But my comments have been extremely pro Apple. Do I really have to think iOS is perfect to not be trolled by the moderator?
Your problem is many things you say are inaccurate. This is un-Apple. Try compare iPhone specs with Galaxy S4 specs. Apple has been very honest with facts. This is one important thing Samsung, Amazon, Google has not been willing to copy.
Your problem is many things you say are inaccurate. This is un-Apple. Try compare iPhone specs with Galaxy S4 specs. Apple has been very honest with facts. This is one important thing Samsung, Amazon, Google has not been willing to copy.
. What do specs have to do with anything? And I absolutely dislike Samsung. Hence why I skipped the Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus. Even when pure Google Samsung doesn't deserve my money. If the Nexus 4 were to be made by Samsung I'd have been an iPhone user today.
Despite all the shortcomings of the galaxy, the big screen (despite weak) makes a huge difference.
If Apple releases one, oh boy... It would quickly become the best selling device.
But, um, iPhone already is the "best selling device", isn't it?
Samsung may sell more "handsets" (across 100 or more different models), but the Galaxy S4 itself (or the S3) is not selling better than the iPhone itself, afaik...
And as far as being "right" about screen size, we're talking about FONT SIZE here? A one-inch larger screen doesn't mean they suddenly jump from 10 to 12 point across all text. He's right that any 'reading difficulty' is solved in settings. And finally, I've held an oversized phone up to my head and it feels exactly as described, oversized. I want more screen real estate, I'll buy a tablet. Like an iPad… oh, already did that. never mind. And my phone is PHONE sized, and that works for me.
The fonts are still the same size regardless of screen size...
People think Apple invented the smartphone period (no one here I don't think or on any tech site but out in the world), they think they invented capacitive screens, multi touch, installable apps, MP3 players, tablets, the mouse, the GUI, and that's all I can think of.
There would probably be a lot less resistance to giving credit where credit is due if people didn't try and give ALL credit where it isn't due.
Actually, I think they did invent the mouse, didn't they…? And they saw an early "GUI" concept which they developed into something broadly usable by the inexperienced public. Steve Jobs' name is on a huge number of patents. That's invention. I get your point, but let's not err in reverse as well…
Apple's genius isn't exclusively about "invention" anyway, so much as recognizing good ideas and inventing ways to productize/monetize them, incorporating them into new or existing products, and finding/extending ideas that make a difference to how we experience our lives.
First iPhone then iPad, both altered the way I live and interact with data (and even people) in pretty substantial ways. Those devices combine their own direct inventions with a huge array of "other people's ideas realized".
There's a lot of credit given for introducing an idea for the first time, even if you're not the person who dreamed it up. It's hard to differentiate that mentally without reading all the names on the many patents involved...
The human mind sorts and simplifies information like this. We will often remember the person (or company) who first made a thing RELEVANT as its "inventor", rightly or wrongly. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pick at those generalizations, unless there's an egregious error (or misleading by intent) being made...
But in the case of the smartphone, for example, yes they existed before the iPhone. Apple didn't invent the smartphone.
It's true the TERM existed before iPhone did.
But if you show me a picture with a bunch of before and after iPhones handsets, and asked me today to "Define the first smartphone…" I'd probably point to an iPhone.
They redefined what that label means. Made it really smart, not just a pretty name. Everything a so-called "smartphone" could do in those days PLUS an internet connection with full-featured browser and email, a full iPod, camera, calendar, contacts, etc. etc. tied together with iTunes and MobileMe auto-synching with a multi-touch screen and gui… they boldly went where no-one had gone before.
People called some devices "smartphones" before the iPhone came along, but I think it was Apple that gave the label real meaning.
If you redefine a thing, I guess one could say you also RE-invented it…?
The court document revealed Samsung 2010 US sales only. *yawn*
It doesn't matter when, we're discussing the behavior, not the actual sales numbers or time period. The yawn disappears when you realize how egregiously they were representing their falsified numbers before those court documents revealed the reality of their market position… it set them up to be seen as outright liars, and nothing less.
That 'smoke and mirrors' behavior clearly continues. There is no question that they're growing and increasing profit/share… a great deal of that on the back of Apple's IP and creativity.
I will never forget that image of Samsung handsets before and after iPhone. That tells the whole story.
Not really.. HTC, Sony and other Android manufacturer's achieved the level of sales / profit Samsung did.
Sure, how can the American press favor a US company that funnels' most of its profit to oversea subsidiaries and employee slave-wage laborers (cough*)?
PROFITS: Apple does not "funnel most of its profit to overseas subsidiaries". That's a false narrative and completely, unequivocally wrong. They keep the profits EARNED ABROAD (and only those profits earned abroad) in accounts abroad, to avoid being DOUBLE TAXED at the maximum corporate rate of 35% if they were to bring those profits to the US. They do NOT "funnel" profits from domestic earnings to those overseas accounts. What you said is simply a falsehood trotted out by trolls, competitors and anti-Apple hacks. Why are you misrepresenting the facts?
WAGES: Wages are always measured relative to the local labor market. RELATIVE to American median income, Chinese labor is very inexpensive. RELATIVE to Chinese median wages, Apple pays an above-average wage and enforces fair labor practices (like preventing excessive overtime, etc.). Why are you misrepresenting the facts?
You managed two complete falsehoods in a single sentence and implied Apple.
In a number of countries Apple does not sell directly to end users, they sell via an reseller, they have no visibility into the location of phones with these resellers
And those represent what % of their total sales do you suppose? I'm thinking low single-digits… like, nearly fractional… Considering Apple's distribution network, there's little left to unknowns.
They seem to have a clear and confident handle on SALES and Channel Inventory (which they differentiate, which implies they have a pretty accurate sense of the numbers).
Your point is pretty moot when the market space you're referring to is such a small fraction of the rest...
And those represent what % of their total sales do you suppose? I'm thinking low single-digits… like, nearly fractional… Considering Apple's distribution network, there's little left to unknowns.
They seem to have a clear and confident handle on SALES and Channel Inventory (which they differentiate, which implies they have a pretty accurate sense of the numbers).
FWIW Apple also has not stated the methods used to determine channel inventory. We assume it's an estimate at least partially based on physical inventory counts from their distribution partners, but Apple doesn't say that.
And those represent what % of their total sales do you suppose? I'm thinking low single-digits… like, nearly fractional… Considering Apple's distribution network, there's little left to unknowns.
They seem to have a clear and confident handle on SALES and Channel Inventory (which they differentiate, which implies they have a pretty accurate sense of the numbers).
Your point is pretty moot when the market space you're referring to is such a small fraction of the rest...
In Samsung's case that market space is a large portion of it's inexpensive phones thus reason why it's much harder for them to know how much they sold to the end user.
Actually, I think they did invent the mouse, didn't they…? And they saw an early "GUI" concept which they developed into something broadly usable by the inexperienced public. Steve Jobs' name is on a huge number of patents. That's invention. I get your point, but let's not err in reverse as well…
Apple's genius isn't exclusively about "invention" anyway, so much as recognizing good ideas and inventing ways to productize/monetize them, incorporating them into new or existing products, and finding/extending ideas that make a difference to how we experience our lives.
First iPhone then iPad, both altered the way I live and interact with data (and even people) in pretty substantial ways. Those devices combine their own direct inventions with a huge array of "other people's ideas realized".
There's a lot of credit given for introducing an idea for the first time, even if you're not the person who dreamed it up. It's hard to differentiate that mentally without reading all the names on the many patents involved...
The human mind sorts and simplifies information like this. We will often remember the person (or company) who first made a thing RELEVANT as its "inventor", rightly or wrongly. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pick at those generalizations, unless there's an egregious error (or misleading by intent) being made...
Actually I think Doug Englebart was the first to demo a mouse back in the 60s.
It doesn't matter when, we're discussing the behavior, not the actual sales numbers or time period. The yawn disappears when you realize how egregiously they were representing their falsified numbers before those court documents revealed the reality of their market position… it set them up to be seen as outright liars, and nothing less.
The misrepresentation was more from articles that didn't explain what the numbers were about. They left out a couple of critical factors:
The sales numbers in the trial were only US sales, and only of accused models.
Samsung sells up to 25 times as many devices outside the USA.
So when some "reporters" seized on the smaller US number as "proof" that Samsung's worldwide sales for that quarter must be false, they were being ignorantly parochial.
People really worry about the numbers race a bit much.
Doesn't matter to me if Samsung sold 10 billion phones and Apple sold 1 million phones. If Samsung had a better phone that works for me, I'd have one. I'm sticking with Apple because I like their products.
It doesn't matter when, we're discussing the behavior, not the actual sales numbers or time period. The yawn disappears when you realize how egregiously they were representing their falsified numbers before those court documents revealed the reality of their market position… it set them up to be seen as outright liars, and nothing less.
The misrepresentation was more from articles that didn't explain what the numbers were about. They left out a couple of critical factors:
The sales numbers in the trial were only US sales, and only of accused models.
Samsung sells up to 25 times as many devices outside the USA.
So when some "reporters" seized on the smaller US number as "proof" that Samsung's worldwide sales for that quarter must be false, they were being ignorantly parochial.
No, business insider is far from a reliable source, as pretty much all "journals" and "tech sites". They are all based on rumours.
So, Samsung sells only 2x more devices outside the US, and you are wrong. Or you could always try to prove it and be seen as what you are, be it here or macrumours.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">The misrepresentation was more from articles that didn't explain what the numbers were about. They left out a couple of critical factors:</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">The sales numbers in the trial were only US sales, and only of accused models. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Samsung sells up to 25 times as many devices outside the USA.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">So when some "reporters" s</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">eized on the smaller </span>
<em style="line-height:1.231;">US</em>
<span style="line-height:1.231;"> number as "proof" that Samsung's</span>
<em style="line-height:1.231;">worldwide sales</em>
<span style="line-height:1.231;"> for that quarter must be false, they were being ignorantly parochial.</span>
Comments
I could chase members around and make trollish comments and be a general rude guy but then they make me moderator.
Originally Posted by realitychecks
I could chase members around and make trollish comments and be a general rude guy but then they make me moderator.
Please just shut up, 'kay? Or feel free to keep posting if you plan on stopping the lies.
Heh. "Chase."
What lies?
On here, everything and anything not pro-Apple.
But my comments have been extremely pro Apple. Do I really have to think iOS is perfect to not be trolled by the moderator?
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitychecks
But my comments have been extremely pro Apple. Do I really have to think iOS is perfect to not be trolled by the moderator?
Your problem is many things you say are inaccurate. This is un-Apple. Try compare iPhone specs with Galaxy S4 specs. Apple has been very honest with facts. This is one important thing Samsung, Amazon, Google has not been willing to copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Again, he is right.
Despite all the shortcomings of the galaxy, the big screen (despite weak) makes a huge difference.
If Apple releases one, oh boy... It would quickly become the best selling device.
But, um, iPhone already is the "best selling device", isn't it?
Samsung may sell more "handsets" (across 100 or more different models), but the Galaxy S4 itself (or the S3) is not selling better than the iPhone itself, afaik...
And as far as being "right" about screen size, we're talking about FONT SIZE here? A one-inch larger screen doesn't mean they suddenly jump from 10 to 12 point across all text. He's right that any 'reading difficulty' is solved in settings. And finally, I've held an oversized phone up to my head and it feels exactly as described, oversized. I want more screen real estate, I'll buy a tablet. Like an iPad… oh, already did that. never mind. And my phone is PHONE sized, and that works for me.
The fonts are still the same size regardless of screen size...
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitychecks
People think Apple invented the smartphone period (no one here I don't think or on any tech site but out in the world), they think they invented capacitive screens, multi touch, installable apps, MP3 players, tablets, the mouse, the GUI, and that's all I can think of.
There would probably be a lot less resistance to giving credit where credit is due if people didn't try and give ALL credit where it isn't due.
Actually, I think they did invent the mouse, didn't they…? And they saw an early "GUI" concept which they developed into something broadly usable by the inexperienced public. Steve Jobs' name is on a huge number of patents. That's invention. I get your point, but let's not err in reverse as well…
Apple's genius isn't exclusively about "invention" anyway, so much as recognizing good ideas and inventing ways to productize/monetize them, incorporating them into new or existing products, and finding/extending ideas that make a difference to how we experience our lives.
First iPhone then iPad, both altered the way I live and interact with data (and even people) in pretty substantial ways. Those devices combine their own direct inventions with a huge array of "other people's ideas realized".
There's a lot of credit given for introducing an idea for the first time, even if you're not the person who dreamed it up. It's hard to differentiate that mentally without reading all the names on the many patents involved...
The human mind sorts and simplifies information like this. We will often remember the person (or company) who first made a thing RELEVANT as its "inventor", rightly or wrongly. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pick at those generalizations, unless there's an egregious error (or misleading by intent) being made...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
But in the case of the smartphone, for example, yes they existed before the iPhone. Apple didn't invent the smartphone.
It's true the TERM existed before iPhone did.
But if you show me a picture with a bunch of before and after iPhones handsets, and asked me today to "Define the first smartphone…" I'd probably point to an iPhone.
They redefined what that label means. Made it really smart, not just a pretty name. Everything a so-called "smartphone" could do in those days PLUS an internet connection with full-featured browser and email, a full iPod, camera, calendar, contacts, etc. etc. tied together with iTunes and MobileMe auto-synching with a multi-touch screen and gui… they boldly went where no-one had gone before.
People called some devices "smartphones" before the iPhone came along, but I think it was Apple that gave the label real meaning.
If you redefine a thing, I guess one could say you also RE-invented it…?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
The court document revealed Samsung 2010 US sales only. *yawn*
It doesn't matter when, we're discussing the behavior, not the actual sales numbers or time period. The yawn disappears when you realize how egregiously they were representing their falsified numbers before those court documents revealed the reality of their market position… it set them up to be seen as outright liars, and nothing less.
That 'smoke and mirrors' behavior clearly continues. There is no question that they're growing and increasing profit/share… a great deal of that on the back of Apple's IP and creativity.
I will never forget that image of Samsung handsets before and after iPhone. That tells the whole story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Not really.. HTC, Sony and other Android manufacturer's achieved the level of sales / profit Samsung did.
Sure, how can the American press favor a US company that funnels' most of its profit to oversea subsidiaries and employee slave-wage laborers (cough*)?
PROFITS: Apple does not "funnel most of its profit to overseas subsidiaries". That's a false narrative and completely, unequivocally wrong. They keep the profits EARNED ABROAD (and only those profits earned abroad) in accounts abroad, to avoid being DOUBLE TAXED at the maximum corporate rate of 35% if they were to bring those profits to the US. They do NOT "funnel" profits from domestic earnings to those overseas accounts. What you said is simply a falsehood trotted out by trolls, competitors and anti-Apple hacks. Why are you misrepresenting the facts?
WAGES: Wages are always measured relative to the local labor market. RELATIVE to American median income, Chinese labor is very inexpensive. RELATIVE to Chinese median wages, Apple pays an above-average wage and enforces fair labor practices (like preventing excessive overtime, etc.). Why are you misrepresenting the facts?
You managed two complete falsehoods in a single sentence and implied Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
In a number of countries Apple does not sell directly to end users, they sell via an reseller, they have no visibility into the location of phones with these resellers
And those represent what % of their total sales do you suppose? I'm thinking low single-digits… like, nearly fractional… Considering Apple's distribution network, there's little left to unknowns.
They seem to have a clear and confident handle on SALES and Channel Inventory (which they differentiate, which implies they have a pretty accurate sense of the numbers).
Your point is pretty moot when the market space you're referring to is such a small fraction of the rest...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
And those represent what % of their total sales do you suppose? I'm thinking low single-digits… like, nearly fractional… Considering Apple's distribution network, there's little left to unknowns.
They seem to have a clear and confident handle on SALES and Channel Inventory (which they differentiate, which implies they have a pretty accurate sense of the numbers).
http://allthingsd.com/20121003/apple-stores-get-the-glory-but-retail-partners-shoulder-load/
FWIW Apple also has not stated the methods used to determine channel inventory. We assume it's an estimate at least partially based on physical inventory counts from their distribution partners, but Apple doesn't say that.
In Samsung's case that market space is a large portion of it's inexpensive phones thus reason why it's much harder for them to know how much they sold to the end user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
It doesn't matter when, we're discussing the behavior, not the actual sales numbers or time period. The yawn disappears when you realize how egregiously they were representing their falsified numbers before those court documents revealed the reality of their market position… it set them up to be seen as outright liars, and nothing less.
The misrepresentation was more from articles that didn't explain what the numbers were about. They left out a couple of critical factors:
The sales numbers in the trial were only US sales, and only of accused models.
Samsung sells up to 25 times as many devices outside the USA.
So when some "reporters" seized on the smaller US number as "proof" that Samsung's worldwide sales for that quarter must be false, they were being ignorantly parochial.
Doesn't matter to me if Samsung sold 10 billion phones and Apple sold 1 million phones. If Samsung had a better phone that works for me, I'd have one. I'm sticking with Apple because I like their products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
It doesn't matter when, we're discussing the behavior, not the actual sales numbers or time period. The yawn disappears when you realize how egregiously they were representing their falsified numbers before those court documents revealed the reality of their market position… it set them up to be seen as outright liars, and nothing less.
The misrepresentation was more from articles that didn't explain what the numbers were about. They left out a couple of critical factors:
The sales numbers in the trial were only US sales, and only of accused models.
Samsung sells up to 25 times as many devices outside the USA.
So when some "reporters" seized on the smaller US number as "proof" that Samsung's worldwide sales for that quarter must be false, they were being ignorantly parochial.
No, business insider is far from a reliable source, as pretty much all "journals" and "tech sites". They are all based on rumours.
So, Samsung sells only 2x more devices outside the US, and you are wrong. Or you could always try to prove it and be seen as what you are, be it here or macrumours.
Sammy can easily clear the confusion by releasing actual numbers.