I don't even think I bought a Samsung product ever. What do they make DVD/Blu-Ray players and TVs?
I bought a big Samsung TV a couple of years ago - so far, so good. Lots of people comment on the picture. IMO the speakers suck, however.
A couple of years before that, I bought a Samsung computer monitor for my kid, based on one of those "10 best products of the year" articles. I got it for ultra-cheap, because by that time it had been discontinued. It was part of some professional line or something. Anyways, the kid was always raving about it, so I guess it was good.
And people love their phones, especially the newer ones.
Multiple alternatives exist for manufacturing microprocessors and flash RAM. Can you explain why they have nowhere to go?
I base the guess upon the recent reports that Apple is giving Samsung billions and billions of dollars to make a crucial component for them - the A6 chip.
That, despite Samsung doing all the stuff that Samsung's been doing.
If Apple had a real choice in the matter, ISTM that they would not choose to enrich the company which is costing them profits. Thus, IMO Apple is likely to be facing hard choices, and not easy choices, in trying to get its chips made.
Try it on the other way around: If Apple has "multiple alternatives", then why does it stay reliant upon Sammy the Scumbag? Actions speak louder than words.
Apple CAN'T compete. They just run ahead of the pack. They get scared when competition comes (weird, as it's capitalism that got them to where they are). Don't people get that Apple has been more irreleveant in it's history than relevant? Only in the past 10 years (one could argue even a little less) have they become a viable company. Don't go knocking eggs. With the death of your leader you stand the true test.
Just like the Romans.
Walmart seems to be doing just fine without Sam.
Quite possible APPLE BECOMES EVEN BIGGER WITHOUT JOBS
I base the guess upon the recent reports that Apple is giving Samsung billions and billions of dollars to make a crucial component for them - the A6 chip.
That, despite Samsung doing all the stuff that Samsung's been doing.
If Apple had a real choice in the matter, ISTM that they would not choose to enrich the company which is costing them profits. Thus, IMO Apple is likely to be facing hard choices, and not easy choices, in trying to get its chips made.
Try it on the other way around: If Apple has "multiple alternatives", then why does it stay reliant upon Sammy the Scumbag? Actions speak louder than words.
If Apple owns the equipment on the floor of Samsung's factories (which now seems probable), they are f*cked. And they are likely stuck for years.
I base the guess upon the recent reports that Apple is giving Samsung billions and billions of dollars to make a crucial component for them - the A6 chip.
That, despite Samsung doing all the stuff that Samsung's been doing.
If Apple had a real choice in the matter, ISTM that they would not choose to enrich the company which is costing them profits. Thus, IMO Apple is likely to be facing hard choices, and not easy choices, in trying to get its chips made.
Try it on the other way around: If Apple has "multiple alternatives", then why does it stay reliant upon Sammy the Scumbag? Actions speak louder than words.
That's a good question and a source of puzzlement.
I am certain there are multiple alternatives in terms of capability and know how. But no outsider would know the details about capacity, quality and pricing, not to mention contracts. Perhaps existing contracts do not allow Apple to drop Samsung without a financial penalty. After all, Apple has been reported to have prepaid some suppliers in order to lock in a supply commitment. Perhaps that cash is non-refundable. Or, perhaps, as someone else indicated, Apple helped to capitalize Samsung (and others) to build up their capacity.
It could also be that Cook is a level-headed fellow who had convinced Jobs that Samsung was too good a supplier to mix the two issues.
All speculation, of course.
I have never labeled Samsung as a scumbag. So you can save that sarcasm for the fanatics here.
I bought a big Samsung TV a couple of years ago - so far, so good. Lots of people comment on the picture. IMO the speakers suck, however.
A couple of years before that, I bought a Samsung computer monitor for my kid, based on one of those "10 best products of the year" articles. I got it for ultra-cheap, because by that time it had been discontinued. It was part of some professional line or something. Anyways, the kid was always raving about it, so I guess it was good.
And people love their phones, especially the newer ones.
I have a Samsung Android, and do like it, but not as much as the iPhones.
That's a good question and a source of puzzlement.
I am certain there are multiple alternatives in terms of capability and know how. But no outsider would know the details about capacity, quality and pricing, not to mention contracts. Perhaps existing contracts do not allow Apple to drop Samsung without a financial penalty. After all, Apple has been reported to have prepaid some suppliers in order to lock in a supply commitment. Perhaps that cash is non-refundable. Or, perhaps, as someone else indicated, Apple helped to capitalize Samsung (and others) to build up their capacity.
Those are valid points, but the thing that piqued my interest was a story that Apple had entered into a new agreement with Samsung for the A6. Existing contrcts are one thing, but the story said that it was a new deal.
If capacity, quality or pricing are a problem outside of Samsung, then I think that Apple's choices are constrained, which was my point, however colorfully I had expressed it before.
They can and they do, even in situations where there is no sufficient justification for such misdeeds:
"Criminal charges were also added by Apple in December of last year, but those charges were also dismissed due to a lack of "sufficient justification.""
Criminal charges can only be filed by the government.
If Apple (anyone) can convince the government that a criminal act has occurred with a complaint, the government would file charges.
Quote:
According to FOSSPatents Florian Mueller, Apple filed a criminal complaint, in addition to the civil one.
It's on the internet, it must be true?
Apple filed a complaint. They did not charge anyone with criminal activity.
Those are valid points, but the thing that piqued my interest was a story that Apple had entered into a new agreement with Samsung for the A6. Existing contrcts are one thing, but the story said that it was a new deal.
If capacity, quality or pricing are a problem outside of Samsung, then I think that Apple's choices are constrained, which was my point, however colorfully I had expressed it before.
Many possible explanations about A6, some of which find me repeating myself:
- The story is wrong (which is frequently the case with Apple stories). Don't forget, there have been stories about a deal with TMSC for A6 and A7 as well. (This is starting to sound like an Audi product line.)
- The contract with Samsung covers multiple processors, which is not unusual in order to secure a meaningful discount.
- Apple paid for equipment in Samsung fabs, and ROI is only justifiable after enough processors have been made.
- Apple is indeed constrained because capacity, quality or pricing are problematic outside of Samsung.
- Tim Cook is simply a pragmatist.
Regardless, most of these possibilities point to one thing - Apple is not as brilliant at supply chain management as some make them out to be if they are *stuck* with Samsung. However, and this is important, it remains an assumption is that they have nowhere to go, rather than choosing to go with Samsung.
Apple CAN'T compete. They just run ahead of the pack. They get scared when competition comes (weird, as it's capitalism that got them to where they are). Don't people get that Apple has been more irreleveant in it's history than relevant? Only in the past 10 years (one could argue even a little less) have they become a viable company. Don't go knocking eggs. With the death of your leader you stand the true test.
Just like the Romans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
You really don't pay attention at all do you? Apple has always had competition, and usually is not the majority market player. How in the world did you come to determine that they get scared of competition? Being innovative is not irrelevant, as they have demonstrated a couple of times now. They show greater growth in PC sales than the rest of the industry, slowly eroding away at the Windows majority consistently for the last several years. They innovated into and then lead and continue to lead the PMP segment with the iPod series. They innovated the smartphone category, establishing a new benchmark for a minority segment of the mobile market, that is now set to take over the much larger feature phone majority segment.
You also show an appalling lack when it comes to understanding history as well. Which Roman leader are you referencing and why? And at which stage of Roman history? With over 140 Roman imperial rulers spanning from 27BC/BCE thru 476AD/CE you have a plethora of potential examples, but none of which resulted in the "Fall of Rome".
Care to refine your statements into something that makes more sense?
Wow! I just couldn't resist this... is that an ass-whoppin' or a bitch-slapping? fecklesstechguy - this was a classic!
Comments
And your point is? Posting my history absolutely means nothing without CONTEXT.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Originally posted by ConradJoe
Please don't feed the trolls.
I don't even think I bought a Samsung product ever. What do they make DVD/Blu-Ray players and TVs?
I bought a big Samsung TV a couple of years ago - so far, so good. Lots of people comment on the picture. IMO the speakers suck, however.
A couple of years before that, I bought a Samsung computer monitor for my kid, based on one of those "10 best products of the year" articles. I got it for ultra-cheap, because by that time it had been discontinued. It was part of some professional line or something. Anyways, the kid was always raving about it, so I guess it was good.
And people love their phones, especially the newer ones.
Multiple alternatives exist for manufacturing microprocessors and flash RAM. Can you explain why they have nowhere to go?
I base the guess upon the recent reports that Apple is giving Samsung billions and billions of dollars to make a crucial component for them - the A6 chip.
That, despite Samsung doing all the stuff that Samsung's been doing.
If Apple had a real choice in the matter, ISTM that they would not choose to enrich the company which is costing them profits. Thus, IMO Apple is likely to be facing hard choices, and not easy choices, in trying to get its chips made.
Try it on the other way around: If Apple has "multiple alternatives", then why does it stay reliant upon Sammy the Scumbag? Actions speak louder than words.
Is Westinghouse even relevant today?
Westinghouse is about as relevant as your original comment.
Word of advice, stop with the excessive emoticons.
Apple CAN'T compete. They just run ahead of the pack. They get scared when competition comes (weird, as it's capitalism that got them to where they are). Don't people get that Apple has been more irreleveant in it's history than relevant? Only in the past 10 years (one could argue even a little less) have they become a viable company. Don't go knocking eggs. With the death of your leader you stand the true test.
Just like the Romans.
Walmart seems to be doing just fine without Sam.
Quite possible APPLE BECOMES EVEN BIGGER WITHOUT JOBS
Ponder that.
And I thought we were done with Samsung news in 2011
Why would you think that?
I base the guess upon the recent reports that Apple is giving Samsung billions and billions of dollars to make a crucial component for them - the A6 chip.
That, despite Samsung doing all the stuff that Samsung's been doing.
If Apple had a real choice in the matter, ISTM that they would not choose to enrich the company which is costing them profits. Thus, IMO Apple is likely to be facing hard choices, and not easy choices, in trying to get its chips made.
Try it on the other way around: If Apple has "multiple alternatives", then why does it stay reliant upon Sammy the Scumbag? Actions speak louder than words.
If Apple owns the equipment on the floor of Samsung's factories (which now seems probable), they are f*cked. And they are likely stuck for years.
@ ConradJoe,
Word of advice, stop with the excessive emoticons.
C'mon man, he may have committed other offenses, but "excessive emoticons?" That's embarressing.
I base the guess upon the recent reports that Apple is giving Samsung billions and billions of dollars to make a crucial component for them - the A6 chip.
That, despite Samsung doing all the stuff that Samsung's been doing.
If Apple had a real choice in the matter, ISTM that they would not choose to enrich the company which is costing them profits. Thus, IMO Apple is likely to be facing hard choices, and not easy choices, in trying to get its chips made.
Try it on the other way around: If Apple has "multiple alternatives", then why does it stay reliant upon Sammy the Scumbag? Actions speak louder than words.
That's a good question and a source of puzzlement.
I am certain there are multiple alternatives in terms of capability and know how. But no outsider would know the details about capacity, quality and pricing, not to mention contracts. Perhaps existing contracts do not allow Apple to drop Samsung without a financial penalty. After all, Apple has been reported to have prepaid some suppliers in order to lock in a supply commitment. Perhaps that cash is non-refundable. Or, perhaps, as someone else indicated, Apple helped to capitalize Samsung (and others) to build up their capacity.
It could also be that Cook is a level-headed fellow who had convinced Jobs that Samsung was too good a supplier to mix the two issues.
All speculation, of course.
I have never labeled Samsung as a scumbag. So you can save that sarcasm for the fanatics here.
I bought a big Samsung TV a couple of years ago - so far, so good. Lots of people comment on the picture. IMO the speakers suck, however.
A couple of years before that, I bought a Samsung computer monitor for my kid, based on one of those "10 best products of the year" articles. I got it for ultra-cheap, because by that time it had been discontinued. It was part of some professional line or something. Anyways, the kid was always raving about it, so I guess it was good.
And people love their phones, especially the newer ones.
I have a Samsung Android, and do like it, but not as much as the iPhones.
That's a good question and a source of puzzlement.
I am certain there are multiple alternatives in terms of capability and know how. But no outsider would know the details about capacity, quality and pricing, not to mention contracts. Perhaps existing contracts do not allow Apple to drop Samsung without a financial penalty. After all, Apple has been reported to have prepaid some suppliers in order to lock in a supply commitment. Perhaps that cash is non-refundable. Or, perhaps, as someone else indicated, Apple helped to capitalize Samsung (and others) to build up their capacity.
Those are valid points, but the thing that piqued my interest was a story that Apple had entered into a new agreement with Samsung for the A6. Existing contrcts are one thing, but the story said that it was a new deal.
If capacity, quality or pricing are a problem outside of Samsung, then I think that Apple's choices are constrained, which was my point, however colorfully I had expressed it before.
They can and they do, even in situations where there is no sufficient justification for such misdeeds:
"Criminal charges were also added by Apple in December of last year, but those charges were also dismissed due to a lack of "sufficient justification.""
Criminal charges can only be filed by the government.
If Apple (anyone) can convince the government that a criminal act has occurred with a complaint, the government would file charges.
According to FOSSPatents Florian Mueller, Apple filed a criminal complaint, in addition to the civil one.
It's on the internet, it must be true?
Apple filed a complaint. They did not charge anyone with criminal activity.
Semantics? Sure, but correct semantics.
Criminal charges can only be filed by the government.
If Apple (anyone) can convince the government that a criminal act has occurred with a complaint, the government would file charges.
It's on the internet, it must be true?
Apple filed a complaint. They did not charge anyone with criminal activity.
Semantics? Sure, but correct semantics.
So your point is what, that the article is semantically flawed? Or that you know the ins and outs of the Spanish legal system?
So your point is what, that the article is semantically flawed? Or that you know the ins and outs of the Spanish legal system?
The article is flawed.
Those are valid points, but the thing that piqued my interest was a story that Apple had entered into a new agreement with Samsung for the A6. Existing contrcts are one thing, but the story said that it was a new deal.
If capacity, quality or pricing are a problem outside of Samsung, then I think that Apple's choices are constrained, which was my point, however colorfully I had expressed it before.
Many possible explanations about A6, some of which find me repeating myself:
- The story is wrong (which is frequently the case with Apple stories). Don't forget, there have been stories about a deal with TMSC for A6 and A7 as well. (This is starting to sound like an Audi product line.)
- The contract with Samsung covers multiple processors, which is not unusual in order to secure a meaningful discount.
- Apple paid for equipment in Samsung fabs, and ROI is only justifiable after enough processors have been made.
- Apple is indeed constrained because capacity, quality or pricing are problematic outside of Samsung.
- Tim Cook is simply a pragmatist.
Regardless, most of these possibilities point to one thing - Apple is not as brilliant at supply chain management as some make them out to be if they are *stuck* with Samsung. However, and this is important, it remains an assumption is that they have nowhere to go, rather than choosing to go with Samsung.
Apple CAN'T compete. They just run ahead of the pack. They get scared when competition comes (weird, as it's capitalism that got them to where they are). Don't people get that Apple has been more irreleveant in it's history than relevant? Only in the past 10 years (one could argue even a little less) have they become a viable company. Don't go knocking eggs. With the death of your leader you stand the true test.
Just like the Romans.
You really don't pay attention at all do you? Apple has always had competition, and usually is not the majority market player. How in the world did you come to determine that they get scared of competition? Being innovative is not irrelevant, as they have demonstrated a couple of times now. They show greater growth in PC sales than the rest of the industry, slowly eroding away at the Windows majority consistently for the last several years. They innovated into and then lead and continue to lead the PMP segment with the iPod series. They innovated the smartphone category, establishing a new benchmark for a minority segment of the mobile market, that is now set to take over the much larger feature phone majority segment.
You also show an appalling lack when it comes to understanding history as well. Which Roman leader are you referencing and why? And at which stage of Roman history? With over 140 Roman imperial rulers spanning from 27BC/BCE thru 476AD/CE you have a plethora of potential examples, but none of which resulted in the "Fall of Rome".
Care to refine your statements into something that makes more sense?
Wow! I just couldn't resist this... is that an ass-whoppin' or a bitch-slapping? fecklesstechguy - this was a classic!