The sad part is that Samsung won't be able to pay any of this to their R&D department.
Because it's not actually part of the company. It isn't even in the same country.
It's here:
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA
95014
USA
Yes, that is absolutely true if you are talking about Apple's *Marketing R&D*. As it happens, Samsung is expected to be #1 patents granted in a few years.
Apple is a very successful marketing company, no doubt about that - it's just too bad that it's a mediocre, second rate technology company.
Samsung's 2Q revenue is $41B.. At this rate, Samsung will be a 200 billion dollar a year company in a year or two.
i think you're missing the spirit and point of my post. it wasn't an attempt at a pissing contest; it was to point out something steve said a while back that, it seemed to me, even he was overjoyed with.
but hey, who am i to rain on your parade? with 46 billion in revenue in 1Q12 and 39 in 2Q12 apple will be a 200 billion dollar a year company in a year or two. too.
Yes, that is absolutely true if you are talking about Apple's *Marketing R&D*. As it happens, Samsung is expected to be #1 patents granted in a few years.
Apple is a very successful marketing company, no doubt about that - it's just too bad that it's a mediocre, second rate technology company.
Proper use of a reality distortion field takes practice. You clearly need a lot more.
Lots of people like to take Apple's R&D spending and try to spin it to look like they are somehow deficient. It's simply not true.
That $9 billion Samsung spends is divided up among hundreds of products from the actual components (DRAM, NAND, LCD panels, OLED panels, processors, lithium batteries, hard drives) to end user products (mobile phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, digital cameras, televisions, home theatre and on and on).
Apple's $2.5 billion is divided up between a small handful of products. In terms of R&D spending vs the number of products, Apple is far higher than Samsung.
Another metric people like to use is R&D as a percentage of revenue. This is one where Apple again appears to be behind since they spend such a small portion of their revenue on R&D. The other way to look at it is that Apple gets a far better return on their R&D investment than other companies do. Designing a small number of highly successful products is what makes Apple so profitable. In contrast to Samsung who decides to take the shotgun approach (28 models of smartphones and 90+ models of televisions) and therefore get a much lower rate of return for their R&D.
Hate on Apple all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. Apple is the most efficient, streamlined and profitable technology company in the world.
hmm.. that's an interesting spin. Samsung Electronics is indeed a very diversified company, but look at R&D spending at other companies, not as diversified as Samsung:
Take for instance Oracle whose bread & butter comes from database, crm and really nothing else - its recent acquisition of Sun Microsystem notwithstanding. It still spends way more than Apple spends on R&D (almost double the amount Apple's R&D budget). The only difference between Apple vs. Oracle's model is that Oracle is more of a technology leader than a marketing machine. The complete opposite is true for Apple.
Now, I have no problem with Apple's success or its R&D approach. Let's spend as little as possible on costly technical innovation; let others like Samsung, Toshiba, Sharp work out the hard problems and risk billions on manufacturing components with cut-throat ROI. After all, they need a marketing machine like Apple to actually sell their manufactured goods. As a Apple shareholder (100 so far), it's a win-win strategy.
A little known fact about Samsung and its R&D employees is that Samsung pays below industry wages for engineers and works them like crazy. So the value they get from spending $9 billion on R&D is higher than what you would get from say, a Japanese electronics firm or American tech company.
When Apple was hiring chip engineers guess which company's employees were sending a flurry of resumes for these jobs? Samsung.
I think everyone should be paying attention about how big Samsung is getting to be. They are the biggest Flash AND DRAM Maker in the world. They are largest Display Panel Maker in the world. The are getting into Fabs Business with their expertise in DRAM and Flash, as well as IBM Chip Alliance. It will only be a few more years before they take the crown from TSMC.
Although the good thing is history has shown no single player has manage to win on both front.
A little known fact about Samsung and its R&D employees is that Samsung pays below industry wages for engineers and works them like crazy. So the value they get from spending $9 billion on R&D is higher than what you would get from say, a Japanese electronics firm or American tech company.
When Apple was hiring chip engineers guess which company's employees were sending a flurry of resumes for these jobs? Samsung.
I'm certainly not a neurologist, but I am well read. Back in WWII, we supposedly took every Japanese person or persons of descendant an put the in internment camps.
Yea WE did that.
Now supposedly we learn from history... Always quandered about this.
Would Apple, who's "doubling down" on security. Want to hire some one who could "phone home" so to speak.
Maybe they do. I wouldn't. Just MHO! Very humble opinion.
Apple is a very successful marketing company, no doubt about that - it's just too bad that it's a mediocre, second rate technology company.
I'm not at all convinced that is true. They are a leader in tech.
Their computer business can be described as "second rate" by sales metrics, but otherwise, they their computer business is quickly becoming a sideline for them.
They make high quality products - they are not second rate WRT quality. I'm not sure which metric you had in mind when you describe them as second rate.
Their tablet business is first rate in sales. Looking at individual models, their smartphone business is first rate in sales.
they are way, way behind Android in the smartphone OS business, but the OS is not an independent business, but rather, integrated into the physical products.
A lot can be said about Apple., but second-rate? Only in some areas, and not overall.
Yes, that is absolutely true if you are talking about Apple's *Marketing R&D*. As it happens, Samsung is expected to be #1 patents granted in a few years.
Apple is a very successful marketing company, no doubt about that - it's just too bad that it's a mediocre, second rate technology company.
You can remove every shred of marketing that Apple has ever applied to their tech, and it will *still* delight and amaze. Because no one comes close to Apple's DIFFERENTIATION. Apple's entire business is based on insane levels of product differentiation. They will ALWAYS stand out as something special. No one else does (or has ever really done, for years) a vertical business model.
On the other hand, you can apply every shred of marketing savvy possible to, say, Windows Phone - invest hundreds of millions of dollars, do very public "smoked by" whatever campaigns, get a big mobile name to do the hardware, throw money at developers, hell - even give the damn things away for fee, and do this for nearly two years, and STILL barely move past your initial position, if at all.
You can remove every shred of marketing that Apple has ever applied to their tech, and it will *still* delight and amaze. Because no one comes close to Apple's DIFFERENTIATION. Apple's entire business is based on insane levels of product differentiation. They will ALWAYS stand out as something special. No one else does (or has ever really done, for years) a vertical business model.
On the other hand, you can apply every shred of marketing savvy possible to, say, Windows Phone - invest hundreds of millions of dollars, do very public "smoked by" whatever campaigns, get a big mobile name to do the hardware, throw money at developers, hell - even give the damn things away for fee, and do this for nearly two years, and STILL barely move past your initial position, if at all.
The act of differentiating one's self makes them successful? What if what the company differentiates out into is something consumers do not like?
As for Apple being the leader in tech, ehh, it comes down to what you look at. Their products are fantastic but only because they search out the best components. Barring maybe only the A4, A5, and A5X, Apple focuses more on product design. They do not do the technical stuff.
The act of differentiating one's self makes them successful? What if what the company differentiates out into is something consumers do not like?
Apple's entire business model, and their philosophy when it comes to tech, is built to prevent this. In effect, Apple's starting position already stacks the deck in their favour, whereas the competition - by the very business model they employ - makes the task of delighting consumers and capturing their sustained interest an uphill battle.
This is why, all else being equal, the standard bet right out of the gate is on the Apple product. Apple's track record for the past decade speaks for itself.
You can remove every shred of marketing that Apple has ever applied to their tech, and it will *still* delight and amaze. Because no one comes close to Apple's DIFFERENTIATION. Apple's entire business is based on insane levels of product differentiation. They will ALWAYS stand out as something special. No one else does (or has ever really done, for years) a vertical business model.
On the other hand, you can apply every shred of marketing savvy possible to, say, Windows Phone - invest hundreds of millions of dollars, do very public "smoked by" whatever campaigns, get a big mobile name to do the hardware, throw money at developers, hell - even give the damn things away for fee, and do this for nearly two years, and STILL barely move past your initial position, if at all.
you are sooo right!! The only products that Samsung has been popular with are the ones that when you see one on at a glance you think its an Apple product.
The act of differentiating one's self makes them successful? What if what the company differentiates out into is something consumers do not like?
As for Apple being the leader in tech, ehh, it comes down to what you look at. Their products are fantastic but only because they search out the best components. Barring maybe only the A4, A5, and A5X, Apple focuses more on product design. They do not do the technical stuff.
Apple does not do the technical stuff, for example:
Gesture recognition for multi-touch keyboards
Highly efficient semiconductor logic design for enabling high performance microprocessors with fewer transistors and low power consumption
Conversational user interface using natural language processing with semantic understanding and context awareness
Facial recognition for auto-tagging for users
Sophisticated signal processing algorithms for three-dimensional photorealistic geospatial rendering
Memory Signal Processing technology solutions designed to improve the speed, endurance and performance of flash storage systems while reducing cost
Apple's entire business model, and their philosophy when it comes to tech, is built to prevent this. In effect, Apple's starting position already stacks the deck in their favour, whereas the competition - by the very business model they employ - makes the task of delighting consumers and capturing their sustained interest an uphill battle.
This is why, all else being equal, the standard bet right out of the gate is on the Apple product. Apple's track record for the past decade speaks for itself.
Could you please elaborate on what Apple does to "stack the deck in their favour".
Apple does not do the technical stuff, for example:
Gesture recognition for multi-touch keyboards
Highly efficient semiconductor logic design for enabling high performance microprocessors with fewer transistors and low power consumption
Conversational user interface with natural language processing with semantic understanding context awareness
Facial recognition for auto-tagging for users
Sophisticated signal processing algorithms for three-dimensional photorealistic geospatial rendering
Memory Signal Processing technology solutions designed to improve the speed, endurance and performance of flash storage systems while reducing cost
While these patents exist, what Apple does (and at least what old Steve did) was tell the companies that worked on their components to find a way to meet their specifications. And I already conceded on the development of their ARM processor, which by the way, was developed by engineers that belonged originally toIntrinsity.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
The sad part is that Samsung won't be able to pay any of this to their R&D department.
Because it's not actually part of the company. It isn't even in the same country.
It's here:
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA
95014
USA
Yes, that is absolutely true if you are talking about Apple's *Marketing R&D*. As it happens, Samsung is expected to be #1 patents granted in a few years.
Apple is a very successful marketing company, no doubt about that - it's just too bad that it's a mediocre, second rate technology company.
Samsung's 2Q revenue is $41B.. At this rate, Samsung will be a 200 billion dollar a year company in a year or two.
i think you're missing the spirit and point of my post. it wasn't an attempt at a pissing contest; it was to point out something steve said a while back that, it seemed to me, even he was overjoyed with.but hey, who am i to rain on your parade? with 46 billion in revenue in 1Q12 and 39 in 2Q12 apple will be a 200 billion dollar a year company in a year or two. too.
Proper use of a reality distortion field takes practice. You clearly need a lot more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Lots of people like to take Apple's R&D spending and try to spin it to look like they are somehow deficient. It's simply not true.
That $9 billion Samsung spends is divided up among hundreds of products from the actual components (DRAM, NAND, LCD panels, OLED panels, processors, lithium batteries, hard drives) to end user products (mobile phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, digital cameras, televisions, home theatre and on and on).
Apple's $2.5 billion is divided up between a small handful of products. In terms of R&D spending vs the number of products, Apple is far higher than Samsung.
Another metric people like to use is R&D as a percentage of revenue. This is one where Apple again appears to be behind since they spend such a small portion of their revenue on R&D. The other way to look at it is that Apple gets a far better return on their R&D investment than other companies do. Designing a small number of highly successful products is what makes Apple so profitable. In contrast to Samsung who decides to take the shotgun approach (28 models of smartphones and 90+ models of televisions) and therefore get a much lower rate of return for their R&D.
Hate on Apple all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. Apple is the most efficient, streamlined and profitable technology company in the world.
hmm.. that's an interesting spin. Samsung Electronics is indeed a very diversified company, but look at R&D spending at other companies, not as diversified as Samsung:
Microsoft (MSFT): $9.4
• Intel (INTC): $8.4
• International Business Machines (IBM): $6.3
• Cisco Systems (CSCO): $5.6
• Google (GOOG): $5.2
• Oracle (ORCL): $4.4
Take for instance Oracle whose bread & butter comes from database, crm and really nothing else - its recent acquisition of Sun Microsystem notwithstanding. It still spends way more than Apple spends on R&D (almost double the amount Apple's R&D budget). The only difference between Apple vs. Oracle's model is that Oracle is more of a technology leader than a marketing machine. The complete opposite is true for Apple.
Now, I have no problem with Apple's success or its R&D approach. Let's spend as little as possible on costly technical innovation; let others like Samsung, Toshiba, Sharp work out the hard problems and risk billions on manufacturing components with cut-throat ROI. After all, they need a marketing machine like Apple to actually sell their manufactured goods. As a Apple shareholder (100 so far), it's a win-win strategy.
A little known fact about Samsung and its R&D employees is that Samsung pays below industry wages for engineers and works them like crazy. So the value they get from spending $9 billion on R&D is higher than what you would get from say, a Japanese electronics firm or American tech company.
When Apple was hiring chip engineers guess which company's employees were sending a flurry of resumes for these jobs? Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
And drafting the lead car.
In a stolen car, as well.
I think everyone should be paying attention about how big Samsung is getting to be. They are the biggest Flash AND DRAM Maker in the world. They are largest Display Panel Maker in the world. The are getting into Fabs Business with their expertise in DRAM and Flash, as well as IBM Chip Alliance. It will only be a few more years before they take the crown from TSMC.
Although the good thing is history has shown no single player has manage to win on both front.
I'm certainly not a neurologist, but I am well read. Back in WWII, we supposedly took every Japanese person or persons of descendant an put the in internment camps.
Yea WE did that.
Now supposedly we learn from history... Always quandered about this.
Would Apple, who's "doubling down" on security. Want to hire some one who could "phone home" so to speak.
Maybe they do. I wouldn't. Just MHO! Very humble opinion.
Yes, during opperation 'paperclip', we took every scientist from Germany we could. At the end of the war.
Just saying before someone says, everyone steals! Very far off from thread though. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Define fabrication. ????
Samsung will invest 2.25 trillion Korean won in the new fabrication line, which will break ground this month with a target timeline for
completion by the end of 2013. The new fabrication line will mainly produce highly advanced mobile application processors on
300mm wafers at 20nm and 14nm process nodes.
http://www.samsung.com/us/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=20185&page=1&gltype=globalnews
There;s more in the complete article, but it seems to be a semiconductor chip fab facility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Apple is a very successful marketing company, no doubt about that - it's just too bad that it's a mediocre, second rate technology company.
I'm not at all convinced that is true. They are a leader in tech.
Their computer business can be described as "second rate" by sales metrics, but otherwise, they their computer business is quickly becoming a sideline for them.
They make high quality products - they are not second rate WRT quality. I'm not sure which metric you had in mind when you describe them as second rate.
Their tablet business is first rate in sales. Looking at individual models, their smartphone business is first rate in sales.
they are way, way behind Android in the smartphone OS business, but the OS is not an independent business, but rather, integrated into the physical products.
A lot can be said about Apple., but second-rate? Only in some areas, and not overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Yes, that is absolutely true if you are talking about Apple's *Marketing R&D*. As it happens, Samsung is expected to be #1 patents granted in a few years.
Apple is a very successful marketing company, no doubt about that - it's just too bad that it's a mediocre, second rate technology company.
You can remove every shred of marketing that Apple has ever applied to their tech, and it will *still* delight and amaze. Because no one comes close to Apple's DIFFERENTIATION. Apple's entire business is based on insane levels of product differentiation. They will ALWAYS stand out as something special. No one else does (or has ever really done, for years) a vertical business model.
On the other hand, you can apply every shred of marketing savvy possible to, say, Windows Phone - invest hundreds of millions of dollars, do very public "smoked by" whatever campaigns, get a big mobile name to do the hardware, throw money at developers, hell - even give the damn things away for fee, and do this for nearly two years, and STILL barely move past your initial position, if at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
You can remove every shred of marketing that Apple has ever applied to their tech, and it will *still* delight and amaze. Because no one comes close to Apple's DIFFERENTIATION. Apple's entire business is based on insane levels of product differentiation. They will ALWAYS stand out as something special. No one else does (or has ever really done, for years) a vertical business model.
On the other hand, you can apply every shred of marketing savvy possible to, say, Windows Phone - invest hundreds of millions of dollars, do very public "smoked by" whatever campaigns, get a big mobile name to do the hardware, throw money at developers, hell - even give the damn things away for fee, and do this for nearly two years, and STILL barely move past your initial position, if at all.
The act of differentiating one's self makes them successful? What if what the company differentiates out into is something consumers do not like?
As for Apple being the leader in tech, ehh, it comes down to what you look at. Their products are fantastic but only because they search out the best components. Barring maybe only the A4, A5, and A5X, Apple focuses more on product design. They do not do the technical stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson Corwell
The act of differentiating one's self makes them successful? What if what the company differentiates out into is something consumers do not like?
Apple's entire business model, and their philosophy when it comes to tech, is built to prevent this. In effect, Apple's starting position already stacks the deck in their favour, whereas the competition - by the very business model they employ - makes the task of delighting consumers and capturing their sustained interest an uphill battle.
This is why, all else being equal, the standard bet right out of the gate is on the Apple product. Apple's track record for the past decade speaks for itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
You can remove every shred of marketing that Apple has ever applied to their tech, and it will *still* delight and amaze. Because no one comes close to Apple's DIFFERENTIATION. Apple's entire business is based on insane levels of product differentiation. They will ALWAYS stand out as something special. No one else does (or has ever really done, for years) a vertical business model.
On the other hand, you can apply every shred of marketing savvy possible to, say, Windows Phone - invest hundreds of millions of dollars, do very public "smoked by" whatever campaigns, get a big mobile name to do the hardware, throw money at developers, hell - even give the damn things away for fee, and do this for nearly two years, and STILL barely move past your initial position, if at all.
you are sooo right!! The only products that Samsung has been popular with are the ones that when you see one on at a glance you think its an Apple product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson Corwell
The act of differentiating one's self makes them successful?
Not on its own, but without that it's much more difficult.
Apple does not do the technical stuff, for example:
Gesture recognition for multi-touch keyboards
Highly efficient semiconductor logic design for enabling high performance microprocessors with fewer transistors and low power consumption
Conversational user interface using natural language processing with semantic understanding and context awareness
Facial recognition for auto-tagging for users
Sophisticated signal processing algorithms for three-dimensional photorealistic geospatial rendering
Memory Signal Processing technology solutions designed to improve the speed, endurance and performance of flash storage systems while reducing cost
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Apple's entire business model, and their philosophy when it comes to tech, is built to prevent this. In effect, Apple's starting position already stacks the deck in their favour, whereas the competition - by the very business model they employ - makes the task of delighting consumers and capturing their sustained interest an uphill battle.
This is why, all else being equal, the standard bet right out of the gate is on the Apple product. Apple's track record for the past decade speaks for itself.
Could you please elaborate on what Apple does to "stack the deck in their favour".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Apple does not do the technical stuff, for example:
Gesture recognition for multi-touch keyboards
Highly efficient semiconductor logic design for enabling high performance microprocessors with fewer transistors and low power consumption
Conversational user interface with natural language processing with semantic understanding context awareness
Facial recognition for auto-tagging for users
Sophisticated signal processing algorithms for three-dimensional photorealistic geospatial rendering
Memory Signal Processing technology solutions designed to improve the speed, endurance and performance of flash storage systems while reducing cost
While these patents exist, what Apple does (and at least what old Steve did) was tell the companies that worked on their components to find a way to meet their specifications. And I already conceded on the development of their ARM processor, which by the way, was developed by engineers that belonged originally to Intrinsity.