cars made by Hyundai resemble other cars made by other car manufacturers as well? With a lot of the same styling cues. Hyundai, like Samsung are both made/designed in South Korea. I think it's an excepted business practice in Korea to see something being preceived as successful and desired by the masses and want to emulate that success for themselves. Is it right they way they go about it, probably not, the courts will decide that in this case. But the market place has proved time and again that there are people willing to buy a copy of a successful original. And the reason is usually based on price.
Well, if you're going to specifically mention cars, it's not just Hyundai or Koreans... emulating or copying a fashionable design is pretty widespread. Most car designs today owe some design inspiration from Chris Bangle, who was design chief at BMW for many years (see http://www.businessweek.com/autos/au...bangles_l.html and http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Communi...g/Bangle-blog/). In particular, all the deep, flowing creases and "character lines" stamped into everything from the Audi A7 to the Honda CRZ all came from Bangle's work on cars like the BMW Z4.
It's ironic that Bangle's new gig is to design fashionable smartphones and laptops for...Samsung.
all these companies steal from one another. They have very smart snoops to go in and look over patents and designs from other companies all the time. Nothing new. How the hell do you think a company can violate like a dozen patents from a competitor without stealing their sh**?
I don't think that's a supportable statement at all.
You people like to accuse Samsung of "copying" or "ripping" off Apple of their iPhones.
But have failed to realize the REAL copy of the iPhone is here:
The HiPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedster
Is it just me or do a lot of cars made by Hyundai resemble other cars made by other car manufacturers as well? With a lot of the same styling cues. Hyundai, like Samsung are both made/designed in South Korea. I think it's an excepted business practice in Korea to see something being preceived as successful and desired by the masses and want to emulate that success for themselves. Is it right they way they go about it, probably not, the courts will decide that in this case. But the market place has proved time and again that there are people willing to buy a copy of a successful original. And the reason is usually based on price.
It's you and your biased thinking of anything from Korea. The tone of your statements already proves that thought clearly.
This "business practice" isnt exclusive to Korea. Its common to all businesses in all markets (countries).
American way of doing business....
Take the Amazon Kindle for instance.
Amazon launched a new e-book reader. About 4 months after their successful launch and market acceptance, B&N started its own brand of e-book readers called the Nook.
Using your logic, "I think it's an [accepted] business practice in [America] to see something being perceived as succesful and desired by the masses and want to emulate that success for [B&N]".
Are Americans using the same type of "excepted [accepted] business practice" as Koreans? I guess so.
Therefore, this proves that the "excepted [accepted] business practice" isnt exclusive to Korea now is it?
I'd like for you to reply on this one. Lets see how you rebut it. If you can..
More than anything, your post just exposed how ignorant you are of the business world.
Comments
< I just think people shouldn't underestimate a company the size of Samsung. Its size really does make Apple look like a start-up.
suggest you look at the bottom line of apple vs samsung and reconsider your comment that apple looks like a 'start-up'.
apple has more net cash and more yearly profit than samsung. it surely has a better management.
[/QUOTE]
Nice one .
Agreed.
Samsung and many others exactly copied Apple designs .
So while Samsung and Apple seem to be in this big boy fight I think its all a RUSE!!! .
Apple needs samsung precise production of dozens of needed parts .
Samsung's banks would have a shit fit if they lost apple's multiple billion dollar pre payments .
So why o why have a pissing contest while the world watches in color ?? well 2 reasons i see.
first is apple wants everyone to stop copying every thing they do .This law suit sends a powerful message .
Second and most important is apple has a great way to receive a ....>>> ;large price break .
Don't get me wrong samsung makes great stuff . They simply stepped on steves toes .
peace
9
It's cheaper to copy someone else's work than it is to innovate.
Because the market punish innovation. e.g. Kyocera Echo is different, but people just hate it.
Nowadays, consumers are just sheeps, who'd use facebook/twitter/google/amazon etc just because that's what everybody is using. Apple is the only company would can innovate because, unfortunately, that the sheeps also buy Apple products because it's Apple. It's not that Apple's products aren't innovative, but because if your consumer is just some 60-year-old dude who knows very little about technology, anything too different would be confusing. That's why iOS evolves slowly. It has no choice.
< I just think people shouldn't underestimate a company the size of Samsung. Its size really does make Apple look like a start-up.
>
suggest you look at the bottom line of apple vs samsung and reconsider your comment that apple looks like a 'start-up'.
apple has more net cash and more yearly profit than samsung. it surely has a better management.[/QUOTE]
Actually, in 2010 Apple had about 14 billion in profits and Samsung 15 billion. In 2010 Apple had about 75 billion net assets whereas in 2009 Samsung had 276 billion. Apple now has an equity of around 60 billion while Samsung in 2009 had 112 billion. But I'm not here to argue that or to defend Samsung; and I probably exaggerated a little when I used the Start-up analogy.
I just want people to understand that Samsung is not just an electronics company, it is a huge conglomerate that is well protected by the Korean Government. The iPhone was held out of Korea for two years by the Government regulators so that Samung had time to enter the market with a competitive phone. Now that's not official obviously, but as a resident of Korea the word on the street is it had nothing to do with wireless incompatibilities. So I think Samsung should have hell sued out of them for copying, as it is ingrained in the culture over here. Just don't assume it will be a walk in the park for Apple.
Because the market punish innovation. e.g. Kyocera Echo is different, but people just hate it.
Have you used the Echo yet? It sucks. It's slow, it's ugly, and it feels really cheap in your hand, like the hinges holding the screens together could come apart at any moment.
The market doesn't punish innovation if the innovation is smart, useful, and/or attractive. Apple products are generally a good example of this fact.
"When there is a market need for our own software, we will consider it," said Younghee Lee, senior vice president of sales and marketing with Samsung. "But that's not our plan at the moment."
This just shows the mindset of Samsung execs. The battle is over. It's iOS and possibly, maybe Android for the tablet market. Samsung would face the task of developing its own ecosystem for its own mobile OS, luring developers to it, opening its own app store, just like Apple did. It's too late in my opinion, for yet another mobile OS to enter the market. Even Android is struggling in the tablet market at present.
Bingo! I thought?"what a contemptous attitude!" Software is secondary, right? We will just borrow Android for now.
IMO, Apple gets its leverage via great software and great hardware design.
Once they lose in court for copying Apples trade dress they might come to think differently.
I wonder how much Apple is looking for alternative suppliers of Samsung components.
I know that many say this is business as usual, but I can't help but think that Apple would be wise to start lining up alternate suppliers. Even better would be to use some of its cash to start a dedicated component manufacturer. Doesn't have to have Apple's name on it, just fund and own it. They could even contract out to supply others to make it self-supporting. Put it in Taiwan where the U.S. has more leverage.
Good Idea.
My last post got me wondering. How much of the process could be robotic? Since labor costs are what drives manufacturing overseas, what if all the labor could be done by machines? Big cost up front, but once in operation, machines don't draw salary or bennies. Small work force to maintain and re-program when required. Pipe dream? Maybe. But Apple has resources to try it out in the U.S. on a proof-of-concept basis for some small but significant component.
I would imagine that almost all the components are manufactured using a high degree of automation. It is the final assembly that is the most difficult to automate. A human has two highly dexterous robotic-like mechanisms which can work in tandem, known as hands. Today's robots just can't match the ability of human hands when it come to complicated motions like assembling iPhones.
I think personally this one will be hard to prove as there are only so many ways you can make a device look that is a a big screen with a button on the front. in just the same way as previous phones with keyboards would equally have some very similar looks.
And as Samsung have been in the mobile game for many many years, they probably have a few patents and I imagine some prior art, which could prove interesting
Actually, in 2010 Apple had about 14 billion in profits and Samsung 15 billion. In 2010 Apple had about 75 billion net assets whereas in 2009 Samsung had 276 billion. Apple now has an equity of around 60 billion while Samsung in 2009 had 112 billion. But I'm not here to argue that or to defend Samsung; and I probably exaggerated a little when I used the Start-up analogy.
Yes, Samsung had $15B in operating profit at end 2010 (but Apple had $18.4B in OP), but the other numbers you quote are completely irrelevant.
Apple had ~$60B in cash at the end of 2010, compared to ~$20B for Samsung. Most importantly, Apple's market cap -- the only relevant measure of a company's financial worth -- is $310B, compared to Samsung's $120B.
You didn't just "....probably exaggerate a little....." You (probably) thought (a little) that people would not notice.
Is it just me or do a lot of cars made by Hyundai resemble other cars made by other car manufacturers as well? With a lot of the same styling cues. Hyundai, like Samsung are both made/designed in South Korea. I think it's an excepted business practice in Korea to see something being preceived as successful and desired by the masses and want to emulate that success for themselves. Is it right they way they go about it, probably not, the courts will decide that in this case. But the market place has proved time and again that there are people willing to buy a copy of a successful original. And the reason is usually based on price.
Well, if you're going to specifically mention cars, it's not just Hyundai or Koreans... emulating or copying a fashionable design is pretty widespread. Most car designs today owe some design inspiration from Chris Bangle, who was design chief at BMW for many years (see http://www.businessweek.com/autos/au...bangles_l.html and http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Communi...g/Bangle-blog/). In particular, all the deep, flowing creases and "character lines" stamped into everything from the Audi A7 to the Honda CRZ all came from Bangle's work on cars like the BMW Z4.
It's ironic that Bangle's new gig is to design fashionable smartphones and laptops for...Samsung.
all these companies steal from one another. They have very smart snoops to go in and look over patents and designs from other companies all the time. Nothing new. How the hell do you think a company can violate like a dozen patents from a competitor without stealing their sh**?
I don't think that's a supportable statement at all.
Too broad simplistic of a brush there..
But have failed to realize the REAL copy of the iPhone is here:
The HiPhone.
Is it just me or do a lot of cars made by Hyundai resemble other cars made by other car manufacturers as well? With a lot of the same styling cues. Hyundai, like Samsung are both made/designed in South Korea. I think it's an excepted business practice in Korea to see something being preceived as successful and desired by the masses and want to emulate that success for themselves. Is it right they way they go about it, probably not, the courts will decide that in this case. But the market place has proved time and again that there are people willing to buy a copy of a successful original. And the reason is usually based on price.
It's you and your biased thinking of anything from Korea. The tone of your statements already proves that thought clearly.
This "business practice" isnt exclusive to Korea. Its common to all businesses in all markets (countries).
American way of doing business....
Take the Amazon Kindle for instance.
Amazon launched a new e-book reader. About 4 months after their successful launch and market acceptance, B&N started its own brand of e-book readers called the Nook.
Using your logic, "I think it's an [accepted] business practice in [America] to see something being perceived as succesful and desired by the masses and want to emulate that success for [B&N]".
Are Americans using the same type of "excepted [accepted] business practice" as Koreans? I guess so.
Therefore, this proves that the "excepted [accepted] business practice" isnt exclusive to Korea now is it?
I'd like for you to reply on this one. Lets see how you rebut it. If you can..
More than anything, your post just exposed how ignorant you are of the business world.
You people
like to accuse Samsung of "copying" or "ripping" off Apple of their iPhones.
Because they did.
But have failed to realizes the REAL copy of the iPhone is here:
And Apple will get to them all in good time.