Here's the reality, Apple makes more money with one phone a year than Samsung does with 30 new phones a year. Sammy is is glutting up the market with phones and strategy will big them in the butt down the road.
Sammy is going to iterate itself into consistent similarity. Therefore, every new phone will be identical to the last phone.
Also, Sammy has no customer service swag like Apple. We don't see Sammy as a customer juggernaut like Apple do we?
Viva the iphone and ipad. I can't wait for iphone 5 baby!!
that doesn't really look like an iPhone 4 though...
and I'm one of the Androiders who will admit that Samsung's Touchwiz is a blatant semi copy of iOS.
Well the person who posted it went out of their way to exaggerate the size difference, but otherwise the design is indeed very similar. It's also different from Samsung's previous phones that were themselves very similar to the iPhone 3G.
When you look at them collectively and in the same context, yeah, Samsung's phones look very very similar to Apple's designs. They also change the design when Apple changes theirs so as to match Apple's new design. There is an easy to discern pattern of almost one to one, feature for feature, copying. The new Galaxy S II coming out from Samsung has even gone back to having a "home button" in the centre at the bottom and looks even more like an iPhone 4.
I mean how could anyone not see that this as a close copy of the iPhone 4 design?
Samsung is being smart, for once. Who can trust Google at this point. Why throw all your eggs into the Android basket when there's a chance that Google will cut you off in another 2 years... even the slightest chance.
Will Bada fly? That's not the question in my mind. Will Android fly if Samsung and a couple of other top manufacturers leave the nest?
As another poster pointed out... consumers looking for a cheap smartphone won't care about apps etc... as long as the phone works... and Bada will get better and better while Samsung works on it using its profits from Android sales (that has to piss off Google).
That's well and good. But could Samsung please get Kie 2.0 working properly first? Right now no Bada model below S8500 Wave could access address book, app store and whatnot without downgrading to 1.5. All dumb phones can sync just fine but not entry-level Bada handset like Wave 525? Odd.
Well the person who posted it went out of their way to exaggerate the size difference, but otherwise the design is indeed very similar. It's also different from Samsung's previous phones that were themselves very similar to the iPhone 3G.
When you look at them collectively and in the same context, yeah, Samsung's phones look very very similar to Apple's designs. They also change the design when Apple changes theirs so as to match Apple's new design. There is an easy to discern pattern of almost one to one, feature for feature, copying. The new Galaxy S II coming out from Samsung has even gone back to having a "home button" in the centre at the bottom and looks even more like an iPhone 4.
I mean how could anyone not see that this as a close copy of the iPhone 4 design?
Galaxy II is a little big. But try holding iPhone 4 and a smaller, 3.5-inch screen Galaxy Cooper in your hand. I can't tell difference on size and weight between Cooper and iPhone 4.
Well the person who posted it went out of their way to exaggerate the size difference, but otherwise the design is indeed very similar. It's also different from Samsung's previous phones that were themselves very similar to the iPhone 3G.
When you look at them collectively and in the same context, yeah, Samsung's phones look very very similar to Apple's designs. They also change the design when Apple changes theirs so as to match Apple's new design. There is an easy to discern pattern of almost one to one, feature for feature, copying. The new Galaxy S II coming out from Samsung has even gone back to having a "home button" in the centre at the bottom and looks even more like an iPhone 4.
I mean how could anyone not see that this as a close copy of the iPhone 4 design?
the home button isn't a recent Samsung inclusion and it definitely doesn't look like the home button. also only the T-Mobile branded Samsung vibrant looked like a 3GS (with complaints from android fans to boot) the "stock" S2 has a general similarity to the iPhone 4 but the differences are enough to warrant dismissal. however, as recently released, the S2 variants don't really look too much like the iPhone 4
They haven't released the honeycomb code AFAIK, and the fact that they delayed it is actually against the rules. They also mix GPL code with proprietary code and don't release all the code just the GPL code which (I'm not arguing this but a lot of open source weenies have), is also against the GPL.
I remember several corporations doing this in the period before the whole Google/Android thing and pretty much every open source advocate on the planet took them to task over it and forced them to release the proprietary code. The GPL code was just part of a driver the way I remember it, and the company was forced to release the source code for their entire proprietary product.
Anything that runs on a Linux core should arguably be releasing the full source code for all parts of the product. This idea that's been floated recently that Google can "compartmentalise" the proprietary parts of Android from the GPL stuff or that they can delay releasing it, and that both of those are okay things to do, has no precedent and is untested legally speaking. These are the kind of underhanded dodges of the GPL licence that used to be frowned upon by the very community that is now supporting Android. But hey, Google is doing it so it must be okay, right?
From what I've heard though, the big sticking point is that almost no app developers are releasing source code along with their apps and almost all of them should be doing so by a strict reading of the GPL. In any case, I'm no expert and I don't even like the GPL or think that it's anything but a ball of pain.
If you look into it though you will find that it's definitely true that massive violations are going on (mostly in the way of not releasing source code), and it is a definite liability that the open source people are starting to get upset about.
They haven't released the honeycomb code AFAIK, and the fact that they delayed it is actually against the rules. They also mix GPL code with proprietary code and don't release all the code just the GPL code which (I'm not arguing this but a lot of open source weenies have), is also against the GPL.
I remember several corporations doing this in the period before the whole Google/Android thing and pretty much every open source advocate on the planet took them to task over it and forced them to release the proprietary code. The GPL code was just part of a driver the way I remember it, and the company was forced to release the source code for their entire proprietary product.
Anything that runs on a Linux core should arguably be releasing the full source code for all parts of the product. This idea that's been floated recently that Google can "compartmentalise" the proprietary parts of Android from the GPL stuff or that they can delay releasing it, and that both of those are okay things to do, has no precedent and is untested legally speaking. These are the kind of underhanded dodges of the GPL licence that used to be frowned upon by the very community that is now supporting Android. But hey, Google is doing it so it must be okay, right?
From what I've heard though, the big sticking point is that almost no app developers are releasing source code along with their apps and almost all of them should be doing so by a strict reading of the GPL. In any case, I'm no expert and I don't even like the GPL or think that it's anything but a ball of pain.
If you look into it though you will find that it's definitely true that massive violations are going on (mostly in the way of not releasing source code), and it is a definite liability that the open source people are starting to get upset about.
should be some interesting developments if that is true. but as I remember it there was a big fuss when honeycomb was shown about it not being on aosp but then it was found that the gpl code was in fact released but the Apache or whatever code they weren't required to share wasn't shared.
the home button isn't a recent Samsung inclusion and it definitely doesn't look like the home button. also only the T-Mobile branded Samsung vibrant looked like a 3GS (with complaints from android fans to boot) the "stock" S2 has a general similarity to the iPhone 4 but the differences are enough to warrant dismissal. however, as recently released, the S2 variants don't really look too much like the iPhone 4
Nah, This phone is fairly obviously designed to look as close to an iPhone 4 (from the display shot), as possible. This picture says to the buyer, "Hey, it's like an iPhone."
I didn't say the home button was a recent inclusion, they used it before, then they went to the default four Android buttons (but capacitive), now they have gone back to putting the big physical home button in the centre of the array of capacitive buttons.
This button layout is a departure from the default Android reference design in only one way. It has a giant physical button in the centre bottom like an iPhone.
Nah, This phone is fairly obviously designed to look as close to an iPhone 4 (from the display shot), as possible. This picture says to the buyer, "Hey, it's like an iPhone."
I didn't say the home button was a recent inclusion, they used it before, then they went to the default four Android buttons (but capacitive), now they have gone back to putting the big physical home button in the centre of the array of capacitive buttons.
This button layout is a departure from the default Android reference design in only one way. It has a giant physical button in the centre bottom like an iPhone.
display shots are display shots. it's a render. but this being Samsung you're most likely right.
as far as the large center button goes Samsung had it on the Galaxy S one and other phones prior to it. when it came to us variants they tended to go the standard 4 capacitive buttons look.
Many of you make some good points about whether the Bada phones will sell or not, and how it may or may not depend on available apps and all.
There is such a small percent of consumers who are truly brand loyal especially when dealing with the consumers who are only worried about price and are feature check list buyers. This is true for apple as well, only those consumer who have expendable income will always buy apple all the time. Most Cell phone consumers are only worried about getting a free or cheap phone.
In the case of Bada Samsung phone since it looks so much like android/iOS and the iphone most consumers will take it if it is given to them and they do not have pay lots to get it. When they get it home they will realize they did not get what they expected, but too late they are stuck in a 2 yr contract which will cost them $300 to get of. Now two years go by and they want the next greatest phone again which is free and again they walk home with an Bada Samsung phone.
In the case of Apple and many company with strong brand recognition it cost you to be brand loyal. I would not say Samsung has strong brand loyalty, they are well recognized, but it not a same which people say they have to have their products at any cost.
The only issue with Samsung and Bada is they lack the ecosystem that Apple has, and developer on apple make money on sales of apps and ad if necessary and it turn key for them. the same is true for Android. With Samsung it is just another platform for developer to support. What you will see is mostly scammers showing up on this platform.
I wonder how long before Microsoft comes along demanding money for patent infringements?
There are rumors it wasn't Android but rather Linux (which Android is built) on that infringes on Microsoft patents (MS makes you sign NDAs before they tell you which patents). Bada is also based on Linux so potentially has the exact same patent problems.
I wonder how long before Microsoft comes along demanding money for patent infringements?
There are rumors it wasn't Android but rather Linux (which Android is built) on that infringes on Microsoft patents (MS makes you sign NDAs before they tell you which patents). Bada is also based on Linux so potentially has the exact same patent problems.
For a preliminary injunction, the Court views the evidence in a way that is most favorable to Samsung. That doesn't mean the "look and feel" IP claims will eventually lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleDroid
Looked different enough to me. Having a keyboard, touchpad, and screen with bezel doesn't mean that every laptop out there is copying Apple's MacBook. Oh and in case you haven't noticed, Samsung's laptop is black in colour whereas MacBook Air is white. I'll call that at least the slightest bit different.
Like the Dutch case which threw out all of Apple's "look and feel" patent assertions?
Apple's doing what a corporation does to make money, and I don't feel bad at all for Samsung since they are a large faceless corporation as well, and probably have similar behavior in their past.
On the surface, Apple has a compelling case, but ultimately the real question is whether Samsung would have eventually gotten to where they are regardless of Apple. I think companies like Samsung or HTC would have made it, yes. Apple's role wasn't in influencing design, but rather influencing competition.
The only thing Apple contributed that companies are guilty of copying are rounded edges. These devices are plates with screens, and that design was inevitable. Companies didn't copy Apple in this regard, they simply caught up. Apple's upper hand was that they didn't have money invested in previous technologies, so they could hit the ground running with the latest and greatest hardware that could be translated into affordable devices for the public, while companies like Samsung were still looking for a return on yesteryear's technology. Apple forced these companies to take a big hit by investing in newer technologies sooner than they predicted.
The phones will speak for themselves. Apple isn't so dumb as to think these companies will stop, they just see this as a logical direction to stifle the competition's ability to compete. Faceless corporation.
On the surface, Apple has a compelling case, but ultimately the real question is whether Samsung would have eventually gotten to where they are regardless of Apple. I think companies like Samsung or HTC would have made it, yes. Apple's role wasn't in influencing design, but rather influencing competition.
Please show me where the copyright law allows "sure, we copied the other guy's product, but we COULD HAVE succeeded even if we didn't" as a defense.
In fact, that simply make the infringer look lazy and stupid. If they could have been just as successful without copying, why did they copy?
I fail to see how Samsung refreshing their "Bada" line is "hedging" any bets against android.
Are you going to use the same line when Samsung refreshes their Windows Phone line too?
(Hint, HTC also makes windows phone devices, but their profits are by far thanks to android)
These companies don't go "All in" with a platform. To do so would be suicide since no other company has the ecosystem that itunes offers. Yes, you can point to apple's insane profit margins, high brand loyalty, etc and tell people "that's what every company should be going for" the reality is that most of them can't. Not only would Samsung need to bring Bada up to the level of other OS (I don't know much about Bada2, but Bada1 felt like a step up from a feature phone, not a smartphone OS) But they also need to make an ecosystem for it.
Not only that, but Bada is essentially Touchwiz over a new OS. That means that MOST of the Lawsuits Apple is levying against Samsung over touchwiz will also apply to Bada, so Samsung's not really hedging any bets their either.
These companies can't match the iEcosystem, and going all in with a single player (Android, Windows, Bada, whatever) means more risk than making phones for many, if not all of them. So yeah, technically that's hedging their bets, but it's not "hedging their android bet" it's "hedging their smartphone bet" Are you going to do another release when they unveil the Galaxy S III and say "Samsung hedges their Bada bet with Android?"
Comments
Here's the reality, Apple makes more money with one phone a year than Samsung does with 30 new phones a year. Sammy is is glutting up the market with phones and strategy will big them in the butt down the road.
Sammy is going to iterate itself into consistent similarity. Therefore, every new phone will be identical to the last phone.
Also, Sammy has no customer service swag like Apple. We don't see Sammy as a customer juggernaut like Apple do we?
Viva the iphone and ipad. I can't wait for iphone 5 baby!!
all truths. all irrelevant.
that doesn't really look like an iPhone 4 though...
and I'm one of the Androiders who will admit that Samsung's Touchwiz is a blatant semi copy of iOS.
Well the person who posted it went out of their way to exaggerate the size difference, but otherwise the design is indeed very similar. It's also different from Samsung's previous phones that were themselves very similar to the iPhone 3G.
When you look at them collectively and in the same context, yeah, Samsung's phones look very very similar to Apple's designs. They also change the design when Apple changes theirs so as to match Apple's new design. There is an easy to discern pattern of almost one to one, feature for feature, copying. The new Galaxy S II coming out from Samsung has even gone back to having a "home button" in the centre at the bottom and looks even more like an iPhone 4.
I mean how could anyone not see that this as a close copy of the iPhone 4 design?
Samsung is being smart, for once. Who can trust Google at this point. Why throw all your eggs into the Android basket when there's a chance that Google will cut you off in another 2 years... even the slightest chance.
Will Bada fly? That's not the question in my mind. Will Android fly if Samsung and a couple of other top manufacturers leave the nest?
As another poster pointed out... consumers looking for a cheap smartphone won't care about apps etc... as long as the phone works... and Bada will get better and better while Samsung works on it using its profits from Android sales (that has to piss off Google).
That's well and good. But could Samsung please get Kie 2.0 working properly first? Right now no Bada model below S8500 Wave could access address book, app store and whatnot without downgrading to 1.5. All dumb phones can sync just fine but not entry-level Bada handset like Wave 525? Odd.
Well the person who posted it went out of their way to exaggerate the size difference, but otherwise the design is indeed very similar. It's also different from Samsung's previous phones that were themselves very similar to the iPhone 3G.
When you look at them collectively and in the same context, yeah, Samsung's phones look very very similar to Apple's designs. They also change the design when Apple changes theirs so as to match Apple's new design. There is an easy to discern pattern of almost one to one, feature for feature, copying. The new Galaxy S II coming out from Samsung has even gone back to having a "home button" in the centre at the bottom and looks even more like an iPhone 4.
I mean how could anyone not see that this as a close copy of the iPhone 4 design?
Galaxy II is a little big. But try holding iPhone 4 and a smaller, 3.5-inch screen Galaxy Cooper in your hand. I can't tell difference on size and weight between Cooper and iPhone 4.
Well the person who posted it went out of their way to exaggerate the size difference, but otherwise the design is indeed very similar. It's also different from Samsung's previous phones that were themselves very similar to the iPhone 3G.
When you look at them collectively and in the same context, yeah, Samsung's phones look very very similar to Apple's designs. They also change the design when Apple changes theirs so as to match Apple's new design. There is an easy to discern pattern of almost one to one, feature for feature, copying. The new Galaxy S II coming out from Samsung has even gone back to having a "home button" in the centre at the bottom and looks even more like an iPhone 4.
I mean how could anyone not see that this as a close copy of the iPhone 4 design?
the home button isn't a recent Samsung inclusion and it definitely doesn't look like the home button. also only the T-Mobile branded Samsung vibrant looked like a 3GS (with complaints from android fans to boot) the "stock" S2 has a general similarity to the iPhone 4 but the differences are enough to warrant dismissal. however, as recently released, the S2 variants don't really look too much like the iPhone 4
the Android 3.0 complaints? because they actually released all the GPL compliant code.
unless there's something else regarding gpl I'm unaware of.
enlighten me if there is. I'm genuinely curious.
They haven't released the honeycomb code AFAIK, and the fact that they delayed it is actually against the rules. They also mix GPL code with proprietary code and don't release all the code just the GPL code which (I'm not arguing this but a lot of open source weenies have), is also against the GPL.
I remember several corporations doing this in the period before the whole Google/Android thing and pretty much every open source advocate on the planet took them to task over it and forced them to release the proprietary code. The GPL code was just part of a driver the way I remember it, and the company was forced to release the source code for their entire proprietary product.
Anything that runs on a Linux core should arguably be releasing the full source code for all parts of the product. This idea that's been floated recently that Google can "compartmentalise" the proprietary parts of Android from the GPL stuff or that they can delay releasing it, and that both of those are okay things to do, has no precedent and is untested legally speaking. These are the kind of underhanded dodges of the GPL licence that used to be frowned upon by the very community that is now supporting Android. But hey, Google is doing it so it must be okay, right?
From what I've heard though, the big sticking point is that almost no app developers are releasing source code along with their apps and almost all of them should be doing so by a strict reading of the GPL. In any case, I'm no expert and I don't even like the GPL or think that it's anything but a ball of pain.
If you look into it though you will find that it's definitely true that massive violations are going on (mostly in the way of not releasing source code), and it is a definite liability that the open source people are starting to get upset about.
They haven't released the honeycomb code AFAIK, and the fact that they delayed it is actually against the rules. They also mix GPL code with proprietary code and don't release all the code just the GPL code which (I'm not arguing this but a lot of open source weenies have), is also against the GPL.
I remember several corporations doing this in the period before the whole Google/Android thing and pretty much every open source advocate on the planet took them to task over it and forced them to release the proprietary code. The GPL code was just part of a driver the way I remember it, and the company was forced to release the source code for their entire proprietary product.
Anything that runs on a Linux core should arguably be releasing the full source code for all parts of the product. This idea that's been floated recently that Google can "compartmentalise" the proprietary parts of Android from the GPL stuff or that they can delay releasing it, and that both of those are okay things to do, has no precedent and is untested legally speaking. These are the kind of underhanded dodges of the GPL licence that used to be frowned upon by the very community that is now supporting Android. But hey, Google is doing it so it must be okay, right?
From what I've heard though, the big sticking point is that almost no app developers are releasing source code along with their apps and almost all of them should be doing so by a strict reading of the GPL. In any case, I'm no expert and I don't even like the GPL or think that it's anything but a ball of pain.
If you look into it though you will find that it's definitely true that massive violations are going on (mostly in the way of not releasing source code), and it is a definite liability that the open source people are starting to get upset about.
should be some interesting developments if that is true. but as I remember it there was a big fuss when honeycomb was shown about it not being on aosp but then it was found that the gpl code was in fact released but the Apache or whatever code they weren't required to share wasn't shared.
the home button isn't a recent Samsung inclusion and it definitely doesn't look like the home button. also only the T-Mobile branded Samsung vibrant looked like a 3GS (with complaints from android fans to boot) the "stock" S2 has a general similarity to the iPhone 4 but the differences are enough to warrant dismissal. however, as recently released, the S2 variants don't really look too much like the iPhone 4
Nah, This phone is fairly obviously designed to look as close to an iPhone 4 (from the display shot), as possible. This picture says to the buyer, "Hey, it's like an iPhone."
I didn't say the home button was a recent inclusion, they used it before, then they went to the default four Android buttons (but capacitive), now they have gone back to putting the big physical home button in the centre of the array of capacitive buttons.
This button layout is a departure from the default Android reference design in only one way. It has a giant physical button in the centre bottom like an iPhone.
Nah, This phone is fairly obviously designed to look as close to an iPhone 4 (from the display shot), as possible. This picture says to the buyer, "Hey, it's like an iPhone."
I didn't say the home button was a recent inclusion, they used it before, then they went to the default four Android buttons (but capacitive), now they have gone back to putting the big physical home button in the centre of the array of capacitive buttons.
This button layout is a departure from the default Android reference design in only one way. It has a giant physical button in the centre bottom like an iPhone.
display shots are display shots. it's a render. but this being Samsung you're most likely right.
as far as the large center button goes Samsung had it on the Galaxy S one and other phones prior to it. when it came to us variants they tended to go the standard 4 capacitive buttons look.
nothing diabolical there.
There is such a small percent of consumers who are truly brand loyal especially when dealing with the consumers who are only worried about price and are feature check list buyers. This is true for apple as well, only those consumer who have expendable income will always buy apple all the time. Most Cell phone consumers are only worried about getting a free or cheap phone.
In the case of Bada Samsung phone since it looks so much like android/iOS and the iphone most consumers will take it if it is given to them and they do not have pay lots to get it. When they get it home they will realize they did not get what they expected, but too late they are stuck in a 2 yr contract which will cost them $300 to get of. Now two years go by and they want the next greatest phone again which is free and again they walk home with an Bada Samsung phone.
In the case of Apple and many company with strong brand recognition it cost you to be brand loyal. I would not say Samsung has strong brand loyalty, they are well recognized, but it not a same which people say they have to have their products at any cost.
The only issue with Samsung and Bada is they lack the ecosystem that Apple has, and developer on apple make money on sales of apps and ad if necessary and it turn key for them. the same is true for Android. With Samsung it is just another platform for developer to support. What you will see is mostly scammers showing up on this platform.
There are rumors it wasn't Android but rather Linux (which Android is built) on that infringes on Microsoft patents (MS makes you sign NDAs before they tell you which patents). Bada is also based on Linux so potentially has the exact same patent problems.
I wonder how long before Microsoft comes along demanding money for patent infringements?
There are rumors it wasn't Android but rather Linux (which Android is built) on that infringes on Microsoft patents (MS makes you sign NDAs before they tell you which patents). Bada is also based on Linux so potentially has the exact same patent problems.
eh. Microsoft is suing Motorola.
Looked different enough to me. Having a keyboard, touchpad, and screen with bezel doesn't mean that every laptop out there is copying Apple's MacBook. Oh and in case you haven't noticed, Samsung's laptop is black in colour whereas MacBook Air is white. I'll call that at least the slightest bit different.
Like the Dutch case which threw out all of Apple's "look and feel" patent assertions?
Is there an SS model?
BadaSS
I really like the tone some have taken with this thread!
Fifth Element Samsung phone;
Milla Jovovich - "Bada boom, big bada boom"!
Bruce Willis - "Yes - big bada boom."
Google has a history of fking their partners in the as$.
They fcked Apple. They fcked Samsung,HTC,Sony,LG,etc. by buying Motorola.
NEVER EVER trust Google. They are a bunch of EVIL mothrF'ers.
what is that?
It's just another example of a Samsung product looking remarkably like an Apple product.
On the surface, Apple has a compelling case, but ultimately the real question is whether Samsung would have eventually gotten to where they are regardless of Apple. I think companies like Samsung or HTC would have made it, yes. Apple's role wasn't in influencing design, but rather influencing competition.
The only thing Apple contributed that companies are guilty of copying are rounded edges. These devices are plates with screens, and that design was inevitable. Companies didn't copy Apple in this regard, they simply caught up. Apple's upper hand was that they didn't have money invested in previous technologies, so they could hit the ground running with the latest and greatest hardware that could be translated into affordable devices for the public, while companies like Samsung were still looking for a return on yesteryear's technology. Apple forced these companies to take a big hit by investing in newer technologies sooner than they predicted.
The phones will speak for themselves. Apple isn't so dumb as to think these companies will stop, they just see this as a logical direction to stifle the competition's ability to compete. Faceless corporation.
Nothin' wrong with a little good, honest copytition.
Copytition - very good! I will have to .... borrow that some time.
On the surface, Apple has a compelling case, but ultimately the real question is whether Samsung would have eventually gotten to where they are regardless of Apple. I think companies like Samsung or HTC would have made it, yes. Apple's role wasn't in influencing design, but rather influencing competition.
Please show me where the copyright law allows "sure, we copied the other guy's product, but we COULD HAVE succeeded even if we didn't" as a defense.
In fact, that simply make the infringer look lazy and stupid. If they could have been just as successful without copying, why did they copy?
Are you going to use the same line when Samsung refreshes their Windows Phone line too?
(Hint, HTC also makes windows phone devices, but their profits are by far thanks to android)
These companies don't go "All in" with a platform. To do so would be suicide since no other company has the ecosystem that itunes offers. Yes, you can point to apple's insane profit margins, high brand loyalty, etc and tell people "that's what every company should be going for" the reality is that most of them can't. Not only would Samsung need to bring Bada up to the level of other OS (I don't know much about Bada2, but Bada1 felt like a step up from a feature phone, not a smartphone OS) But they also need to make an ecosystem for it.
Not only that, but Bada is essentially Touchwiz over a new OS. That means that MOST of the Lawsuits Apple is levying against Samsung over touchwiz will also apply to Bada, so Samsung's not really hedging any bets their either.
These companies can't match the iEcosystem, and going all in with a single player (Android, Windows, Bada, whatever) means more risk than making phones for many, if not all of them. So yeah, technically that's hedging their bets, but it's not "hedging their android bet" it's "hedging their smartphone bet" Are you going to do another release when they unveil the Galaxy S III and say "Samsung hedges their Bada bet with Android?"