Something I'm surprised no one has mentioned: this is escalating the patent wars to a whole new level so could we to see one of Apple's competitors doing the same to Apple?
Apple is fighting plenty of patent battles with other companies. For example, Motorola presumably could ask the German court to ban iPhone sales in Europe as part of their suit over 3G, GPRS, 802.11 wireless and antenna design patents.
Antenna design maybe, but not the others. When a patent is required to be licensed under FRAND terms injunctive relief makes no legal sense.
Also, LG Prada won prizes with their design of smarthpone, later came Apple with the iPhone that looked a lot like it.
But after all, it's just a screen with a cover on it.
I think it's ridiculous to have a patent with a screen and a cover surrounding it, nothing is special about it.
In my opinion, a tablet looks like a small tv with another dimension-size, that's it.
(or the netbook without a keyboard).
I hope Samsung wins, so i can order my 2nd Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v (for my brother) and use DLNA and Bluetooth and HDVideo playback + recording without any problems .
And i just want to buy my tablet without being restricted, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v is currently the best on the market, the iPad 2 comes after.
Just like the Samsung Galaxy S2 is owning the iPhone.
Sure, but at one time, there were more computers connected by Apple talk than all other computers put together.
Well this is clearly false. There was always more computers than there were Macs and not all Macs were networked anyway. Even from the perspective of all networked computers vs all localtalked computers this is false. The window where LocalTalk held advantages as a physical connector was fairly small...until about the time we could widely start using 10BaseT twisted pair vs coax for ethernet in the late 80s.
You might be able to argue there were more AppleTalk compatible devices than all other computers only because MS baked AppleTalk into WinNT. But you aren't because you're clearly talking about the physical implementation because you claim that ethernet killed appletalk...which it didn't. It killed localtalk. You can run Appletalk over ethernet (EtherTalk), token ring, etc. In any case, AppleTalk was clearly not used as a primary protocol on WinNT machines.
And no, don't claim some "I know this because I was doing this for 40 years" BS because I've been doing computer networks since before '84 (When AppleTalk came out) and built my fair share of LANs using Token Ring, AppleTalk, FDDI, Ethernet (fat, thin, optical and twisted pait) and string, bubblegum, duct tape and desperate wishes.
Obviously you are not qualified to have an intelligent discussion on design matters. If squared corners and rounded corners look the same to you, design is over your head and you had best sit this one out.
This is good news for Apple, but lets not get ahead of what's happened so far. Samsung hasn't been found in violation of a patent yet, it's just had a block put on the sale of the device.
LG managed to get a similar block on PS3's at the start of the year, which was then overturned and LG stuck with the bill for legal fees.
Getting the product's banned from sale is just the first step. They still have to win the patent case, if they loose then they are potentially liable for a lot of money to samsung for lost earnings and storage of all the devices.
A single unnamed source says you secretly agree but are being paid by Steve Jobs personally to argue the point here.
Na...
....
A MODERATOR... on an Apple Rumor Website... being paid by APPLE... to agree with Apple.
How much more uninformed could that idea BE?! It's incorrect on at least five different levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Use enough commas? lol
The sentence is absolutely grammatically correct if taken as a direct translation of spoken word. However, it's a poorly constructed written sentence. You shouldn't write as you speak unless you already speak as you write.
Quote:
You have no idea what I have read about this case.
The articles I provided links for explain exactly why the silliness of such a claim should be self-evident. 40% returns rates simply can't exist for a wide variety of basic economic reasons.
While I think you're absolutely right to attack the idea that we should accept the tech-crunch story as truth when it is so thinly sourced I think you're venturing slightly onto the rough with this argument. The story claimed that 40% return rates were for some Android models, and then later on for 'many' Android models - but never claimed it as an industry wide average, or that it applied to most handsets.
Given the sheer number of handsets, it's not economically impossible that many models have high return rates - so long as those aren't the biggest selling models. I would guess that we're talking about around 100 android models on the market in the US at any one time, so 'many' might still represent a relatively small percentage of models - let alone sales.
Antenna design maybe, but not the others. When a patent is required to be licensed under FRAND terms injunctive relief makes no legal sense.
The Motorola patents were just an example (they were mentioned in a recent story). My point is there are a lot of a patents out there and Apple is regularly targeted in patent suites. We can bet that patent lawyers everywhere saw this and are going to try the same thing in the future.
The Motorola patents were just an example (they were mentioned in a recent story). My point is there are a lot of a patents out there and Apple is regularly targeted in patent suites. We can bet that patent lawyers everywhere saw this and are going to try the same thing in the future.
They can and already do, but on a regular patent a German ruling would only apply in Germany, not across the entire community. This ruling has EU wide effect precisely because it's a community design and not a utility patent.
While I think you're absolutely right to attack the idea that we should accept the tech-crunch story as truth when it is so thinly sourced I think you're venturing slightly onto the rough with this argument. The story claimed that 40% return rates were for some Android models, and then later on for 'many' Android models - but never claimed it as an industry wide average, or that it applied to most handsets.
It's still unsubstantiated rumor. melgross' assertion was that Samsung's top Android models are seeing 30-40% return rates and 100% of tablets in Stapes (which is clearly wrong because I read the original article. "Lots" <> 100%).
These claims are idiotic or Samsung telecom wouldn't be posting record profits but massive losses.
"Operating profit from its telecoms division more than doubled to 1.67 trillion won from 630 billion won a year ago, helped by strong sales of a new version of its flagship smartphone Galaxy S."
The TechCruch article doesn't even say that Samsung's android phones are seeing 30% returns but some unnamed android handsets. MacRulez is correct...this is a bogus meme that doesn't die, mutates and folks suddenly spout of nonsense that "Samsung's top models" are seeing 30% return rates.
These claims are idiotic or Samsung telecom wouldn't be posting record profits but massive losses.
"Operating profit from its telecoms division more than doubled to 1.67 trillion won from 630 billion won a year ago, helped by strong sales of a new version of its flagship smartphone Galaxy S."
Your facts are right but your conclusions are wrong. Consider the following, in that quarter Samsung reported in a separate press release that they had sold 5 million Galaxy II Ss. That model sells for close to iPhone levels and presumably has lower levels of R&D required since Samsung is getting their OS from Google. Samsung's profits were less than one quarter of Apples, so if the Galaxy II S has roughly comparable net margins - that means that the other 75 million devices that samsung sold in the quarter, 14 million smartphones, 60 million feature phones and a few tablets made approximately 0 profit.
Those 75million devices could include models with horrendous return rates, quite easily - and Samsung's profits would still be high for the quarter thanks to one successful model.
This isn't proof of high return rates, I'm not one of the people claiming that any such proof yet exists - but any attempt to deny the possibility of high return rates for some android models is flawed.
Your facts are right but your conclusions are wrong. Consider the following, in that quarter Samsung reported in a separate press release that they had sold 5 million Galaxy II Ss. That model sells for close to iPhone levels and presumably has lower levels of R&D required since Samsung is getting their OS from Google. Samsung's profits were less than one quarter of Apples, so if the Galaxy II S has roughly comparable net margins - that means that the other 75 million devices that samsung sold in the quarter, 14 million smartphones, 60 million feature phones and a few tablets made approximately 0 profit.
Those 75million devices could include models with horrendous return rates, quite easily - and Samsung's profits would still be high for the quarter thanks to one successful model.
This isn't proof of high return rates, I'm not one of the people claiming that any such proof yet exists - but any attempt to deny the possibility of high return rates for some android models is flawed.
Given that the Galaxy S2 is considered one of Samsung's top android models then melgross' claim is out of the 5M sold, 1.5M were returned. IF that many Galaxies were getting returned it would be very obvious at the retail level AND your scenario falls completely apart. This is just another instance of melgross pulling some false factoid out of half remembered ether.
Also, you have no idea of the net margins of the Galaxy and your math seems completely fishy. Any scenario where you claim 74M phones generates 0 profits is highly suspect.
Could a few Android models be seeing 30-40% return rates? Sure. Is it likely that the top Samsung models are? No. Is it likely that this is the average return rate for high end Android phones? No. Is there any data that even suggests that the 30-40% return rate even exists? No. Just a rumor from one anonymous source.
If a significant android model was being returned at a 30%-40% rate it would be huge news since it's a failure on par with the 23%-50% XBox RROD rate. It would be pretty hard to hide given the major android models are actually selling millions of units.
This would be like claiming that the 27" iMac was seeing 30-40% returns. There would be freaking obvious impact on Apple's desktop computer bottom line and in retail reports.
Comments
Something I'm surprised no one has mentioned: this is escalating the patent wars to a whole new level so could we to see one of Apple's competitors doing the same to Apple?
Apple is fighting plenty of patent battles with other companies. For example, Motorola presumably could ask the German court to ban iPhone sales in Europe as part of their suit over 3G, GPRS, 802.11 wireless and antenna design patents.
Antenna design maybe, but not the others. When a patent is required to be licensed under FRAND terms injunctive relief makes no legal sense.
The Grand Canyon was just a gully when I was born.
The Canyon was a mountain when I was born...
And you are correct, goldstar and slamstung were among the worst products on the shelves.
This is called an ex parte request, the counterparty doesn't hears about it untill it is "active", so now it is active.
This request happens when a certain party wants to get something done quickly.
What does this mean, it means that Samsung gets an import restriction (except Holland actually for some reasons) for the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v.
This is a quick regulation without research and Samsung gets a fine when they don't listen (= import it in the EU) 250.000.000
But, if Apple was wrong they have to pay the damage back to Samsung.
For all of them who say that Apple is "original" and "innovative" and "creative".
Apple was sued by Creative for the UI of the iPod and lost.
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/1152
Apple was sued by Nokia and lost.
http://www.tipb.com/2011/06/14/nokia...ed-apple-pays/
Also, LG Prada won prizes with their design of smarthpone, later came Apple with the iPhone that looked a lot like it.
But after all, it's just a screen with a cover on it.
I think it's ridiculous to have a patent with a screen and a cover surrounding it, nothing is special about it.
In my opinion, a tablet looks like a small tv with another dimension-size, that's it.
(or the netbook without a keyboard).
I hope Samsung wins, so i can order my 2nd Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v (for my brother) and use DLNA and Bluetooth and HDVideo playback + recording without any problems
And i just want to buy my tablet without being restricted, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v is currently the best on the market, the iPad 2 comes after.
Just like the Samsung Galaxy S2 is owning the iPhone.
Go Samsung
Sure, but at one time, there were more computers connected by Apple talk than all other computers put together.
Well this is clearly false. There was always more computers than there were Macs and not all Macs were networked anyway. Even from the perspective of all networked computers vs all localtalked computers this is false. The window where LocalTalk held advantages as a physical connector was fairly small...until about the time we could widely start using 10BaseT twisted pair vs coax for ethernet in the late 80s.
You might be able to argue there were more AppleTalk compatible devices than all other computers only because MS baked AppleTalk into WinNT. But you aren't because you're clearly talking about the physical implementation because you claim that ethernet killed appletalk...which it didn't. It killed localtalk. You can run Appletalk over ethernet (EtherTalk), token ring, etc. In any case, AppleTalk was clearly not used as a primary protocol on WinNT machines.
And no, don't claim some "I know this because I was doing this for 40 years" BS because I've been doing computer networks since before '84 (When AppleTalk came out) and built my fair share of LANs using Token Ring, AppleTalk, FDDI, Ethernet (fat, thin, optical and twisted pait) and string, bubblegum, duct tape and desperate wishes.
Use enough commas? lol You have no idea what I have read about this case.
Based on your posts, I'd say people have a very good idea which is you've understood very little about the case or what a patent troll actually is.
BS. That is still similar.
Obviously you are not qualified to have an intelligent discussion on design matters. If squared corners and rounded corners look the same to you, design is over your head and you had best sit this one out.
LG managed to get a similar block on PS3's at the start of the year, which was then overturned and LG stuck with the bill for legal fees.
Getting the product's banned from sale is just the first step. They still have to win the patent case, if they loose then they are potentially liable for a lot of money to samsung for lost earnings and storage of all the devices.
A single unnamed source says you secretly agree but are being paid by Steve Jobs personally to argue the point here.
Na...
....
A MODERATOR... on an Apple Rumor Website... being paid by APPLE... to agree with Apple.
How much more uninformed could that idea BE?! It's incorrect on at least five different levels.
Use enough commas? lol
The sentence is absolutely grammatically correct if taken as a direct translation of spoken word. However, it's a poorly constructed written sentence. You shouldn't write as you speak unless you already speak as you write.
You have no idea what I have read about this case.
Oh, I have at least ONE idea.
Precisely.
A single unnamed source says Steve Jobs is still taking LSD weekly.
Okay, wait a minute.
First, you need to change your quote. Melgross didn't say that, I did.
Second, I think you're trying to agree with me by pretending that I'm taking your side. I'm not.
Third, good job at making your argument confusing to the point of futility.
The articles I provided links for explain exactly why the silliness of such a claim should be self-evident. 40% returns rates simply can't exist for a wide variety of basic economic reasons.
While I think you're absolutely right to attack the idea that we should accept the tech-crunch story as truth when it is so thinly sourced I think you're venturing slightly onto the rough with this argument. The story claimed that 40% return rates were for some Android models, and then later on for 'many' Android models - but never claimed it as an industry wide average, or that it applied to most handsets.
Given the sheer number of handsets, it's not economically impossible that many models have high return rates - so long as those aren't the biggest selling models. I would guess that we're talking about around 100 android models on the market in the US at any one time, so 'many' might still represent a relatively small percentage of models - let alone sales.
Antenna design maybe, but not the others. When a patent is required to be licensed under FRAND terms injunctive relief makes no legal sense.
The Motorola patents were just an example (they were mentioned in a recent story). My point is there are a lot of a patents out there and Apple is regularly targeted in patent suites. We can bet that patent lawyers everywhere saw this and are going to try the same thing in the future.
The Motorola patents were just an example (they were mentioned in a recent story). My point is there are a lot of a patents out there and Apple is regularly targeted in patent suites. We can bet that patent lawyers everywhere saw this and are going to try the same thing in the future.
They can and already do, but on a regular patent a German ruling would only apply in Germany, not across the entire community. This ruling has EU wide effect precisely because it's a community design and not a utility patent.
In which case how long before all non Apple tablets are banned in Europe as they all follow the same basic design?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/10/a...motorola-over/
Looks like Motorola could be next
While I think you're absolutely right to attack the idea that we should accept the tech-crunch story as truth when it is so thinly sourced I think you're venturing slightly onto the rough with this argument. The story claimed that 40% return rates were for some Android models, and then later on for 'many' Android models - but never claimed it as an industry wide average, or that it applied to most handsets.
It's still unsubstantiated rumor. melgross' assertion was that Samsung's top Android models are seeing 30-40% return rates and 100% of tablets in Stapes (which is clearly wrong because I read the original article. "Lots" <> 100%).
These claims are idiotic or Samsung telecom wouldn't be posting record profits but massive losses.
"Operating profit from its telecoms division more than doubled to 1.67 trillion won from 630 billion won a year ago, helped by strong sales of a new version of its flagship smartphone Galaxy S."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76S00320110729
link source: droideggs
The TechCruch article doesn't even say that Samsung's android phones are seeing 30% returns but some unnamed android handsets. MacRulez is correct...this is a bogus meme that doesn't die, mutates and folks suddenly spout of nonsense that "Samsung's top models" are seeing 30% return rates.
These claims are idiotic or Samsung telecom wouldn't be posting record profits but massive losses.
"Operating profit from its telecoms division more than doubled to 1.67 trillion won from 630 billion won a year ago, helped by strong sales of a new version of its flagship smartphone Galaxy S."
Your facts are right but your conclusions are wrong. Consider the following, in that quarter Samsung reported in a separate press release that they had sold 5 million Galaxy II Ss. That model sells for close to iPhone levels and presumably has lower levels of R&D required since Samsung is getting their OS from Google. Samsung's profits were less than one quarter of Apples, so if the Galaxy II S has roughly comparable net margins - that means that the other 75 million devices that samsung sold in the quarter, 14 million smartphones, 60 million feature phones and a few tablets made approximately 0 profit.
Those 75million devices could include models with horrendous return rates, quite easily - and Samsung's profits would still be high for the quarter thanks to one successful model.
This isn't proof of high return rates, I'm not one of the people claiming that any such proof yet exists - but any attempt to deny the possibility of high return rates for some android models is flawed.
Your facts are right but your conclusions are wrong. Consider the following, in that quarter Samsung reported in a separate press release that they had sold 5 million Galaxy II Ss. That model sells for close to iPhone levels and presumably has lower levels of R&D required since Samsung is getting their OS from Google. Samsung's profits were less than one quarter of Apples, so if the Galaxy II S has roughly comparable net margins - that means that the other 75 million devices that samsung sold in the quarter, 14 million smartphones, 60 million feature phones and a few tablets made approximately 0 profit.
Those 75million devices could include models with horrendous return rates, quite easily - and Samsung's profits would still be high for the quarter thanks to one successful model.
This isn't proof of high return rates, I'm not one of the people claiming that any such proof yet exists - but any attempt to deny the possibility of high return rates for some android models is flawed.
Given that the Galaxy S2 is considered one of Samsung's top android models then melgross' claim is out of the 5M sold, 1.5M were returned. IF that many Galaxies were getting returned it would be very obvious at the retail level AND your scenario falls completely apart. This is just another instance of melgross pulling some false factoid out of half remembered ether.
Also, you have no idea of the net margins of the Galaxy and your math seems completely fishy. Any scenario where you claim 74M phones generates 0 profits is highly suspect.
Could a few Android models be seeing 30-40% return rates? Sure. Is it likely that the top Samsung models are? No. Is it likely that this is the average return rate for high end Android phones? No. Is there any data that even suggests that the 30-40% return rate even exists? No. Just a rumor from one anonymous source.
If a significant android model was being returned at a 30%-40% rate it would be huge news since it's a failure on par with the 23%-50% XBox RROD rate. It would be pretty hard to hide given the major android models are actually selling millions of units.
This would be like claiming that the 27" iMac was seeing 30-40% returns. There would be freaking obvious impact on Apple's desktop computer bottom line and in retail reports.