Yes, Apple has shut down quite a few companies, but Apple did indeed put a bid in on Palm, and although I take it with a grain of salt, supposedly people in the know thought Apple was going to keep it operating. It would have made sense considering PALM could sell phones on Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, while Apple could not. Apple would have also acquired the Web OS engineers who would have been a valuable addition to iOS (more so at the time). Many were former Apple employees.
Apple also has owned a few companies and let them run independently. For instance, Claris and File Maker.
I had to google Claris. I was completely unfamiliar with the name. I forgot File Maker was owned by Apple. That's a very good point regarding branching out on carriers.
Quote:
Yes, the HP purchase would have made sense if HP followed through on it's plan. I thought it was intriguing that HP was going to make dual boot systems that could boot both into Windows and Web OS. Eventually when enough developers were on board, you could see HP dropping Windows. HP made a mistake in bringing out an expensive tablet to compete with the iPad first, and then abandoning the whole plan based on just one failure.
I remember reading that they laid off the development staff from Palm. That was what made it appear that they didn't have a real plan. Obviously the board would have reviewed a plan before approving a bid on the company, but I don't know where to find detailed information on it.
Indeed. Gazoobee is arguing above that this theft MO starts with Google, and gives license to Samsung to do the same. I wonder what others think of this. He has me on ignore, right up there with DaHarder, or I would take it up with him.
Google is a thief. Google's business model is to appropriate intellectual property as well as products and services protected by copyright then offer the product or service for free by underwriting the product or service with advertising. Brilliant business model but extremely unethical regardless of your motives and Google's motives are not morally superior.
Please take note: you are not the third guy. You are the first two. The third guy is people like TECHSTUD who try to hide behind multiple accounts. I am the announcer.
Courtesy of CNN Money
The truth is that Samsung outspent every other company on the planet in 2012 in advertising and marketing.
The funny thing is that so many people argue that Apple's success is completely due to marketing - yet Apple's budget is less than Dell, HP, Samsung, or Microsoft.
You'd be surprised for me to say this, but Samsung deserves this. I still think though Schmidt and Google should balls up and take some of the heat instead of cruising by untouched.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this stops Android's momentum and inevitable eclipsing of Apple on both smartphones (already) and tablets (within 2 years max).
There is no indication Android has eclipsed iOS in cell phones and Android has, at best, 15% market share on tablets. Now I admit here are 100's of millions Android phones that are used as feature phones with 3.5" low test screens and there might be lots of Android tablets sitting on shelves collecting dust, but they do nothing to strengthen the Eco-system and are easily discounted.
My point is however, that Samsung isn't at fault here. They simply followed the market, used a freely available iOS clone/alternative and marketed the hell out of it. They shamelessly copied iOS for certain, but they merely followed Googles lead in that area. They seemed, and still seem from all press accounts I have read, to believe they did nothing wrong in this copying. With the example set by Google, a world-leading software designer and vendor, it's hard to disagree with them.
The real fault here is and always has been with Google. They did a very wrong thing in ripping off iOS design, and these are the consequences. They legitimised copying iOS. They used all their power and influence, not to create a real alternative, but to basically just say "it's okay to copy this stuff." In their defence, they have that idealistic FOSS point of view on the world that everything should be free etc., but idealism doesn't excuse the stealing. It's good to argue that all software should be free and open source, but if someone doesn't want to play your game, stealing their stuff is still wrong.
When the history is written, it will be Google's fall from it's moral high-chair into the depths of corporate thievery that will be the real culprit in terms of nudging out any legally and morally superior, mobile OS alternatives.
Though I agree that Google is very much at fault and would love to see them taken down, I can't agree that Samsung "isn't at fault here". They are definitely at fault and what we had here was the confluence of two independent philosophies that stealing is ok. Google has taken it from the Linux-free-software philosophy and Samsung from the entrenched idea in Asian culture that complete imitation is a form of excellence in itself. This is why Samsung can't quite grasp that what they have done is wrong: for them plagiarism is how one does well. Originality is not valued. Copying perfectly is valued. (How Asian culture arrived at this terrible idea is a question that we may never see answered.)
I'm afraid I see this all the time in Asian (mainly Korean and Chinese) students. They think they should do very well; they also think that it is ok to plagiarise even though they are told explicitly that it is not allowed. This is a huge problem for Australian Universities, who desperately want Asian money, and are going through hoops to get it, but who also have to uphold the philosophy that plagiarism is wrong and a reason to fail a student. If they allow plagiarism they could face a corruption enquiry and yet they know that it is happening all the time. So lecturers who report plagiarism cases are subtly punished for doing so: they must do a lot of work only to have some administrator let the student off the hook, quietly. And then it is a black mark against the lecturer. And no one — I mean no one — is allowed to talk about this issue in the press.
So Samsung are a symptom of a very wide problem. They think that when the copy Apple and steal their IP it just shows that they are better than Apple.
And in R&D and CapEX as well. Not sure what your point is?
You're back with that lame argument again? After I tore it apart two previous times (and you ran away from the discussions with your tail in between your legs never to return).
Samsung might spend more on R&D than Apple, but they spread that R&D out over 1,001 products. Apple only has a few very specific products to spend their R&D on. Apple is also highly successful which makes their R&D as a % of revenues look smaller than other companies.
You could also look at it another way: Apple is much more efficient than other companies as they get a far greater ROI for their R&D spending vs other companies.
As far as capex, why even bring that up? Apple contracts out their manufacturing to other companies instead of spending money to do it themselves. So of course their capex is going to be insignificant when compared to companies that actually manufacture components and need to build factories.
To be fair, Samsung Electronics includes a LOT of products besides phones & tablets. I think comparing Apple to Dell or HP is more applicable since they sell so many of the same things. Even then it shows Apple doesn't spend any more than other companies.
A good point. Besides phones, Samsung Electronics sells billions in electronics parts.
As any engineer can tell you, the Promotion costs for that must be enormous:
Expensive sample parts, constant exhibits at trade shows all around the world, roving teams of salespeople going after new business with all the related expenses of getting new customers, etc.
It's no wonder that their Sales Promotion expenses are far beyond the other companies on that chart.
(How Asian culture arrived at this terrible idea is a question that we may never see answered.)
Interestimg post. Just an offhand suggestion:
Marshall McLuhan would probably ascribe it to the use of ideographic writing, where the clarity of communication depends on the precision of copying complex characters with many times the pictorial detail of Western analytical alphabets. Fosters an imitative habit of mind, as well as a heightened awareness of aesthetic detail. But not adventurousness, necessarily.
I'm sure the Asians among us here are going to just love this casual generalizing. Apologies in advance!
Edit: And the Korean alphabet and its history would have to be squeezed into this theory somehow. It could be done, but do these kinds of "explanations" ever describe any culture fairly? How do Westerners feel when McLuhan says that intellectual property is such a Western obsession because the alphabet and the printed book have created an ethic of individual thought?
I'm not sure how this got into a debate about advertising.
However, we do have access to US figures for iOS/Android, so let's look at those. The data comes from Apple revelations at the recent CA trial, and from AdAge reports.
-- Some actual Galaxy and iOS ad budgets for the US (phones and tablets) ---
In 2008:
Apple - $98 million for iOS ads
Samsung - ?
In 2009:
Apple - $150 million for iOS out of a $501 million total ad budget
Samsung - ?
In 2010:
Apple - $346 million for iOS out of $691 million total ad budget
Samsung -$79 million for Galaxy products
In 2011:
Apple - ~$450 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $933 million total
Samsung - $142 million for all Galaxy devices; of which $64 million was for the SII phone.
In 2012:
Apple - ~$500 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $1B total
Samsung - $300 million + expected for Galaxy advertising out of $3B total
So while we haven't calculated figures for the rest of the world, apparently Apple has always outspent Samsung for phone/tablet ads in the USA although Samsung is increasing their budget quickly.
Then there's the whole debate about whose ads make more sales. And so forth. Of course, in ten years none of us will remember this conversation.
<ul style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">[SIZE=10pt] [*] Apple - $150 million for iOS out of a $501 million total ad budget[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt] [*] Samsung - ?[/SIZE]
</ul>
<b style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">In 2010</b>
<span style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">:</span>
<ul style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">[SIZE=10pt] [*] Apple - $346 million for iOS out of $691 million total ad budget[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt] [*] Samsung -$79 million for Galaxy products[/SIZE]
</ul>
<b style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">In 2011</b>
<span style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">:</span>
<ul style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">[SIZE=10pt] [*] Apple - ~$450 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $933 million total[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt] [*] Samsung - $142 million for all Galaxy devices; of which $64 million was for the SII phone.[/SIZE]
</ul>
<b style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">In 2012:</b>
<ul style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">[SIZE=10pt] [*] Apple - ~$500 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $1B total[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt] [*] Samsung - $300 million + expected for Galaxy advertising out of $3B total[/SIZE]
</ul>
<br style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">
<span style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">So while we haven't calculated figures for the rest of the world, apparently Apple has always outspent Samsung for phone/tablet ads in the USA although Samsung is increasing their budget quickly.</span>
<span style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">Then there's the whole debate about whose ads make more sales. And so forth. Of course, in ten years none of us will remember this conversation.</span>
Just curious - why are you comparing Apple's entire iOS advertising budget (iPhone, iPod, iPad, iTunes, iCloud, etc) to Samsung's spending for a single product (Galaxy)? (and that even assumes that your numbers are correct).
Though I agree that Google is very much at fault and would love to see them taken down, I can't agree that Samsung "isn't at fault here". They are definitely at fault and what we had here was the confluence of two independent philosophies that stealing is ok. Google has taken it from the Linux-free-software philosophy and Samsung from the entrenched idea in Asian culture that complete imitation is a form of excellence in itself. This is why Samsung can't quite grasp that what they have done is wrong: for them plagiarism is how one does well. Originality is not valued. Copying perfectly is valued. (How Asian culture arrived at this terrible idea is a question that we may never see answered.)
I'm afraid I see this all the time in Asian (mainly Korean and Chinese) students. They think they should do very well; they also think that it is ok to plagiarise even though they are told explicitly that it is not allowed. This is a huge problem for Australian Universities, who desperately want Asian money, and are going through hoops to get it, but who also have to uphold the philosophy that plagiarism is wrong and a reason to fail a student. If they allow plagiarism they could face a corruption enquiry and yet they know that it is happening all the time. So lecturers who report plagiarism cases are subtly punished for doing so: they must do a lot of work only to have some administrator let the student off the hook, quietly. And then it is a black mark against the lecturer. And no one — I mean no one — is allowed to talk about this issue in the press.
So Samsung are a symptom of a very wide problem. They think that when the copy Apple and steal their IP it just shows that they are better than Apple.
Absurd stereotype that you'd only have the guts to write in a forum where you are a nobody.
Go to LAX. Samsung Mobile is EVERYWHERE.
Every 25 feet there is a Samsung display case.
Every 50 yards there is a Samsung charging point.
Every 100 yards there is a Samsung "rest area". Comfy chairs and tables, charging points, wifi.
Good point. The Samsung corporate image advertising contributes to the mobile division.
Apple doesn't do much (if any) corporate advertising and most of their money is spent on products.
The funny thing is that so many people argue that Apple's success is completely due to marketing - yet Apple's budget is less than Dell, HP, Samsung, or Microsoft.
More money does not make for more effective marketing.
Please take note: you are not the third guy. You are the first two. The third guy is people like TECHSTUD who try to hide behind multiple accounts. I am the announcer.
You flatter yourself sir. Had you compared yourself to Michael Flatley I might have agreed. Your jokes pale in comparison to those of John Cleese. Anyway congratulations on your successful troll attempt, as you got a response.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
B-b-b-b-but, APPLE is the marketing company!
You're only trolling yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Yes, Apple has shut down quite a few companies, but Apple did indeed put a bid in on Palm, and although I take it with a grain of salt, supposedly people in the know thought Apple was going to keep it operating. It would have made sense considering PALM could sell phones on Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, while Apple could not. Apple would have also acquired the Web OS engineers who would have been a valuable addition to iOS (more so at the time). Many were former Apple employees.
Apple also has owned a few companies and let them run independently. For instance, Claris and File Maker.
I had to google Claris. I was completely unfamiliar with the name. I forgot File Maker was owned by Apple. That's a very good point regarding branching out on carriers.
Quote:
Yes, the HP purchase would have made sense if HP followed through on it's plan. I thought it was intriguing that HP was going to make dual boot systems that could boot both into Windows and Web OS. Eventually when enough developers were on board, you could see HP dropping Windows. HP made a mistake in bringing out an expensive tablet to compete with the iPad first, and then abandoning the whole plan based on just one failure.
I remember reading that they laid off the development staff from Palm. That was what made it appear that they didn't have a real plan. Obviously the board would have reviewed a plan before approving a bid on the company, but I don't know where to find detailed information on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Courtesy of CNN Money
The truth is that Samsung outspent every other company on the planet in 2012 in advertising and marketing.
And in R&D and CapEX as well. Not sure what your point is?
Google is a thief. Google's business model is to appropriate intellectual property as well as products and services protected by copyright then offer the product or service for free by underwriting the product or service with advertising. Brilliant business model but extremely unethical regardless of your motives and Google's motives are not morally superior.
Originally Posted by hmm
You're only trolling yourself.
They just CANNOT resist doing this, can they?!
Please take note: you are not the third guy. You are the first two. The third guy is people like TECHSTUD who try to hide behind multiple accounts. I am the announcer.
The funny thing is that so many people argue that Apple's success is completely due to marketing - yet Apple's budget is less than Dell, HP, Samsung, or Microsoft.
There is no indication Android has eclipsed iOS in cell phones and Android has, at best, 15% market share on tablets. Now I admit here are 100's of millions Android phones that are used as feature phones with 3.5" low test screens and there might be lots of Android tablets sitting on shelves collecting dust, but they do nothing to strengthen the Eco-system and are easily discounted.
This commercial has been airing almost every 10 minutes today on FOX during the football games. It doesn't make me want to buy one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
My point is however, that Samsung isn't at fault here. They simply followed the market, used a freely available iOS clone/alternative and marketed the hell out of it. They shamelessly copied iOS for certain, but they merely followed Googles lead in that area. They seemed, and still seem from all press accounts I have read, to believe they did nothing wrong in this copying. With the example set by Google, a world-leading software designer and vendor, it's hard to disagree with them.
The real fault here is and always has been with Google. They did a very wrong thing in ripping off iOS design, and these are the consequences. They legitimised copying iOS. They used all their power and influence, not to create a real alternative, but to basically just say "it's okay to copy this stuff." In their defence, they have that idealistic FOSS point of view on the world that everything should be free etc., but idealism doesn't excuse the stealing. It's good to argue that all software should be free and open source, but if someone doesn't want to play your game, stealing their stuff is still wrong.
When the history is written, it will be Google's fall from it's moral high-chair into the depths of corporate thievery that will be the real culprit in terms of nudging out any legally and morally superior, mobile OS alternatives.
Though I agree that Google is very much at fault and would love to see them taken down, I can't agree that Samsung "isn't at fault here". They are definitely at fault and what we had here was the confluence of two independent philosophies that stealing is ok. Google has taken it from the Linux-free-software philosophy and Samsung from the entrenched idea in Asian culture that complete imitation is a form of excellence in itself. This is why Samsung can't quite grasp that what they have done is wrong: for them plagiarism is how one does well. Originality is not valued. Copying perfectly is valued. (How Asian culture arrived at this terrible idea is a question that we may never see answered.)
I'm afraid I see this all the time in Asian (mainly Korean and Chinese) students. They think they should do very well; they also think that it is ok to plagiarise even though they are told explicitly that it is not allowed. This is a huge problem for Australian Universities, who desperately want Asian money, and are going through hoops to get it, but who also have to uphold the philosophy that plagiarism is wrong and a reason to fail a student. If they allow plagiarism they could face a corruption enquiry and yet they know that it is happening all the time. So lecturers who report plagiarism cases are subtly punished for doing so: they must do a lot of work only to have some administrator let the student off the hook, quietly. And then it is a black mark against the lecturer. And no one — I mean no one — is allowed to talk about this issue in the press.
So Samsung are a symptom of a very wide problem. They think that when the copy Apple and steal their IP it just shows that they are better than Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
And in R&D and CapEX as well. Not sure what your point is?
You're back with that lame argument again? After I tore it apart two previous times (and you ran away from the discussions with your tail in between your legs never to return).
Samsung might spend more on R&D than Apple, but they spread that R&D out over 1,001 products. Apple only has a few very specific products to spend their R&D on. Apple is also highly successful which makes their R&D as a % of revenues look smaller than other companies.
You could also look at it another way: Apple is much more efficient than other companies as they get a far greater ROI for their R&D spending vs other companies.
As far as capex, why even bring that up? Apple contracts out their manufacturing to other companies instead of spending money to do it themselves. So of course their capex is going to be insignificant when compared to companies that actually manufacture components and need to build factories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
To be fair, Samsung Electronics includes a LOT of products besides phones & tablets. I think comparing Apple to Dell or HP is more applicable since they sell so many of the same things. Even then it shows Apple doesn't spend any more than other companies.
A good point. Besides phones, Samsung Electronics sells billions in electronics parts.
As any engineer can tell you, the Promotion costs for that must be enormous:
Expensive sample parts, constant exhibits at trade shows all around the world, roving teams of salespeople going after new business with all the related expenses of getting new customers, etc.
It's no wonder that their Sales Promotion expenses are far beyond the other companies on that chart.
Interestimg post. Just an offhand suggestion:
Marshall McLuhan would probably ascribe it to the use of ideographic writing, where the clarity of communication depends on the precision of copying complex characters with many times the pictorial detail of Western analytical alphabets. Fosters an imitative habit of mind, as well as a heightened awareness of aesthetic detail. But not adventurousness, necessarily.
I'm sure the Asians among us here are going to just love this casual generalizing. Apologies in advance!
Edit: And the Korean alphabet and its history would have to be squeezed into this theory somehow. It could be done, but do these kinds of "explanations" ever describe any culture fairly? How do Westerners feel when McLuhan says that intellectual property is such a Western obsession because the alphabet and the printed book have created an ethic of individual thought?
I'm not sure how this got into a debate about advertising.
However, we do have access to US figures for iOS/Android, so let's look at those. The data comes from Apple revelations at the recent CA trial, and from AdAge reports.
-- Some actual Galaxy and iOS ad budgets for the US (phones and tablets) ---
In 2008:
Apple - $98 million for iOS ads
Samsung - ?
In 2009:
Apple - $150 million for iOS out of a $501 million total ad budget
Samsung - ?
In 2010:
Apple - $346 million for iOS out of $691 million total ad budget
Samsung -$79 million for Galaxy products
In 2011:
Apple - ~$450 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $933 million total
Samsung - $142 million for all Galaxy devices; of which $64 million was for the SII phone.
In 2012:
Apple - ~$500 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $1B total
Samsung - $300 million + expected for Galaxy advertising out of $3B total
So while we haven't calculated figures for the rest of the world, apparently Apple has always outspent Samsung for phone/tablet ads in the USA although Samsung is increasing their budget quickly.
Then there's the whole debate about whose ads make more sales. And so forth. Of course, in ten years none of us will remember this conversation.
Just curious - why are you comparing Apple's entire iOS advertising budget (iPhone, iPod, iPad, iTunes, iCloud, etc) to Samsung's spending for a single product (Galaxy)? (and that even assumes that your numbers are correct).
Hint: not all Samsung mobile devices are labeled 'Galaxy'. For some examples, have a look here:
http://reviews.cnet.com/samsung-cell-phones/
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
At a glance it looks like Samsung spent more this year than Apple, Dell, and HP spent in the last four years combined.
Go to LAX. Samsung Mobile is EVERYWHERE.
Every 25 feet there is a Samsung display case.
Every 50 yards there is a Samsung charging point.
Every 100 yards there is a Samsung "rest area". Comfy chairs and tables, charging points, wifi.
Absurd stereotype that you'd only have the guts to write in a forum where you are a nobody.
Good point. The Samsung corporate image advertising contributes to the mobile division.
Apple doesn't do much (if any) corporate advertising and most of their money is spent on products.
More money does not make for more effective marketing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
More money does not make for more effective marketing.
No, what makes for more effective marketing are more effective products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They just CANNOT resist doing this, can they?!
Please take note: you are not the third guy. You are the first two. The third guy is people like TECHSTUD who try to hide behind multiple accounts. I am the announcer.
You flatter yourself sir. Had you compared yourself to Michael Flatley I might have agreed. Your jokes pale in comparison to those of John Cleese. Anyway congratulations on your successful troll attempt, as you got a response.