It's South Korea, land of companies that don't follow the law. Several telecoms have been found guilty of providing illegal subsidies, not just SK Telecom, and Samsung has been found guilty of improperly using other company's intellectual property. Why would you think any of these companies would play by the rules?
Why can't you contribute to the thread with constructive and factually correct comments.
The thread is about SK Telecom launching the GS5 earlier. It is not appropriate, nor correct and not even relevant to comment about South Korea as being a lawless land.
May I remind you where the financial crises begun and continues to strive? Or shall we talk about the US's goverment's lack of remorse and action to correct their criminal acts in invading the privacy of its citizens and beyond? Or since you are alluring to Apple as an innocent victim shall we talk about Apple's own run ins with IP violation or the recent e-book price fixing scandal?
I agree that some practices described in the article are questionable, but there is no need to characterize Korea as you did.
Samsung should forget the coordinated protocol and simply get as many Galaxy S5 smartphones sold as possible. A two weeks earlier head-start means a better window to get more S5 units sold before Apple comes out with a new iPhone. I'm not sure why Samsung is so puzzled. Each carrier wants to be the first to get consumers into their stores before the other carriers.
Interesting view that Samsung may be turning a blind eye to capitalize on sales prior to the suspension taking place. Quite possibly IMO.
Yes. I agree as well. Releasing a new and revolutionary phone every year is extremely difficult.
The early launches leapfrogged previous versions because of all the cumulative ideas and features that existed prior to the birth of the smartphone industry. However, note that everyone is having trouble launching significantly new products every year, even for the best of the best (i.e. iPhone 4, 4S, 5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
The tech writers and even some Samsung fanboys admit the S5 is more of an improved S4 than something really new. Samsung admits the fingerprint login is not as evolved as the iPhone’s TouchID. I have a hunch the S5 will sell well but not blow the doors off. The next iPhone, however, could be a real barn burner.
Because they’re worthless, pathetic idiots. That’s basically what it boils down to. Can’t create their own hardware, can’t create their own software, can’t create their own packaging, can’t create their own marketing. Why is it a surprise that they’ve also failed to create meaningful relationships with their carriers?
Hum....
Explain why the majority of components in the iPod, iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured components?
Even Apple can't cut its dependence on Samsung components...
Maybe bad team of lawyers yes and sales managers.. But to call them names and to say they can't create anything makes you loose credibility.
Explain why the majority of components in the iPod, iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured components?
I think you need to look up the word "majority" in the dictionary.
The FEW components that Apple tap Samsung for are made under Apple's instructions. Samsung are good at being told what to do, it's just an issue when they try to do something by themselves. They realised that they are no good at original stuff so they try and copy.
Phone releases, Intellectual Property laws, marketing, etc.
The "puzzled" part of it to me smacks of them doing what they want and acting surprised. It's part of the Dog and Pony show. If they were actually surprised, I'm guessing they wouldn't admit it. They's be shocked and outraged.
Exactly. They are letting the carriers in South Korea launch early before the blackout dates for new subscriptions goes into effect. Samsung being puzzled is a show for the rest of the carriers around the world that have to wait until the 11th.
Explain why the majority of components in the iPod, iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured components?
I think you need to look up the word "majority" in the dictionary.
The FEW components that Apple tap Samsung for are made under Apple's instructions. Samsung are good at being told what to do, it's just an issue when they try to do something by themselves. They realised that they are no good at original stuff so they try and copy.
I think he is mixing up the comments about majority of the BOM cost with majority of the components. The components Samsung makes just happen to be some of the largest cost drivers in the device, but certainly not the actual majority of the components.
How is it possible that does Samsung not have some sort of contract that covers this?
Many tech companies have clauses that cover this but find their products sold before official release dates anyhow. I recall this happening to Microsoft with their X-Box and I think even Apple's had some iPhones ship/sold to customers before the official date.
I think he is mixing up the comments about majority of the BOM cost with majority of the components. The components Samsung makes just happen to be some of the largest cost drivers in the device, but certainly not the actual majority of the components.
My apologies. You may be right.
Nonetheless, my point is that a number of Apple products depend on Samsung made and developed components. Some are straight out of Samsung's R&D Labs and some are ODM'd under Apple's requirements.
The main point is that we cannot label a company that has quite a portfolio of innovative products and standard essential technology as not capable of anything other than copying or doing what they are told.
I think you need to look up the word "majority" in the dictionary.
The FEW components that Apple tap Samsung for are made under Apple's instructions. Samsung are good at being told what to do, it's just an issue when they try to do something by themselves. They realised that they are no good at original stuff so they try and copy.
Somebody already addressed the meaning of majority. This is not the main point. I take responsibility if the use of the word "majority" was mis used. Let's replace it with the word "significant".
The main point is that you cannot label a company that innovates and contributes with standard essential technology as not good at original stuff. Unless your knowledge of samsung is limited to what you see at your local bestbuy.... I think you need to look up the company "Samsung"....
Do you have any proof that the majority of components in the iPod and iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured?
The word "majority" may not be accurate as somebody else pointed out. I take responsibility for the mis use. Let's re phrase it with the word "significant"
The word "majority" may not be accurate as somebody else pointed out. I take responsibility for the mis use. Let's re phrase it with the word "significant"
Because that has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument being made. Also, they didn’t develop the components.
That sure explains why they can’t seem to create anything, though, huh. You know exactly what we’re discussing.
What do you mean it has nothing to do with the argument. You claimed that Samsung cannot create packaging, H/W, S/W, nothing... So I am stating that you are incorrect. They have created quite a lot of components and technology that cannot be replaced including standard essential technology. Including those used in the iPhone, iPad, iPod.
I may agree with you that they may not be the best in some categories but I would not go as far as you in calling them a pathetic bunch good for nothing but copying.
Why can't you contribute to the thread with constructive and factually correct comments.
The thread is about SK Telecom launching the GS5 earlier. It is not appropriate, nor correct and not even relevant to comment about South Korea as being a lawless land.
May I remind you where the financial crises begun and continues to strive? Or shall we talk about the US's goverment's lack of remorse and action to correct their criminal acts in invading the privacy of its citizens and beyond? Or since you are alluring to Apple as an innocent victim shall we talk about Apple's own run ins with IP violation or the recent e-book price fixing scandal?
I agree that some practices described in the article are questionable, but there is no need to characterize Korea as you did.
In which country was the head of a major electronics firm convicted of bribery (among other things) and pardoned, effectively getting off scot free?
They [Samsung] have created quite a lot of components and technology that cannot be replaced including standard essential technology. Including those used in the iPhone, iPad, iPod.
Like the one's a Japanese court found Apple neither use or infringe?
Comments
It's South Korea, land of companies that don't follow the law. Several telecoms have been found guilty of providing illegal subsidies, not just SK Telecom, and Samsung has been found guilty of improperly using other company's intellectual property. Why would you think any of these companies would play by the rules?
Why can't you contribute to the thread with constructive and factually correct comments.
The thread is about SK Telecom launching the GS5 earlier. It is not appropriate, nor correct and not even relevant to comment about South Korea as being a lawless land.
May I remind you where the financial crises begun and continues to strive? Or shall we talk about the US's goverment's lack of remorse and action to correct their criminal acts in invading the privacy of its citizens and beyond? Or since you are alluring to Apple as an innocent victim shall we talk about Apple's own run ins with IP violation or the recent e-book price fixing scandal?
I agree that some practices described in the article are questionable, but there is no need to characterize Korea as you did.
I'm puzzled that Samsung would choose to launch a flagship phone during the 45-day period. They should have done it before or after. Oops.
Samsung should forget the coordinated protocol and simply get as many Galaxy S5 smartphones sold as possible. A two weeks earlier head-start means a better window to get more S5 units sold before Apple comes out with a new iPhone. I'm not sure why Samsung is so puzzled. Each carrier wants to be the first to get consumers into their stores before the other carriers.
Interesting view that Samsung may be turning a blind eye to capitalize on sales prior to the suspension taking place. Quite possibly IMO.
Yes. I agree as well. Releasing a new and revolutionary phone every year is extremely difficult.
The early launches leapfrogged previous versions because of all the cumulative ideas and features that existed prior to the birth of the smartphone industry. However, note that everyone is having trouble launching significantly new products every year, even for the best of the best (i.e. iPhone 4, 4S, 5)
The tech writers and even some Samsung fanboys admit the S5 is more of an improved S4 than something really new. Samsung admits the fingerprint login is not as evolved as the iPhone’s TouchID. I have a hunch the S5 will sell well but not blow the doors off. The next iPhone, however, could be a real barn burner.
Because they’re worthless, pathetic idiots. That’s basically what it boils down to. Can’t create their own hardware, can’t create their own software, can’t create their own packaging, can’t create their own marketing. Why is it a surprise that they’ve also failed to create meaningful relationships with their carriers?
Hum....
Explain why the majority of components in the iPod, iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured components?
Even Apple can't cut its dependence on Samsung components...
Maybe bad team of lawyers yes and sales managers.. But to call them names and to say they can't create anything makes you loose credibility.
Why not? The 45 day period bars them from signing up new customers, not current ones that are upgrade eligible.
Explain why the majority of components in the iPod, iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured components?
Because that has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument being made. Also, they didn’t develop the components.
That sure explains why they can’t seem to create anything, though, huh.
You know exactly what we’re discussing.
Do you have any proof that the majority of components in the iPod and iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured?
Hum....
Explain why the majority of components in the iPod, iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured components?
I think you need to look up the word "majority" in the dictionary.
The FEW components that Apple tap Samsung for are made under Apple's instructions. Samsung are good at being told what to do, it's just an issue when they try to do something by themselves. They realised that they are no good at original stuff so they try and copy.
Samsung are puzzled about a lot of things . . .
Phone releases, Intellectual Property laws, marketing, etc.
The "puzzled" part of it to me smacks of them doing what they want and acting surprised. It's part of the Dog and Pony show. If they were actually surprised, I'm guessing they wouldn't admit it. They's be shocked and outraged.
Exactly. They are letting the carriers in South Korea launch early before the blackout dates for new subscriptions goes into effect. Samsung being puzzled is a show for the rest of the carriers around the world that have to wait until the 11th.
Hum....
Explain why the majority of components in the iPod, iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured components?
I think you need to look up the word "majority" in the dictionary.
The FEW components that Apple tap Samsung for are made under Apple's instructions. Samsung are good at being told what to do, it's just an issue when they try to do something by themselves. They realised that they are no good at original stuff so they try and copy.
I think he is mixing up the comments about majority of the BOM cost with majority of the components. The components Samsung makes just happen to be some of the largest cost drivers in the device, but certainly not the actual majority of the components.
How is it possible that does Samsung not have some sort of contract that covers this?
Many tech companies have clauses that cover this but find their products sold before official release dates anyhow. I recall this happening to Microsoft with their X-Box and I think even Apple's had some iPhones ship/sold to customers before the official date.
I think he is mixing up the comments about majority of the BOM cost with majority of the components. The components Samsung makes just happen to be some of the largest cost drivers in the device, but certainly not the actual majority of the components.
My apologies. You may be right.
Nonetheless, my point is that a number of Apple products depend on Samsung made and developed components. Some are straight out of Samsung's R&D Labs and some are ODM'd under Apple's requirements.
The main point is that we cannot label a company that has quite a portfolio of innovative products and standard essential technology as not capable of anything other than copying or doing what they are told.
I think you need to look up the word "majority" in the dictionary.
The FEW components that Apple tap Samsung for are made under Apple's instructions. Samsung are good at being told what to do, it's just an issue when they try to do something by themselves. They realised that they are no good at original stuff so they try and copy.
Somebody already addressed the meaning of majority. This is not the main point. I take responsibility if the use of the word "majority" was mis used. Let's replace it with the word "significant".
The main point is that you cannot label a company that innovates and contributes with standard essential technology as not good at original stuff. Unless your knowledge of samsung is limited to what you see at your local bestbuy.... I think you need to look up the company "Samsung"....
Do you have any proof that the majority of components in the iPod and iPhone are Samsung developed and manufactured?
The word "majority" may not be accurate as somebody else pointed out. I take responsibility for the mis use. Let's re phrase it with the word "significant"
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324682204578513882349940500
That has a paywall you'll have to cite these significant number of components and argue your case.
Because that has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument being made. Also, they didn’t develop the components.
That sure explains why they can’t seem to create anything, though, huh.
You know exactly what we’re discussing.
What do you mean it has nothing to do with the argument. You claimed that Samsung cannot create packaging, H/W, S/W, nothing... So I am stating that you are incorrect. They have created quite a lot of components and technology that cannot be replaced including standard essential technology. Including those used in the iPhone, iPad, iPod.
I may agree with you that they may not be the best in some categories but I would not go as far as you in calling them a pathetic bunch good for nothing but copying.
Why can't you contribute to the thread with constructive and factually correct comments.
The thread is about SK Telecom launching the GS5 earlier. It is not appropriate, nor correct and not even relevant to comment about South Korea as being a lawless land.
May I remind you where the financial crises begun and continues to strive? Or shall we talk about the US's goverment's lack of remorse and action to correct their criminal acts in invading the privacy of its citizens and beyond? Or since you are alluring to Apple as an innocent victim shall we talk about Apple's own run ins with IP violation or the recent e-book price fixing scandal?
I agree that some practices described in the article are questionable, but there is no need to characterize Korea as you did.
In which country was the head of a major electronics firm convicted of bribery (among other things) and pardoned, effectively getting off scot free?
Which Korea?
They [Samsung] have created quite a lot of components and technology that cannot be replaced including standard essential technology. Including those used in the iPhone, iPad, iPod.
Like the one's a Japanese court found Apple neither use or infringe?
I’m not, though.
For which they’ve sued others (and lost spectacularly), by the way. But that’s a different argument.
All right, then. That’s you.