More money does not make for more effective marketing.
That may be true, but when one gets bombarded with a brand, even if the marketing campaign is not very effective, it still increases the mindshare of the brand through sheer volume, alone.
Apple's marketing department are like snipers while Samsung does ....carpet bombing. Just like Microsoft, they have no taste.
<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>
Are you still posting that old AdAge report with the line "Although Samsung declined to provide specifics on spending on the phone," and only for measured media? Give it a rest as your post has been divi stated time and time again.
That may be true, but when one gets bombarded with a brand, even if the marketing campaign is not very effective, it still increases the mindshare of the brand through sheer volume, alone.
Apple's marketing department are like snipers while Samsung does ....carpet bombing. Just like Microsoft, they have no taste.
Doesn't mean it works. Not matter how many Budweiser commercials I see I'm not gonna drink it.
Absurd stereotype that you'd only have the guts to write in a forum where you are a nobody.
The idea that every negative sounding generalisation one can make about people in other cultures must be false is one of the stupidest ideas whether on the internet or in the real world. I'm sorry that you are so half-baked. As for being a nobody here — trust me, I'm perfectly ok with that.
I've liked a lot of their ads in the past. I think they've really hit the mark on the anti-Apple market that isn't sure which anti-Apple device to buy. But this one seems really bad all around. I see nothing redeeming about it at all.
The worst example of misleading advertising on a smartphone is Samsung's NFC transferring a video by kissing phones for about 2 seconds. That must be some absurdly impressive data bandwidth and transfer rates, Samsung.
The Taxi cab with the kids giving daddy separate videos of themselves saying goodbye for the plane and then his wife implying a ``for his eyes only'' video not to be seen on the plane by a simple kiss of the phone.
I guess if they had to hold the phone for a solid 30 seconds they overrun commercial time, but be more accurate.
Samsung and all their phones would be in the same place as Palm and Microsoft if not for Android and Google. Android is the culprit that effectively killed off Palm (that and HP only waiting a nano-second to see if the products took off). If it wasn't for Google ripping off iOS and Java to create Android, iOS would still be the dominant OS, but the alternatives would be more different things like WebOS and WP7.
The alternatives are being killed off because they aren't similar enough to the market leaders for anyone to figure out or care about. The perfect example of this being Microsoft's "Metro" which is a perfectly useable OS, but confusing, different, and basically "not iOS," (or a copy of iOS). Instead of a healthy situation where there are several competing alternatives that all do things different ways but are all equally valid ways to do stuff, we just have iOS and an iOS imitation (Android).
Since people have shown quite clearly that they don't actually wan't anything different from iOS (at least in any large numbers), this is of course the winning strategy financially for Google. It's arguable that even if WebOS had survived that combined with WP7 it would still only amount to a small percentage of users, so again, this is financially, the best way to go. What's good for the players financially though, is not necessarily good for the users.
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.
Google shamelessly steals, for sure. Regarding iOS copy, this is in fact the situation which occurred in the PC world, after Microsoft issued its pale copy of Mac GUI, with Windows. History repeats, in a sense : once Apple issues radically new design principles, it appears that copies of it only try to sustain competition.
Although probably not the only explanation, I think this has something to do with corporate cowardness. The real innovation route always appears to be more risky than the copy of a successful ideas (I am not currently justifying copy, of course).
I am not exonerating Microsoft from "corporate cowardness", either. I think the only reason why they invented this crazy Metro idea is that they just could not devise a way to implement Office in a pure touchscreen environment.
You can see, though, that they know their market. Narcissists with no taste, smart-ass nerds, plagiarists, people with no ethics, who in turn don't expect any from their "Providers" because they don't know what ethics are.
Thanks for the link, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
And everything wrong with the Android demi-monde. This is what sr2012 leaves out of his epic confessional above. Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling youself to an advertising machine, thus loss of integrity, or evidence that you never had integrity. ("I don't mind if Google mines my data, look what I'm getting for free!")
Not to mention getting intimate with forms of plastic and ungodly extrusions that no one of taste would ever associate with. I mean, HTC makes as nice a phone as any Android maker, but what is that awful excrescence that surrounds the camera lens?
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.
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.
They did have a plan, but they changed it sometime around the time when they discovered the sales of its first product wasn't selling. Then instead of regrouping, they started getting rid of the talent. It's mistake was chooses to go after the iPad as its first endeavor before there were a lot of developer support. It should have turned web os into a desktop OS first (e.g. Chrome).
More money does not make for more effective marketing.
True, but you would think if Apple was nothing but a marketing company, it might spend more at it then it's closet competitors (considering how much money it makes). I think it more fair to say, Google is a marketing company.
I could careless about Samsung's cell phones. Ingot the 16 gig iPhone 5 last week and it is simply breath taking. I have seen the Galaxies and they are not impressive. Big screen yeah but after playing with one I just yawned.
Looks like some people, have realised that google did try and copy apple, but no where near as close as Samsung have tried to make their product. Unfortunately, sometimes that is too close and oops now others have seen through the smoke screen and are not happy. Oh we'll I guess smoke screens and the sword of litigation don't mix. Which neither do pro apple websites and people who clearly are not that keen on Apple or its product. That's Ok but can I suggest they go to a pro android website, although if I was not a iOS devotee I would be more likely to consider windows 8. For once M$ did there own thing
The worst example of misleading advertising on a smartphone is Samsung's NFC transferring a video by kissing phones for about 2 seconds. That must be some absurdly impressive data bandwidth and transfer rates, Samsung.
That's not true. The GS3 uses NFC to initiate contact, but then uses WiFi Direct to do the actual transfer.
However, it's not all good news. Jelly Bean uses Bluetooth to transfer after using NFC to initiate. Faster than NFC but still very slow compared to WiFi.
Samsung's system is called S-Beam and it NOT compatible with Android Beam. Which is quite stupid if you think about it. A Galaxy Nexus can't enjoy fast transfer rates with a GS3 because they use different systems. More fragmentation.
One thing I find interesting is that we are not seeing the postings from people saying that Samsung did not copy from Apple. Maybe that silly line of thought has been finally put to rest by most of the anti-Apple crowd for now.
Another interesting thing to look for is how Samsung innovates with their tablets and phones from here. Samsung took/stole/copied stuff from Apple because Apple used Samsung as a supplier for many components and because of that, Samsung was able to possibly get a jump ahead of the other Android phone/tablet makers on copying stuff they knew Apple was going to implement. With Apple moving more and more of their supply chain away from Samsung, that will become much more difficult for Samsung. Since there is usually a year or two worth of lead time from conception to development of finished product, it will be interesting to see what new products come out from Samsung in another 2 years and how they diverge from their present designs and how much they diverge from Apple's designs.
Apple stock is up almost 3% so far toda, while the markets overall are pretty flat.. I wonder if this is part of the reason why?
Apple stock going UP is a complete fluke. Combined with their failure to sell any products, fears over the fiscal cliff, their pathetic customer satisfaction, and the lack of profit made on their devices, it's impossible to say what could cause it to go up. Someone probably hit the wrong key.
The worst example of misleading advertising on a smartphone is Samsung's NFC transferring a video by kissing phones for about 2 seconds. That must be some absurdly impressive data bandwidth and transfer rates, Samsung.
They only have to touch for a couple of seconds for NFC to set up a faster communication path; after that they can move away while the transfer takes place. It can be pretty fast.
--
Still, there's usually some time compression in most ads these days. Consumers should be smart enough to be aware of ad hype, but there's always a group that will complain.
For example, take the Apple Siri ads. All sorts of lawsuits and class actions popped up because the ads made Siri look fast and foolproof.
--
That's why they're also supposed to have a notice explaining that the timeline was sped up (assuming it was).
However, sometimes even the notice isn't enough. In the UK, an Applead about downloading apps was pulled even though it had the small notice, "Steps removed and sequence shortened. Network speeds may vary." The Apple disclaimer was seen as too broad, since the ad's intent was to show how quick and easy buying an app was... and with some steps removed, it wasn't true to life even if sped up.
Samsung took/stole/copied stuff from Apple because Apple used Samsung as a supplier for many components and because of that, Samsung was able to possibly get a jump ahead of the other Android phone/tablet makers on copying stuff they knew Apple was going to implement.
This claim has never made sense.
For the first iPhone, Samsung supplied the processor, Flash memory and DRAM.
They would have not needed, nor be given, access to the device itself or its software. Heck, only a few Apple employees ever got to see everything together.
Samsung would not have known the shape, purpose, operating system, UI.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
More money does not make for more effective marketing.
That may be true, but when one gets bombarded with a brand, even if the marketing campaign is not very effective, it still increases the mindshare of the brand through sheer volume, alone.
Apple's marketing department are like snipers while Samsung does ....carpet bombing. Just like Microsoft, they have no taste.
Are you still posting that old AdAge report with the line "Although Samsung declined to provide specifics on spending on the phone," and only for measured media? Give it a rest as your post has been divi stated time and time again.
Doesn't mean it works. Not matter how many Budweiser commercials I see I'm not gonna drink it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Absurd stereotype that you'd only have the guts to write in a forum where you are a nobody.
The idea that every negative sounding generalisation one can make about people in other cultures must be false is one of the stupidest ideas whether on the internet or in the real world. I'm sorry that you are so half-baked. As for being a nobody here — trust me, I'm perfectly ok with that.
I've liked a lot of their ads in the past. I think they've really hit the mark on the anti-Apple market that isn't sure which anti-Apple device to buy. But this one seems really bad all around. I see nothing redeeming about it at all.
The worst example of misleading advertising on a smartphone is Samsung's NFC transferring a video by kissing phones for about 2 seconds. That must be some absurdly impressive data bandwidth and transfer rates, Samsung.
The Taxi cab with the kids giving daddy separate videos of themselves saying goodbye for the plane and then his wife implying a ``for his eyes only'' video not to be seen on the plane by a simple kiss of the phone.
I guess if they had to hold the phone for a solid 30 seconds they overrun commercial time, but be more accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Fixed it for ya.
Samsung and all their phones would be in the same place as Palm and Microsoft if not for Android and Google. Android is the culprit that effectively killed off Palm (that and HP only waiting a nano-second to see if the products took off). If it wasn't for Google ripping off iOS and Java to create Android, iOS would still be the dominant OS, but the alternatives would be more different things like WebOS and WP7.
The alternatives are being killed off because they aren't similar enough to the market leaders for anyone to figure out or care about. The perfect example of this being Microsoft's "Metro" which is a perfectly useable OS, but confusing, different, and basically "not iOS," (or a copy of iOS). Instead of a healthy situation where there are several competing alternatives that all do things different ways but are all equally valid ways to do stuff, we just have iOS and an iOS imitation (Android).
Since people have shown quite clearly that they don't actually wan't anything different from iOS (at least in any large numbers), this is of course the winning strategy financially for Google. It's arguable that even if WebOS had survived that combined with WP7 it would still only amount to a small percentage of users, so again, this is financially, the best way to go. What's good for the players financially though, is not necessarily good for the users.
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.
Google shamelessly steals, for sure. Regarding iOS copy, this is in fact the situation which occurred in the PC world, after Microsoft issued its pale copy of Mac GUI, with Windows. History repeats, in a sense : once Apple issues radically new design principles, it appears that copies of it only try to sustain competition.
Although probably not the only explanation, I think this has something to do with corporate cowardness. The real innovation route always appears to be more risky than the copy of a successful ideas (I am not currently justifying copy, of course).
I am not exonerating Microsoft from "corporate cowardness", either. I think the only reason why they invented this crazy Metro idea is that they just could not devise a way to implement Office in a pure touchscreen environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Pathetic and truly horrifying. Disgusting.
You can see, though, that they know their market. Narcissists with no taste, smart-ass nerds, plagiarists, people with no ethics, who in turn don't expect any from their "Providers" because they don't know what ethics are.
Thanks for the link, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
And everything wrong with the Android demi-monde. This is what sr2012 leaves out of his epic confessional above. Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling youself to an advertising machine, thus loss of integrity, or evidence that you never had integrity. ("I don't mind if Google mines my data, look what I'm getting for free!")
Not to mention getting intimate with forms of plastic and ungodly extrusions that no one of taste would ever associate with. I mean, HTC makes as nice a phone as any Android maker, but what is that awful excrescence that surrounds the camera lens?
What a load of air puff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
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.
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.
They did have a plan, but they changed it sometime around the time when they discovered the sales of its first product wasn't selling. Then instead of regrouping, they started getting rid of the talent. It's mistake was chooses to go after the iPad as its first endeavor before there were a lot of developer support. It should have turned web os into a desktop OS first (e.g. Chrome).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
More money does not make for more effective marketing.
True, but you would think if Apple was nothing but a marketing company, it might spend more at it then it's closet competitors (considering how much money it makes). I think it more fair to say, Google is a marketing company.
Looks like some people, have realised that google did try and copy apple, but no where near as close as Samsung have tried to make their product. Unfortunately, sometimes that is too close and oops now others have seen through the smoke screen and are not happy. Oh we'll I guess smoke screens and the sword of litigation don't mix. Which neither do pro apple websites and people who clearly are not that keen on Apple or its product. That's Ok but can I suggest they go to a pro android website, although if I was not a iOS devotee I would be more likely to consider windows 8. For once M$ did there own thing
However, it's not all good news. Jelly Bean uses Bluetooth to transfer after using NFC to initiate. Faster than NFC but still very slow compared to WiFi.
Samsung's system is called S-Beam and it NOT compatible with Android Beam. Which is quite stupid if you think about it. A Galaxy Nexus can't enjoy fast transfer rates with a GS3 because they use different systems. More fragmentation.
One thing I find interesting is that we are not seeing the postings from people saying that Samsung did not copy from Apple. Maybe that silly line of thought has been finally put to rest by most of the anti-Apple crowd for now.
Another interesting thing to look for is how Samsung innovates with their tablets and phones from here. Samsung took/stole/copied stuff from Apple because Apple used Samsung as a supplier for many components and because of that, Samsung was able to possibly get a jump ahead of the other Android phone/tablet makers on copying stuff they knew Apple was going to implement. With Apple moving more and more of their supply chain away from Samsung, that will become much more difficult for Samsung. Since there is usually a year or two worth of lead time from conception to development of finished product, it will be interesting to see what new products come out from Samsung in another 2 years and how they diverge from their present designs and how much they diverge from Apple's designs.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Apple stock is up almost 3% so far toda, while the markets overall are pretty flat.. I wonder if this is part of the reason why?
Apple stock going UP is a complete fluke. Combined with their failure to sell any products, fears over the fiscal cliff, their pathetic customer satisfaction, and the lack of profit made on their devices, it's impossible to say what could cause it to go up. Someone probably hit the wrong key.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
The worst example of misleading advertising on a smartphone is Samsung's NFC transferring a video by kissing phones for about 2 seconds. That must be some absurdly impressive data bandwidth and transfer rates, Samsung.
They only have to touch for a couple of seconds for NFC to set up a faster communication path; after that they can move away while the transfer takes place. It can be pretty fast.
--
Still, there's usually some time compression in most ads these days. Consumers should be smart enough to be aware of ad hype, but there's always a group that will complain.
For example, take the Apple Siri ads. All sorts of lawsuits and class actions popped up because the ads made Siri look fast and foolproof.
--
That's why they're also supposed to have a notice explaining that the timeline was sped up (assuming it was).
However, sometimes even the notice isn't enough. In the UK, an Apple ad about downloading apps was pulled even though it had the small notice, "Steps removed and sequence shortened. Network speeds may vary." The Apple disclaimer was seen as too broad, since the ad's intent was to show how quick and easy buying an app was... and with some steps removed, it wasn't true to life even if sped up.
Originally Posted by KDarling
For example, take the Apple Siri ads. All sorts of lawsuits and class actions popped up because the ads made Siri look fast and foolproof.
You really need to stop.
Originally Posted by Nathillien
What a load of air puff.
What was wrong there?
Originally Posted by TBell
I think it more fair to say, Google is a marketing company.
Google is the owner of a brothel and we are her prostitutes.
Originally Posted by KDarling
For example, take the Apple Siri ads. All sorts of lawsuits and class actions popped up because the ads made Siri look fast and foolproof.
You really need to stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealg
Samsung took/stole/copied stuff from Apple because Apple used Samsung as a supplier for many components and because of that, Samsung was able to possibly get a jump ahead of the other Android phone/tablet makers on copying stuff they knew Apple was going to implement.
This claim has never made sense.
For the first iPhone, Samsung supplied the processor, Flash memory and DRAM.
They would have not needed, nor be given, access to the device itself or its software. Heck, only a few Apple employees ever got to see everything together.
Samsung would not have known the shape, purpose, operating system, UI.