?as far as I have read, are considered "successes" when they only have TEN LINES OF DEAD PIXELS and are nowhere near the stage where they'd be put into any product, consumer or otherwise.
Hope I'm wrong, though (here's where you link me to a story where they've created one that doesn't suck). I've always liked the flexible display idea.
. . . please turn off all cellphones during the movie.
I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that people buy the Galaxy TAB or Moto Xoom, but are confused and think it was really an Apple iPad? Seriously?
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
. . . please turn off all cellphones during the movie.
I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that people buy the Galaxy TAB or Moto Xoom, but are confused and think it was really an Apple iPad? Seriously?
If you ask a slightly different question - are there people who buy the GT thinking that they are buying something the same as an iPad, that will run the same apps, have access to the App Store, and have the reputation of the iPad behind it, then the answer may well be yes. There is certainly anecdotal evidence to support that point of view. There are many very ill-informed customers out there.
Following on from that question, is another - if that confusion does indeed exist, have Samsung set out deliberately to create or foster it with their design and marketing? To many observers, the answer is unambiguously yes, although clearly that is not a universal opinion.
If you ask a slightly different question - are there people who buy the GT thinking that they are buying something the same as an iPad, that will run the same apps, have access to the App Store, and have the reputation of the iPad behind it, then the answer may well be yes. There is certainly anecdotal evidence to support that point of view. There are many very ill-informed customers out there.
Following on from that question, is another - if that confusion does indeed exist, have Samsung set out deliberately to create or foster it with their design and marketing? To many observers, the answer is unambiguously yes, although clearly that is not a universal opinion.
That's the best way of putting it, imo.
Samsung's logo may be on the product and therefore someone could argue that that is enough of a differentiation... not to me, though. Especially when, imo, Samsung has deliberately copied the look of the iPad and then furthers that copying by advertising that the GT is basically the same but better... never mentioning how they are different (ie. Android). Marketed that way people will definitely buy the GT thinking it is an iPad clone.
You have no idea. Trained for management with Sears consumer electronics (at the time called small appliances) in my 20's, owned two convenience stores in my 30's as well as a Holiday store, owned an engraving service in my 30's/40's, currently still own another retail/wholesale business, built from the ground up and successful for 29 years. . .
And yes, I've been imitated so many times I've lost count.
I don't follow this reasoning so I can't really say anything sensible about it. Did you consider that maybe, Apple pays less for their chips, for exactly the reasons I described? In other words, because they place large orders over a predictable, relatively long timeframe, for identical chips?
IC production doesn't just follow the 'general principle that big orders are better than small orders', it follows the 'every new design takes millions of $$$, lots of time and high risk of unexpected production issues' principle, which basically means the more you want of the same thing, the better. If you went to Samsung to buy 10,000 complex IC's you would probably pay over $1000 a chip. If you want 10,000,000 of them, the price will be closer to $10 a piece. It's much more extreme than any other business I know of. The savings of large volumes and predictable demand go both ways (customer and supplier), since 10 hours of downtime figuring out why you get bad yields from a particular design is entirely on the supplier, and I can tell you an hour of downtime on a wafer stepper is likely a lot more expensive than you can imagine.
Ok, so you're saying that in general, big orders are better than small orders. I can't argue with that as a general rule.
But you are also assuming that Apple pays enough to make their big orders a better alternative to Samsung than small orders from others. I don't think you have any evidence for that at tall, other than "in general, big orders are better than small orders".
But it all depends on how little Apple pays. And how much others are willing to pay.
Metaphor?a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
I was not attacking your belief system. I am sorry if that was the impression I made.
We know you made a reference to Christ in metaphor. The reason this metaphor irks people is that most Christians, including myself, view the self-sacrifice of Jesus as most revered event in history. So to compare such a frivolous issue as this feud between apple and samsung does touch our nerves.
I honestly was thinking hardware... not software. Kind of hard to mistake an iPhone from a Blackberry and I don't think Apple set out to purposely deceive anyone with the gestures.
Quote:
You have no idea. Trained for management with Sears consumer electronics (at the time called small appliances) in my 20's, owned two convenience stores in my 30's as well as a Holiday store, owned an engraving service in my 30's/40's, currently still own another retail/wholesale business, built from the ground up and successful for 29 years. . .
And yes, I've been imitated so many times I've lost count.
Then I'm surprised at your lack of knowledge concerning the buying public.
[on edit: ... and the sales people that sell items to them]
I think you will see that their "innovation" will not hold up in court--and it really doesn't matter. They are in the process of being surpassed by their counterparts. Apple is good at starting a trend or niche, not dominating (except in simple devices like mp3 players) due to their oppressive policies. People like freedom.
You mean Apple doesn?t dominate some markets because they don?t do ?races to the bottom? . It has nothing to do with a so called ?lack of freedom? in the ?wall gardens?, which is more about not letting crap in than letting people out.
Samsung tablets and MBA clones are blatant copies... they had the chances to settle off court but they didn?t so they will pay for it. Expect massive stock drops on the near future has it loose there components contracts and get boycott all over the world by Apple customers.
Ok, so you're saying that in general, big orders are better than small orders. I can't argue with that as a general rule.
But you are also assuming that Apple pays enough to make their big orders a better alternative to Samsung than small orders from others. I don't think you have any evidence for that at tall, other than "in general, big orders are better than small orders".
But it all depends on how little Apple pays. And how much others are willing to pay.
That's nonsense.
The argument was that Samsung was intentionally ticking Apple off in order to drive them away. That would be an incredibly stupid business move.
Now, it IS possible that Samsung doesn't make enough on Apple's products to justify keeping them as a customer. And it's even remotely possible that Samsung could make up for that business elsewhere (although not very likely). But even if that were true, Samsung would simply raise their price to Apple next time around or tell Apple that they're not going to bid on the next round of chips. It makes no sense to alienate someone who's buying $8 B worth of product from you.
The argument was that Samsung was intentionally ticking Apple off in order to drive them away. That would be an incredibly stupid business move.
Now, it IS possible that Samsung doesn't make enough on Apple's products to justify keeping them as a customer. And it's even remotely possible that Samsung could make up for that business elsewhere (although not very likely). But even if that were true, Samsung would simply raise their price to Apple next time around or tell Apple that they're not going to bid on the next round of chips. It makes no sense to alienate someone who's buying $8 B worth of product from you.
Not to mention what the rest of the customers would think.
... but really, intentionally ticking off Apple to lose their business... that's just silly.
[I missed this argument in the thread... it's a new argument to me... I'll have to add it to the collection]
It's not about how Samsung tablets are also rectangular with a glass front, or Samsung phones having the home button in the same location as the iPhone. That would be ridiculous, just like you said. The problem Apple has with Samsung, is that they are purposefully trying to copy those (superficial) aspects that people associate with iPad & iPhone, to try to confuse and trick buyers into thinking they are the same thing: design, packaging, marketing, the way the software (touchwiz, kies) looks.
I sincerely disagree here. I think there many, many people will confuse Galaxy Tabs and the Galaxy S with the iPhone, and buy them because they think it's the same thing. Of course no-one is going to miss the giant 'SAMSUNG' logo, or the lack of an Apple logo. People are not _that_ stupid. Instead, they see 2 tablets from different manufacturers, who look almost exactly the same, are marketed as having the same kind of applications, are sold at similar prices, and judge they will have the same capabilities. For many people, a tablet is no different from a DVD player or a Microwave, to them, they are all the same, and they all do the same thing. Only when they get home with their Galaxy Tab and find out none of the cool iPad apps they have heard about are available, or can't for the life of them figure out how to configure the WiFi or get some music on the thing, they will realize iPads and Galaxy Tabs are basically completely different devices, from a usability perspective.
This is a bad example, as there was nothing unique or innovative about the Android notification system in the first place, which is just a rehash of a million other notification tray implementations we've seen on desktop OS's and mobile phones. Also, I don't actually think the iOS 5 notification tray 'looks and feels' similar to Android. It operates in almost the exact same way, but visually, it looks quite different.
I know this is splitting hairs, but I simply think referring to how iOS 5 'copied' the Android notification system simply goes to show how innovative iOS actually is, when the notification tray in iOS 5 is the only thing people can come up with as an example of Apple copying anyone.
1. You really must have a poor view of people if you really think they cannot tell the difference between an Apple product and a Samsung product.
2. Another example. Years ago Apple (an it fanboys) laughed at the idea of wireless syncing of the Zune and Zune HD to a computer. They went so far as to claim it would eat battery life, it was slower than a cable connection, yada yada. YET, now Apple is including (ie COPYING) this in iOS 5 claiming it to be WIZ-BANG wonderful.
Look and feel is a differentiator in defining a "better" product, particularly when technology is basically a commodity.
If you spent years to design a new product offering that became wildly popular because it appealed to the masses because of it's bold, new design, you'd be a happy camper. How happy would you be if, a few months later, a competitor slavishly copied your design, adding his logo in place of yours, you might even be flattered — if the product was not a cheap knock-off. But, how would you feel if it was a cheap knock-off that caused people to think that your product was also cheap?
I would dance with JOY knowing others cannot compete with my products. Because I know others and I would prefer a product that is well built, reliable and runs the better OS versus a product that looks similar, but I know is inferior in build quality (just pick the damned thing up) and runs a shoddy OS.
People are not going to buy a shoddily built knock off and then come to the conclusion that Apple's products are also poor products. That is a complete fallacy of logic. You should be ashamed trying to pass that off as a reasonable argument.
While I don't think Apple blatantly takes anything from Android, even if it did, I wouldn't find that problematic. Google practically entourages with its anti-intellectual property rants, and its blatant copying of others work. Hard to respect a competitor who doesn't respect anybody else.
So you answer is that it is okay for Apple to take from Android because Android took from others? What kind of screwed up morality is that? Sounds like you are just rationalizing anything Apple does while criticizing the actions by others.
So some of youz actually believe that there are many people buying Tabs and Xooms believing they are getting an iPad?
So these would be morons who cannot read the word "Samsung" (or Motorola) on the front of the Tab, or on the packaging?
Oh, some of you are saying customers can read those names but are fooled into believing that these copycat products can run the same apps that iPad can? Wouldn't that make Apple pretty stupid that they fail so miserably at marketing, and Motorola/Samsung rather brilliant? So brilliant that they have sold .... oh, how many again? ... oh! See how stupid that argument is?
Perhaps, it is the opposite. Some customers are buying iPads believing that they can run Flash? How come no one is chastising Apple for not mentioning the lack of Flash-compatibility in their ads?
Comments
?as far as I have read, are considered "successes" when they only have TEN LINES OF DEAD PIXELS and are nowhere near the stage where they'd be put into any product, consumer or otherwise.
Hope I'm wrong, though (here's where you link me to a story where they've created one that doesn't suck). I've always liked the flexible display idea.
. . . please turn off all cellphones during the movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTIH62LCu9w
Yep.
. . . please turn off all cellphones during the movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTIH62LCu9w
Oh, GOOD. That's quite an impressive display. Colors aren't the best, but it being flexible, durable, and un-dead-pixelable makes up for that.
I think it was Sony tech I originally saw.
If you ask a slightly different question - are there people who buy the GT thinking that they are buying something the same as an iPad, that will run the same apps, have access to the App Store, and have the reputation of the iPad behind it, then the answer may well be yes. There is certainly anecdotal evidence to support that point of view. There are many very ill-informed customers out there.
Following on from that question, is another - if that confusion does indeed exist, have Samsung set out deliberately to create or foster it with their design and marketing? To many observers, the answer is unambiguously yes, although clearly that is not a universal opinion.
If you ask a slightly different question - are there people who buy the GT thinking that they are buying something the same as an iPad, that will run the same apps, have access to the App Store, and have the reputation of the iPad behind it, then the answer may well be yes. There is certainly anecdotal evidence to support that point of view. There are many very ill-informed customers out there.
Following on from that question, is another - if that confusion does indeed exist, have Samsung set out deliberately to create or foster it with their design and marketing? To many observers, the answer is unambiguously yes, although clearly that is not a universal opinion.
That's the best way of putting it, imo.
Samsung's logo may be on the product and therefore someone could argue that that is enough of a differentiation... not to me, though. Especially when, imo, Samsung has deliberately copied the look of the iPad and then furthers that copying by advertising that the GT is basically the same but better... never mentioning how they are different (ie. Android). Marketed that way people will definitely buy the GT thinking it is an iPad clone.
Example?
http://www.worldnewsco.com/7977/appl...sing-imessage/
http://9to5mac.com/2011/02/27/apple-...creen-for-ios/
You obviously have never worked retail.
You have no idea. Trained for management with Sears consumer electronics (at the time called small appliances) in my 20's, owned two convenience stores in my 30's as well as a Holiday store, owned an engraving service in my 30's/40's, currently still own another retail/wholesale business, built from the ground up and successful for 29 years. . .
And yes, I've been imitated so many times I've lost count.
I don't follow this reasoning so I can't really say anything sensible about it. Did you consider that maybe, Apple pays less for their chips, for exactly the reasons I described? In other words, because they place large orders over a predictable, relatively long timeframe, for identical chips?
IC production doesn't just follow the 'general principle that big orders are better than small orders', it follows the 'every new design takes millions of $$$, lots of time and high risk of unexpected production issues' principle, which basically means the more you want of the same thing, the better. If you went to Samsung to buy 10,000 complex IC's you would probably pay over $1000 a chip. If you want 10,000,000 of them, the price will be closer to $10 a piece. It's much more extreme than any other business I know of. The savings of large volumes and predictable demand go both ways (customer and supplier), since 10 hours of downtime figuring out why you get bad yields from a particular design is entirely on the supplier, and I can tell you an hour of downtime on a wafer stepper is likely a lot more expensive than you can imagine.
Ok, so you're saying that in general, big orders are better than small orders. I can't argue with that as a general rule.
But you are also assuming that Apple pays enough to make their big orders a better alternative to Samsung than small orders from others. I don't think you have any evidence for that at tall, other than "in general, big orders are better than small orders".
But it all depends on how little Apple pays. And how much others are willing to pay.
Metaphor?a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
I was not attacking your belief system. I am sorry if that was the impression I made.
We know you made a reference to Christ in metaphor. The reason this metaphor irks people is that most Christians, including myself, view the self-sacrifice of Jesus as most revered event in history. So to compare such a frivolous issue as this feud between apple and samsung does touch our nerves.
I have decided that Samsung is not honest or honourable and I will not buy any of their products. I am using the power of my wallet. How about you?
got my vote
http://www.worldnewsco.com/7977/appl...sing-imessage/
http://9to5mac.com/2011/02/27/apple-...creen-for-ios/
I honestly was thinking hardware... not software. Kind of hard to mistake an iPhone from a Blackberry and I don't think Apple set out to purposely deceive anyone with the gestures.
You have no idea. Trained for management with Sears consumer electronics (at the time called small appliances) in my 20's, owned two convenience stores in my 30's as well as a Holiday store, owned an engraving service in my 30's/40's, currently still own another retail/wholesale business, built from the ground up and successful for 29 years. . .
And yes, I've been imitated so many times I've lost count.
Then I'm surprised at your lack of knowledge concerning the buying public.
[on edit: ... and the sales people that sell items to them]
I think you will see that their "innovation" will not hold up in court--and it really doesn't matter. They are in the process of being surpassed by their counterparts. Apple is good at starting a trend or niche, not dominating (except in simple devices like mp3 players) due to their oppressive policies. People like freedom.
You mean Apple doesn?t dominate some markets because they don?t do ?races to the bottom? . It has nothing to do with a so called ?lack of freedom? in the ?wall gardens?, which is more about not letting crap in than letting people out.
Samsung tablets and MBA clones are blatant copies... they had the chances to settle off court but they didn?t so they will pay for it. Expect massive stock drops on the near future has it loose there components contracts and get boycott all over the world by Apple customers.
Ok, so you're saying that in general, big orders are better than small orders. I can't argue with that as a general rule.
But you are also assuming that Apple pays enough to make their big orders a better alternative to Samsung than small orders from others. I don't think you have any evidence for that at tall, other than "in general, big orders are better than small orders".
But it all depends on how little Apple pays. And how much others are willing to pay.
That's nonsense.
The argument was that Samsung was intentionally ticking Apple off in order to drive them away. That would be an incredibly stupid business move.
Now, it IS possible that Samsung doesn't make enough on Apple's products to justify keeping them as a customer. And it's even remotely possible that Samsung could make up for that business elsewhere (although not very likely). But even if that were true, Samsung would simply raise their price to Apple next time around or tell Apple that they're not going to bid on the next round of chips. It makes no sense to alienate someone who's buying $8 B worth of product from you.
Apple is not Christ-like in any manner.
Oh My Dear Fraking God....it was a God Damned Metaphor!!!!
That's nonsense.
The argument was that Samsung was intentionally ticking Apple off in order to drive them away. That would be an incredibly stupid business move.
Now, it IS possible that Samsung doesn't make enough on Apple's products to justify keeping them as a customer. And it's even remotely possible that Samsung could make up for that business elsewhere (although not very likely). But even if that were true, Samsung would simply raise their price to Apple next time around or tell Apple that they're not going to bid on the next round of chips. It makes no sense to alienate someone who's buying $8 B worth of product from you.
Not to mention what the rest of the customers would think.
... but really, intentionally ticking off Apple to lose their business... that's just silly.
[I missed this argument in the thread... it's a new argument to me... I'll have to add it to the collection]
Then I'm surprised at your lack of knowledge concerning the buying public.
[on edit: ... and the sales people that sell items to them]
I'm surprised that you'd assume you have more knowledge of the buying public than I.
No matter. I'm going for 35 years before retiring.
It's not about how Samsung tablets are also rectangular with a glass front, or Samsung phones having the home button in the same location as the iPhone. That would be ridiculous, just like you said. The problem Apple has with Samsung, is that they are purposefully trying to copy those (superficial) aspects that people associate with iPad & iPhone, to try to confuse and trick buyers into thinking they are the same thing: design, packaging, marketing, the way the software (touchwiz, kies) looks.
I sincerely disagree here. I think there many, many people will confuse Galaxy Tabs and the Galaxy S with the iPhone, and buy them because they think it's the same thing. Of course no-one is going to miss the giant 'SAMSUNG' logo, or the lack of an Apple logo. People are not _that_ stupid. Instead, they see 2 tablets from different manufacturers, who look almost exactly the same, are marketed as having the same kind of applications, are sold at similar prices, and judge they will have the same capabilities. For many people, a tablet is no different from a DVD player or a Microwave, to them, they are all the same, and they all do the same thing. Only when they get home with their Galaxy Tab and find out none of the cool iPad apps they have heard about are available, or can't for the life of them figure out how to configure the WiFi or get some music on the thing, they will realize iPads and Galaxy Tabs are basically completely different devices, from a usability perspective.
This is a bad example, as there was nothing unique or innovative about the Android notification system in the first place, which is just a rehash of a million other notification tray implementations we've seen on desktop OS's and mobile phones. Also, I don't actually think the iOS 5 notification tray 'looks and feels' similar to Android. It operates in almost the exact same way, but visually, it looks quite different.
I know this is splitting hairs, but I simply think referring to how iOS 5 'copied' the Android notification system simply goes to show how innovative iOS actually is, when the notification tray in iOS 5 is the only thing people can come up with as an example of Apple copying anyone.
1. You really must have a poor view of people if you really think they cannot tell the difference between an Apple product and a Samsung product.
2. Another example. Years ago Apple (an it fanboys) laughed at the idea of wireless syncing of the Zune and Zune HD to a computer. They went so far as to claim it would eat battery life, it was slower than a cable connection, yada yada. YET, now Apple is including (ie COPYING) this in iOS 5 claiming it to be WIZ-BANG wonderful.
Look and feel is a differentiator in defining a "better" product, particularly when technology is basically a commodity.
If you spent years to design a new product offering that became wildly popular because it appealed to the masses because of it's bold, new design, you'd be a happy camper. How happy would you be if, a few months later, a competitor slavishly copied your design, adding his logo in place of yours, you might even be flattered — if the product was not a cheap knock-off. But, how would you feel if it was a cheap knock-off that caused people to think that your product was also cheap?
I would dance with JOY knowing others cannot compete with my products. Because I know others and I would prefer a product that is well built, reliable and runs the better OS versus a product that looks similar, but I know is inferior in build quality (just pick the damned thing up) and runs a shoddy OS.
People are not going to buy a shoddily built knock off and then come to the conclusion that Apple's products are also poor products. That is a complete fallacy of logic. You should be ashamed trying to pass that off as a reasonable argument.
While I don't think Apple blatantly takes anything from Android, even if it did, I wouldn't find that problematic. Google practically entourages with its anti-intellectual property rants, and its blatant copying of others work. Hard to respect a competitor who doesn't respect anybody else.
So you answer is that it is okay for Apple to take from Android because Android took from others? What kind of screwed up morality is that? Sounds like you are just rationalizing anything Apple does while criticizing the actions by others.
I'm surprised that you'd assume you have more knowledge of the buying public than I.
No matter. I'm going for 35 years before retiring.
For someone that has never had a consumer mistake one product for another... well, that's all the evidence that I needed.
So these would be morons who cannot read the word "Samsung" (or Motorola) on the front of the Tab, or on the packaging?
Oh, some of you are saying customers can read those names but are fooled into believing that these copycat products can run the same apps that iPad can? Wouldn't that make Apple pretty stupid that they fail so miserably at marketing, and Motorola/Samsung rather brilliant? So brilliant that they have sold .... oh, how many again? ... oh! See how stupid that argument is?
Perhaps, it is the opposite. Some customers are buying iPads believing that they can run Flash? How come no one is chastising Apple for not mentioning the lack of Flash-compatibility in their ads?