Haha - yeh - of course as a samsung paid shill you hate any sony products. Can't bear that they still out design Samsung eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 513
Ha ha ha ha
But Lenovo tabs also look like the iPad (except the first one), and what about the HP TouchPad ? Put some glasses.
Yeah, sure, they look EXACTLY the same
Delusional I tell you delusional.
It's just human nature.
People memorize (in extreme detail) information that supports their claims but "forget" or dont bother to know information that CONTRADICTS their beliefs or views.
Look who is talking? You get paid to cheer for Apple yourself.
I frequently have negative things to say against Apple, for example I've very down on their software patents such as the '647 patents. You however never have a bad thing to say for Samsung, because you are paid to only say good things.
Apple's claims against Samsung are focused on trade dress and not android. You must be thinking of the HTC case which involves patented technology and can/will definitely affect android.
Either way, neither is a monopolistic tactic (since you first have to be a monopoly which Apple is not) and doesn't hinder competition since infringing on another person or company's work isn't actually competitive.
Your telling me that an over 90% market share of the tablet market isnt "monopolistic"? And the legal tactics currently being used to further those market share numbers isnt "monopolistic" either? I came to the right website.
Possibly you're being intentionally dense here but the volume rocker patent isn't design, it's utility. ie. they're not complaining that the rocker is the same on the outside, they're complaining it's the same on the inside.
Your telling me that an over 90% market share of the tablet market isnt "monopolistic"? And the legal tactics currently being used to further those market share numbers isnt "monopolistic" either?
Wait - are you admitting that Samsung's sell through is only 25%? Because it looks to me like you just did Better hope your bosses don't notice.
I frequently have negative things to say against Apple, for example I've very down on their software patents such as the '647 patents. You however never have a bad thing to say for Samsung, because you are paid to only say good things.
Look who is talking? You get paid to cheer for Apple yourself.
I honestly don't know about Samsung, but anyone who seriously believes that Apple actually pays people to cheer them on in sites like AppleInsider is probably borderline delusional.
I honestly don't know about Samsung, but anyone who seriously believes that Apple actually pays people to cheer them on in sites like AppleInsider is probably borderline delusional.
You've got one in here: cloudgazer. The ID tells it all.
Wait, so does that mean that your market share of 90% is indeed monopolistic? Better tell YOUR boss to hide that information.
PS. You cant do math. Atypical of an Asian.
Apple may very well have a current monopoly on media tablets, though it's unlikely that any trust busters would care, since it's such a new category.
However if you agree that they have a monopoly then you agree that Samsung is an abject failure in tablets and their shipment figures in no way relate to sales. Nice - I'll be sure to quote that one next time you try to support a 'iPad down to 60% share' article as you recently did and inevitably will again.
Maybe samsung should try hiring a better quality shill, perhaps headhunt one from sony?
Are you guys crazy or what, it's getting funny how obsessed you are.
Do you realize we are talking about the mechanism of a volume rocker, right ?
Product innovation and design are made up of tiny little details. Apple gets that, which is why it makes such good products - even samsung gets that which is why it copies Apple. You clearly don't get that.
But Lenovo tabs also look like the iPad (except the first one), and what about the HP TouchPad ? Put some glasses.
Yeah, sure, they look EXACTLY the same
You're kind of missing the point here.
It's not that this or that particular feature or knob "looks exactly like" the iPad one, it's about how overall, Samsung has generally copied the design. It's not about comparing one particular product to the iPad, it's their whole range.
It's also not about saying Samsung does it and no one else does. Apple is arguing that lots of people are copying, but they are going after Samsung as the most egregious example of this.
If you look at Samsung's entire product line instead of picking and choosing, you can easily see that the earlier products were almost exactly similar. They were the first ones to copy the single home button, the chrome ring trim, the curved back, and the home screen layout and icons.
Sure they've moved away from these designs since they caught wind of the lawsuit, and sure there are other companies and products around today that infringe as much or even more. Apple has to start somewhere though.
They picked their biggest competitor and the one that was (at the time), copying them the most. Where else would they start?
Whatever makes you think I'm asian? I'm anglo-italian. I'm not offended mind, asians have made great contributions in many areas of mathematics and physics. But I think you're a little confused.
Your telling me that an over 90% market share of the tablet market isnt "monopolistic"? And the legal tactics currently being used to further those market share numbers isnt "monopolistic" either? I came to the right website.
Why yes. Yes I am. Although there were tablets being sold before, what Apple has created is slightly different and at the beginning was called a "media tablet" by analysts. Since that particular market is less than two years old and Apple was first to market, then of course they would capture that % of the market. What would make it a monopoly would be if they maintained that initial % of market for 5+ years. So in 2016, if Apple still has 90% of the market, feel free to call them a monopoly.
As for legal tactics, monopolies can't even use courts as an advantage because they automatically are at a disadvantage with regards to the law. A regular company has more rights than a company with a monopoly. Look at Microsoft. Had Microsoft gone to court demanding that OEM's not include Netscape in their computers, not only would they have been laughed out of court but also fined.
As someone mentioned before, a monopolistic tactic would be for Apple to refuse to allow devs to make apps for other devices or something similar.
Comments
guys - why do you think this is funny? This is scary monopolistic behaviour.
Is everyone on this board seriously that stupid that they don't want any choice in electronics apart from apple?
It's not scary to me, and if it's "monopolistic behaviour" then that term means something to you that it doesn't mean to anyone else.
Haha - yeh - of course as a samsung paid shill you hate any sony products. Can't bear that they still out design Samsung eh?
Ha ha ha ha
But Lenovo tabs also look like the iPad (except the first one), and what about the HP TouchPad ? Put some glasses.
Yeah, sure, they look EXACTLY the same
Delusional I tell you delusional.
It's just human nature.
People memorize (in extreme detail) information that supports their claims but "forget" or dont bother to know information that CONTRADICTS their beliefs or views.
Psychology 101.
Look who is talking? You get paid to cheer for Apple yourself.
I frequently have negative things to say against Apple, for example I've very down on their software patents such as the '647 patents. You however never have a bad thing to say for Samsung, because you are paid to only say good things.
Apple's claims against Samsung are focused on trade dress and not android. You must be thinking of the HTC case which involves patented technology and can/will definitely affect android.
Either way, neither is a monopolistic tactic (since you first have to be a monopoly which Apple is not) and doesn't hinder competition since infringing on another person or company's work isn't actually competitive.
Your telling me that an over 90% market share of the tablet market isnt "monopolistic"? And the legal tactics currently being used to further those market share numbers isnt "monopolistic" either? I came to the right website.
Yeah, sure, they look EXACTLY the same
Possibly you're being intentionally dense here but the volume rocker patent isn't design, it's utility. ie. they're not complaining that the rocker is the same on the outside, they're complaining it's the same on the inside.
Your telling me that an over 90% market share of the tablet market isnt "monopolistic"? And the legal tactics currently being used to further those market share numbers isnt "monopolistic" either?
Wait - are you admitting that Samsung's sell through is only 25%? Because it looks to me like you just did
I frequently have negative things to say against Apple, for example I've very down on their software patents such as the '647 patents. You however never have a bad thing to say for Samsung, because you are paid to only say good things.
Your thinking like a true Asian.
Pay = write good reviews.
Look who is talking? You get paid to cheer for Apple yourself.
I honestly don't know about Samsung, but anyone who seriously believes that Apple actually pays people to cheer them on in sites like AppleInsider is probably borderline delusional.
Yes, they have that choice. But they can't buy the product which is arguably the next best after the iPad 2.
Arguably yes, but also arguably not.
IMO the list would go:
1) iPad
2) TouchPad
3) Xoom
4) all the rest.
(and by the time you even get to the Xoom, your already in the realm of the craptastic).
Wait - are you admitting that Samsung's sell through is only 25%? Because it looks to me like you just did
Wait, so does that mean that your market share of 90% is indeed monopolistic? Better tell YOUR boss to hide that information.
PS. You cant do math.
Do you realize we are talking about the mechanism of a volume rocker, right ?
I honestly don't know about Samsung, but anyone who seriously believes that Apple actually pays people to cheer them on in sites like AppleInsider is probably borderline delusional.
You've got one in here: cloudgazer. The ID tells it all.
And why the double standard?
guys - why do you think this is funny? This is scary monopolistic behaviour.
Is everyone on this board seriously that stupid that they don't want any choice in electronics apart from apple?
Not if it's from a company who blatantly copies Apple's work. Let them produce their own product and I'll be happy to consider them.
Wait, so does that mean that your market share of 90% is indeed monopolistic? Better tell YOUR boss to hide that information.
PS. You cant do math.
Apple may very well have a current monopoly on media tablets, though it's unlikely that any trust busters would care, since it's such a new category.
However if you agree that they have a monopoly then you agree that Samsung is an abject failure in tablets and their shipment figures in no way relate to sales. Nice - I'll be sure to quote that one next time you try to support a 'iPad down to 60% share' article as you recently did and inevitably will again.
Maybe samsung should try hiring a better quality shill, perhaps headhunt one from sony?
Are you guys crazy or what, it's getting funny how obsessed you are.
Do you realize we are talking about the mechanism of a volume rocker, right ?
Product innovation and design are made up of tiny little details. Apple gets that, which is why it makes such good products - even samsung gets that which is why it copies Apple. You clearly don't get that.
Ha ha ha ha
But Lenovo tabs also look like the iPad (except the first one), and what about the HP TouchPad ? Put some glasses.
Yeah, sure, they look EXACTLY the same
You're kind of missing the point here.
It's not that this or that particular feature or knob "looks exactly like" the iPad one, it's about how overall, Samsung has generally copied the design. It's not about comparing one particular product to the iPad, it's their whole range.
It's also not about saying Samsung does it and no one else does. Apple is arguing that lots of people are copying, but they are going after Samsung as the most egregious example of this.
If you look at Samsung's entire product line instead of picking and choosing, you can easily see that the earlier products were almost exactly similar. They were the first ones to copy the single home button, the chrome ring trim, the curved back, and the home screen layout and icons.
Sure they've moved away from these designs since they caught wind of the lawsuit, and sure there are other companies and products around today that infringe as much or even more. Apple has to start somewhere though.
They picked their biggest competitor and the one that was (at the time), copying them the most. Where else would they start?
Wow.
The most interesting part.
"Should Apple lose its patent infringement lawsuit, it agreed to pay Samsung damages, which weren?t specified."
How do you put a dollar amount on missing out on the critical launch of a brand new market?
Lawyers from both sides could be arguing this bloody case for a decade.
The damage amount appears to have been pre-negotiated. I doubt Samsung could make a realistic projection of more then 25,000 sales in Australia.
Your thinking like a true Asian.
Pay = write good reviews.
Whatever makes you think I'm asian? I'm anglo-italian. I'm not offended mind, asians have made great contributions in many areas of mathematics and physics. But I think you're a little confused.
Your telling me that an over 90% market share of the tablet market isnt "monopolistic"? And the legal tactics currently being used to further those market share numbers isnt "monopolistic" either? I came to the right website.
Why yes. Yes I am. Although there were tablets being sold before, what Apple has created is slightly different and at the beginning was called a "media tablet" by analysts. Since that particular market is less than two years old and Apple was first to market, then of course they would capture that % of the market. What would make it a monopoly would be if they maintained that initial % of market for 5+ years. So in 2016, if Apple still has 90% of the market, feel free to call them a monopoly.
As for legal tactics, monopolies can't even use courts as an advantage because they automatically are at a disadvantage with regards to the law. A regular company has more rights than a company with a monopoly. Look at Microsoft. Had Microsoft gone to court demanding that OEM's not include Netscape in their computers, not only would they have been laughed out of court but also fined.
As someone mentioned before, a monopolistic tactic would be for Apple to refuse to allow devs to make apps for other devices or something similar.
I will leave you, dreaming all night about the superior design of a volume rocker.