Apple's Schiller takes stand in Apple v. Samsung retrial, says iPhone was 'bet-the-company' product

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 69
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    But that doesn't mean a component can't be a product. The chips are produced by Samsung and sold to Apple.

    Ah, but Samsung components become Apple products once assembled, so his original statement is correct.

    Not that you guys are desperately splitting hairs or anything.

    ;)
  • Reply 42 of 69
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    That doesn't change the fact that you're helping Samsung's bottom line with every Apple device that you buy.

    But he never claimed he wouldn't help their bottom line, did he?
  • Reply 43 of 69
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    And still the true villain in all this, Google, stay out of the fight. What use would iPhone clones have been without the iOS rip off aka Android?

    Do you really think if there had been no Android that there wouldn't have been iPhone clones?
  • Reply 44 of 69
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    gtr wrote: »
    Ah, but Samsung components become Apple products once assembled, so his original statement is correct.

    Not that you guys are desperately splitting hairs or anything.

    ;)

    Semantics and self deceiving philosophy.
  • Reply 45 of 69
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    But that doesn't mean a component can't be a product. The chips are produced by Samsung and sold to Apple.

    Name a phone, tablet or computer that doesn't have Samsung components inside? They all do, I just won't buy a product with their name on the outside which promotes the company and give them even more of my money. I'm not so upset with their component division over this as I am with their phone/tablet division. They are the ones that copy cat other company's products. And I know that it's a matter of time for apple to start using TSMC for processors and hopefully someone else for panels.
  • Reply 46 of 69
    'bet-the-company' product ...

    YES, I believe this. They worked their a$$ off and risked everything to get it out ... but not for that idiot f*** Andy Ruben, google and Samsung to copy the shit out of their work.
  • Reply 47 of 69
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Semantics and self deceiving philosophy.

    It is a terrible habit of yours but what are we going to do?

    ;)
  • Reply 48 of 69
    philboogie wrote: »

    (very subtle bit in here as well)

    Did you mean bit, or by... I mean, bite? ;)

    The sig from asdasd or whatshisname.

    "I wanted dsadsa bit it was already taken"

    I always feel the need to ask for a correction, but am too lazy to post. Well, maybe he reads this post.
  • Reply 49 of 69
    gtr wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Semantics and self deceiving philosophy.

    It is a terrible habit of yours but what are we going to do?

    ;)

    No need for us to do anything, as he can deceive himself.
  • Reply 50 of 69
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    philboogie wrote: »
    No need for us to do anything, as he can deceive himself.

    Actually we all do it and it's healthy for our mental health.
  • Reply 51 of 69
    dasanman69 wrote: »

    Actually we all do it and it's healthy for our mental health.

    Cool! A double positive!
  • Reply 52 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Cool! A double positive!

    Are you positive it was positive?
  • Reply 53 of 69
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    drblank wrote: »
    Name a phone, tablet or computer that doesn't have Samsung components inside? They all do, I just won't buy a product with their name on the outside which promotes the company and give them even more of my money. I'm not so upset with their component division over this as I am with their phone/tablet division. They are the ones that copy cat other company's products. And I know that it's a matter of time for apple to start using TSMC for processors and hopefully someone else for panels.

    That's a much more reasonable explanation. I wonder if Samsung's lawyer took a page out of Burger King's book in which they copied the Big Mac and readily admitted it.
  • Reply 54 of 69
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Are you positive it was positive?

    Positively positive.
  • Reply 55 of 69
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Cool! A double positive!

    I got distracted for a second and didn't realize I wrote health and healthy in the same sentence. Doh!!
  • Reply 56 of 69
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    That doesn't change the fact that you're helping Samsung's bottom line with every Apple device that you buy.

    I'm not helping their phone/tablet division's bottom line if I buy an Apple device.  Plus, I don't have Samsung's name on a product promoting the brand when people come to my home or I travel around with a Samsung label on my smart device.  It's kind of impossible to get away from buying certain devices with Samsung components inside.   Other products i buy may have their components inside, but I don't always know that since we can't always see the guts of the products we purchase,but if the name is on the outside, then I know who benefits the most and in my case it's not going to be Samsung and I don't know why you are dragging out your pathetic attempts to piss me off.

     

    Why don't you just change YOUR discussion away from this.    Name a similar product that doesn't use any Samsung components that use Apple's OS's legally.   At least Apple has a plan to remove Samsung from their component vendors.

     

    Please go grasp straws elsewhere.

  • Reply 57 of 69
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    drblank wrote: »
    I'm not helping their phone/tablet division's bottom line if I buy an Apple device.  Plus, I don't have Samsung's name on a product promoting the brand when people come to my home or I travel around with a Samsung label on my smart device.  It's kind of impossible to get away from buying certain devices with Samsung components inside.   Other products i buy may have their components inside, but I don't always know that since we can't always see the guts of the products we purchase,but if the name is on the outside, then I know who benefits the most and in my case it's not going to be Samsung and I don't know why you are dragging out your pathetic attempts to piss me off.

    Why don't you just change YOUR discussion away from this.    Name a similar product that doesn't use any Samsung components that use Apple's OS's legally.   At least Apple has a plan to remove Samsung from their component vendors.

    Please go grasp straws elsewhere.

    You obviously didn't read my last reply to you.
  • Reply 58 of 69
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    That's a much more reasonable explanation. I wonder if Samsung's lawyer took a page out of Burger King's book in which they copied the Big Mac and readily admitted it.

    I guess I assumed that everyone knows that practically all smartphones/tablets/computers use Samsung components on some level, whether it's NAND, RAM, SSD, panels, or whatever else they make.  My mistake for assuming that people actually know these things.

     

    I'm not exactly keen on Samsung component division as they have been caught TWICE for price fixing.  Whether they've done it more than that, but just haven't gotten caught, i don't know. But getting caught price fixing TWICE is a sure indicator that Samsung is NOT a very honest company.

     

    I personally think that Samsung should NOT be allowed to be a component supplier to the computer, tablet, and smartphone industry and make finished goods that compete with their component customer's products as that is conflict of interest. I wonder if Samsung computer/mobile division pay less for the exact same components they sell to other companies.  It wouldn't surprise me if they did, which would unfairly bring down the costs of their finished goods.

  • Reply 59 of 69
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    drblank wrote: »
    I guess I assumed that everyone knows that practically all smartphones/tablets/computers use Samsung components on some level, whether it's NAND, RAM, SSD, panels, or whatever else they make.  My mistake for assuming that people actually know these things.

    I'm not exactly keen on Samsung component division as they have been caught TWICE for price fixing.  Whether they've done it more than that, but just haven't gotten caught, i don't know. But getting caught price fixing TWICE is a sure indicator that Samsung is NOT a very honest company.

    I personally think that Samsung should NOT be allowed to be a component supplier to the computer, tablet, and smartphone industry and make finished goods that compete with their component customer's products as that is conflict of interest. I wonder if Samsung computer/mobile division pay less for the exact same components they sell to other companies.  It wouldn't surprise me if they did, which would unfairly bring down the costs of their finished goods.

    I think that you'd have a very short list of who you'd buy products from if you looked into most companies business practices. Try to find one that hasn't done anything unscrupulous.
  • Reply 60 of 69
    gatorguy wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    Cool! A double positive!

    Are you positive it was positive?

    LOL!

    Plus one
Sign In or Register to comment.