Hmm. Apple has no need for cash ($70 billion of debt-free cash in the bank). Maybe Samsung offered lower prices on flash memory or displays? Who knows, maybe next year we'll see $100 deductions on MacBook Airs and iPads!
Hmm. Apple has no need for cash ($70 billion of debt-free cash in the bank). Maybe Samsung offered lower prices on flash memory or displays? Who knows, maybe next year we'll see $100 deductions on MacBook Airs and iPads!
as much as this could be true, Samsung Phone business can not make or offer deals from their component business. As much as you would like to believe that Samsung shares information across business units, they at least have to present a semblance of a Chinese Wall between businesses, if they stuck a deal across business units this could be bigger issue for Samsung.
Hmm. Apple has no need for cash ($70 billion of debt-free cash in the bank). Maybe Samsung offered lower prices on flash memory or displays? Who knows, maybe next year we'll see $100 deductions on MacBook Airs and iPads!
. Good one. This being Apple, next years headline would probably read something like Apple reports improved profit margins on iPads and Macbook Airs.
The frakking deal is secret. It's right damn there, "mystery deal". You aren't a special person Samsung and Apple want to poll for approval of their secret dealings behind the scenes in trying to settle a lawsuit that is completely keeping a product out of the Aussie marketplace.
As for where is the story? Again, you're kidding right? No? Damn you show less reading comprehension than the average political pundit on these boards.
Let me lay it out for you and them. Samsung is either A) FOLDING or B)not folding. There that covers it all.
Now if you want to look a little deeper, the comment by Apple's attorney that there may be value in the deal for Apple is heavily weighted in favor of folding, since there is no value to Apple in anything that just lets Samsung continue to act as it did before the lawsuit. And Apple doesn't seem to be about eeking out tiny incremental pushback when they accuse someone of copying or stealing IP, so value to the company has to mean something quite significant has changed. Something Samsung is placing on the table.
Gee all that in the story, for everyone to see in plain monitor-light? Where's the intelligence in this world!?!
The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.
Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.
No deal - no story.
But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"
Take my advice: you're going to get hurt one day jumping to conclusions - as I did read the whole story.
as much as this could be true, Samsung Phone business can not make or offer deals from their component business. As much as you would like to believe that Samsung shares information across business units, they at least have to present a semblance of a Chinese Wall between businesses, if they stuck a deal across business units this could be bigger issue for Samsung.
Absolutely false. There are a number of flaws in your statement:
1. There is nothing illegal about divisions of a company sharing information. Even if they are separate legal entities, as long as they're fully owned, they can share confidential information (I had to deal with that in my previous multinational).
2. Even if they decided NOT to share information between the divisions, it could be done at a higher level. The CEO of Samsung could order the components division to lower their prices for Apple without saying why.
3. Even if THAT isn't acceptable, all the phone division would have to do is tell Apple "we'll pay you $2.00 for every GB of Flash memory you buy from our components division or $4 for every CPU you buy from our components division".
The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.
Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.
No deal - no story.
But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"
Take my advice: you're going to get hurt one day jumping to conclusions - as I did read the whole story.
As the old saying goes, "Don't throw stones in a glass house." Before you make claims of 'dumbing things down for everyone', you might want to ensure your grammar and spelling are up to par. In your case, it is a lovely run-on sentence at the beginning and a few missing comma's throughout. But hey, maybe you were just dumbing it down, right? Wink wink
Google is re-position their tablet warheads at Amazon too. More of a threat then Apple, I think. Amazon and Google are both content providers. People forget the intent of Android was to control search and content, which is by far the bulk of Google's revenue. Licensing Google Apps to OEMs and revenue from Android store are pennies on the dollar compared to Google search business. With the Silk browser architecture you are not even assured you will get access to Google's search engine or all of the output from Google's search engine web page. Why the heck would it be in Amazon's interest to return search results for Google retail customers on anything the competes with what Amazon sells?
Silk Architecture is power to filter Amazon's competitors. I am sure this concerns Google greatly.
You don't offer a deal unless you know your hand is weak.
I don't believe that's always true. Apple offered Nokia a deal rather than let a judge decide, but it's not proof that their hand was weak. Some things just become huge distractions, better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.
I don't believe that's always true. Apple offered Nokia a deal rather than let a judge decide, but it's not proof that their hand was weak. Some things just become huge distractions, better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.
That is true.
Similarly, the fact that Apple said that there would be some benefits to the deal doesn't mean that it's a good deal for Apple.
Let's say Samsung said "we propose that Apple drop the case and pay all of our legal expenses and immediately withdraw the iPad from the market to make room for the Tab". That would obviously be an insanely stupid thing for Apple to agree to, but it would still be true that there were some benefits to Apple (reduction of uncertainty and elimination of legal expenses). But that clearly doesn't make it a good deal.
Saying that there are some benefits is about as useless a statement as someone could make other than keeping their mouths shut.
As the old saying goes, "Don't throw stones in a glass house." Before you make claims of 'dumbing things down for everyone', you might want to ensure your grammar and spelling are up to par. In your case, it is a lovely run-on sentence at the beginning and a few missing comma's throughout. But hey, maybe you were just dumbing it down, right? Wink wink
I find mastering the english language somewhat difficult at times, however, I find it most repulsive when self promoting know-it-alls put on vulgar displays of their advanced grammatical skills, especially when said displays are intended as a backhanded insult. Having said all that, with just a few exceptions, I enjoy the excellent commentary found on this site and I welcome all responses to my posts, and I even enjoy at times, how do you say it, a little tit-for-tat.
I don't believe that's always true. Apple offered Nokia a deal rather than let a judge decide, but it's not proof that their hand was weak. Some things just become huge distractions, better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.
That's odd... I've never paid anyone a dime in poker unless my hand was weak.
Of course Apple's hand was weak. They knew they had to pay; how much was the question. I think Apple played its hand at the best possible time to get the best deal... but if they would have actually felt they had a strong hand then they wouldn't have paid a dime and let the judge decide.
This report just confirms what we suspected about Samsung's strategy. They don't care what they lose, or how long it takes, or how much it costs...they are going to sell the GalaxyTab one way or another, because they think they have a legit competitor to the iPad. They might be right, too. It's probably the only real threat to Apple at this point.
This report just confirms what we suspected about Samsung's strategy. They don't care what they lose, or how long it takes, or how much it costs...they are going to sell the GalaxyTab one way or another, because they think they have a legit competitor to the iPad. They might be right, too. It's probably the only real threat to Apple at this point.
With Amazon on their heels, they must be starting to panic. And the Christmas shopping season is looming.
Looks like a precursor to a settlement in the US too (note the recent one with Microsoft).
Comments
Hmm. Apple has no need for cash ($70 billion of debt-free cash in the bank). Maybe Samsung offered lower prices on flash memory or displays? Who knows, maybe next year we'll see $100 deductions on MacBook Airs and iPads!
as much as this could be true, Samsung Phone business can not make or offer deals from their component business. As much as you would like to believe that Samsung shares information across business units, they at least have to present a semblance of a Chinese Wall between businesses, if they stuck a deal across business units this could be bigger issue for Samsung.
Hmm. Apple has no need for cash ($70 billion of debt-free cash in the bank). Maybe Samsung offered lower prices on flash memory or displays? Who knows, maybe next year we'll see $100 deductions on MacBook Airs and iPads!
By getting Samsung to admit wrong-doing, a bigger playing field opens up for Apple.
You're kidding, right? Right?
No?
Oh well.
The frakking deal is secret. It's right damn there, "mystery deal". You aren't a special person Samsung and Apple want to poll for approval of their secret dealings behind the scenes in trying to settle a lawsuit that is completely keeping a product out of the Aussie marketplace.
As for where is the story? Again, you're kidding right? No? Damn you show less reading comprehension than the average political pundit on these boards.
Let me lay it out for you and them. Samsung is either A) FOLDING or B)not folding. There that covers it all.
Now if you want to look a little deeper, the comment by Apple's attorney that there may be value in the deal for Apple is heavily weighted in favor of folding, since there is no value to Apple in anything that just lets Samsung continue to act as it did before the lawsuit. And Apple doesn't seem to be about eeking out tiny incremental pushback when they accuse someone of copying or stealing IP, so value to the company has to mean something quite significant has changed. Something Samsung is placing on the table.
Gee all that in the story, for everyone to see in plain monitor-light? Where's the intelligence in this world!?!
The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.
Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.
No deal - no story.
But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"
Take my advice: you're going to get hurt one day jumping to conclusions - as I did read the whole story.
as much as this could be true, Samsung Phone business can not make or offer deals from their component business. As much as you would like to believe that Samsung shares information across business units, they at least have to present a semblance of a Chinese Wall between businesses, if they stuck a deal across business units this could be bigger issue for Samsung.
Absolutely false. There are a number of flaws in your statement:
1. There is nothing illegal about divisions of a company sharing information. Even if they are separate legal entities, as long as they're fully owned, they can share confidential information (I had to deal with that in my previous multinational).
2. Even if they decided NOT to share information between the divisions, it could be done at a higher level. The CEO of Samsung could order the components division to lower their prices for Apple without saying why.
3. Even if THAT isn't acceptable, all the phone division would have to do is tell Apple "we'll pay you $2.00 for every GB of Flash memory you buy from our components division or $4 for every CPU you buy from our components division".
The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.
Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.
No deal - no story.
But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"
Take my advice: you're going to get hurt one day jumping to conclusions - as I did read the whole story.
As the old saying goes, "Don't throw stones in a glass house." Before you make claims of 'dumbing things down for everyone', you might want to ensure your grammar and spelling are up to par. In your case, it is a lovely run-on sentence at the beginning and a few missing comma's throughout. But hey, maybe you were just dumbing it down, right? Wink wink
Okay Apple, since your products are so cool, you get Antarctica, we get Australia...
reminds me of the children's continent song.
...and dont forget Antarctica and don't forget Australia.
"...and into Amazon HQ"
Both sides benefit from this.
Google is re-position their tablet warheads at Amazon too. More of a threat then Apple, I think. Amazon and Google are both content providers. People forget the intent of Android was to control search and content, which is by far the bulk of Google's revenue. Licensing Google Apps to OEMs and revenue from Android store are pennies on the dollar compared to Google search business. With the Silk browser architecture you are not even assured you will get access to Google's search engine or all of the output from Google's search engine web page. Why the heck would it be in Amazon's interest to return search results for Google retail customers on anything the competes with what Amazon sells?
Silk Architecture is power to filter Amazon's competitors. I am sure this concerns Google greatly.
You don't offer a deal unless you know your hand is weak.
I don't believe that's always true. Apple offered Nokia a deal rather than let a judge decide, but it's not proof that their hand was weak. Some things just become huge distractions, better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.
... better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.
Most IP cases are settled by parties, rather than dictated by a judgment.
I don't believe that's always true. Apple offered Nokia a deal rather than let a judge decide, but it's not proof that their hand was weak. Some things just become huge distractions, better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.
That is true.
Similarly, the fact that Apple said that there would be some benefits to the deal doesn't mean that it's a good deal for Apple.
Let's say Samsung said "we propose that Apple drop the case and pay all of our legal expenses and immediately withdraw the iPad from the market to make room for the Tab". That would obviously be an insanely stupid thing for Apple to agree to, but it would still be true that there were some benefits to Apple (reduction of uncertainty and elimination of legal expenses). But that clearly doesn't make it a good deal.
Saying that there are some benefits is about as useless a statement as someone could make other than keeping their mouths shut.
As the old saying goes, "Don't throw stones in a glass house." Before you make claims of 'dumbing things down for everyone', you might want to ensure your grammar and spelling are up to par. In your case, it is a lovely run-on sentence at the beginning and a few missing comma's throughout. But hey, maybe you were just dumbing it down, right? Wink wink
I find mastering the english language somewhat difficult at times, however, I find it most repulsive when self promoting know-it-alls put on vulgar displays of their advanced grammatical skills, especially when said displays are intended as a backhanded insult. Having said all that, with just a few exceptions, I enjoy the excellent commentary found on this site and I welcome all responses to my posts, and I even enjoy at times, how do you say it, a little tit-for-tat.
I don't believe that's always true. Apple offered Nokia a deal rather than let a judge decide, but it's not proof that their hand was weak. Some things just become huge distractions, better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.
That's odd... I've never paid anyone a dime in poker unless my hand was weak.
Of course Apple's hand was weak. They knew they had to pay; how much was the question. I think Apple played its hand at the best possible time to get the best deal... but if they would have actually felt they had a strong hand then they wouldn't have paid a dime and let the judge decide.
You don't offer a deal unless you know your hand is weak.
barriers to your enemy christmans season is upon them
we are speculating about what strategically apple can do to get RESPECT from samsung
also don't think that a multbillion dollar contract with apple is also being discussed
question: does samsung make more money from apple of from cellphones and mobile devices.
squeeze the best out of them apple, Mr Cook show your stuff.
Samsung finally bowed to Apple after all the foolishness.
This report just confirms what we suspected about Samsung's strategy. They don't care what they lose, or how long it takes, or how much it costs...they are going to sell the GalaxyTab one way or another, because they think they have a legit competitor to the iPad. They might be right, too. It's probably the only real threat to Apple at this point.
With Amazon on their heels, they must be starting to panic. And the Christmas shopping season is looming.
Looks like a precursor to a settlement in the US too (note the recent one with Microsoft).