I decided to download it, even though I have no use for it. I just wanted to see if you can actually create Office documents. Turns out I was unable to even run the app because I apparently don't have an acceptable email address.
It says to get started enter a Microsoft email address or the email address of your organization. I entered my corporate email address but it was rejected. I entered in my iCloud address and that was rejected as well. I'm not sure how I am expected to use this app, if I can't get past the first screen of the setup process. Delete!
Developers who force you to give them your email address to use their app should be made to type out a thirteen letter password a million times for every letter 'e' they wish to write for the rest of their life and if they ever get their password wrong, they will be hung, drawn and quartered.
Thank you for siting that extremely telling revelation: the 1,000,000 to 38,000 correction. Ever since I saw that reported, I put no credence whatsoever in any device estimates from anyone. I would say it's amazing how little the media made of it, but I suppose it's in their interests to cover it up; too much money changing hands and a good story-'Apple is doomed'-always trumps the truth.
The stat he gave, 38K shipped instead of the announced 1M, had no corroborating cite he could supply. I think that one may have been chalked up to a faulty memory.
The stat he gave, 38K shipped instead of the announced 1M, had no corroborating cite he could supply. I think that one may have been chalked up to a faulty memory.
Oh, the figures are correct; I distinctly remember those numbers during the court case. If you're really interested in verifying the figures, I presume there is a transcript somewhere online. Or you could put your trust in your fellow posters. Or both.
Oh, the figures are correct; I distinctly remember those numbers during the court case. If you're really interested in verifying the figures, I presume there is a transcript somewhere online. Or you could put your trust in your fellow posters. Or both.
I can't find any other reference to those particular figures other than a post Mel himself made over at Ars, nor could Mel locate one. If you could supply the link, which you seem to believe you can, it would be appreciated. At least it would vindicate Mels' memory and yours and give you an opportunity to elicit an apology and thank you from me. What could be better?
Its simple... Apple has less OS fragmentation. So it was easier to focus on iPad, than the big fragmented devices and different Operating systems and phones running Android.
I can't find any other reference to those particular figures other than a post Mel himself made over at Ars, nor could Mel locate one. If you could supply the link, which you seem to believe you can, it would be appreciated. At least it would vindicate Mels' memory and yours and give you an opportunity to elicit an apology and thank you from me. What could be better?
Sorry, can't be bothered. AI covered the whole trial, so why not do a search here?
I did. You apparently have a faulty memory when it comes to those figures. You can't find it exists either.
I haven't tried. The figures may be slightly inaccurate, but only by small amounts. I remember the contrast being huge—pretty well a million less than the estimate made, which in itself was about a million. Off the top of my head, the 1,000,000 figure may well have been right, being an estimate, as it was likely to be a round number. Possibly 1,100,000. The 38,000, however, may have been something like 38,325, as it was the actual internal sales figure that Samsung were reluctantly obliged to reveal at trial.
If Google is not delivering results, perhaps Bing will deliver superior results.
Quite a few.
It seems Google is being surpassed.
It makes me glad I no longer need to rely on their seemingly biased results, sweeping unfavourable stuff under the carpet so to speak.
Nope, not there either.Those "Samsung or IDC said 1M tablets but really only 30K or sumthin" figures aren't found in a Bing search. Not even anything close. Maybe Bing is also faulty since you thought it was there too.
You, Mel and Mr Frost may all be remembering that the sales revealed in the lawsuit seemed not to equal PR announcements and/or IDC reports. The thing is the IDC estimates were for worldwide shipments AFAIK as I believe Samsung's were. The figures culled from the Apple/Samsung trial were US only, and only a subset of those related to the supposedly infringing models. That's why I questioned Mel in the first place. I thought perhaps he had some evidence or source I hadn't seen yet.
In any event tho the US Samsung units did appear on the surface to be lower than some had assumed. Nothing was certain since not all Samsung sales were included as not all Samsung models available in the US were included in Apple's accusations and thus reported per court order.
The stat he gave, 38K shipped instead of the announced 1M, had no corroborating cite he could supply. I think that one may have been chalked up to a faulty memory.
What time frame are you referring? According to the court's documents Samsung sold 1.4 million in over 2.5 years. The graph shows about 11 quarters so even when averaged that only 127k per quarter but as you cans see on the graph that had some quarters that were better than that. That last quarter looks like it could be much lower that 38k.
What time frame are you referring? According to the court's documents Samsung sold 1.4 million in over 2.5 years. The graph shows about 11 quarters so even when averaged that only 127k per quarter but as you cans see on the graph that had some quarters that were better than that. That last quarter looks like it could be much lower that 38k.
As I've said more than once I don't recall it but I'm not saying it's definitively wrong. Several here apparently believe it was reported, yet no one seems to have a source for it. That does seem to indicate their memories may be faulty.
As I've said more than once I don't recall it but I'm not saying it's definitively wrong. Several here apparently believe it was reported, yet no one seems to have a source for it. That does seem to indicate their memory's may be faulty.
Here is one that states… "The court documents show that in the U.S., between April and June, Samsung sold 37,000 units."
That's fine but where did Samsung or IDC or Gartner or whoever report 1M US during that same period? Mel used that point to prove we shouldn't have any trust in IDC reports and that's the only reason I even bothered questioning him as to his accuracy. I wasn't questioning widely reported poor sales of Samsung tablets here in the US. Thanks for the effort you're making tho. No one else was even getting this close. I'd guess this must be the report they recall, and validating my initial comments that IDC reported worldwide shipments while only US sales were reported in the lawsuit. The two aren't directly comparable.
That's fine but where did Samsung or IDC or Gartner or whoever report 1M US during that same period? Mel used that point to prove we shouldn't have any trust in IDC reports and that's the only reason I even bothered questioning him as to his accuracy. I wasn't questioning widely reported poor sales of Samsung tablets here in the US. Thanks for the effort you're making tho. No one else was even getting this close. I'd guess this must be the report they recall, and validating my initial comments that IDC reported worldwide shipments while only US sales were reported in the lawsuit. The two aren't directly comparable.
Thx!
True but I doubt US sales would be a small fraction of total sales of Sammy tablets.
Comments
I decided to download it, even though I have no use for it. I just wanted to see if you can actually create Office documents. Turns out I was unable to even run the app because I apparently don't have an acceptable email address.
It says to get started enter a Microsoft email address or the email address of your organization. I entered my corporate email address but it was rejected. I entered in my iCloud address and that was rejected as well. I'm not sure how I am expected to use this app, if I can't get past the first screen of the setup process. Delete!
Developers who force you to give them your email address to use their app should be made to type out a thirteen letter password a million times for every letter 'e' they wish to write for the rest of their life and if they ever get their password wrong, they will be hung, drawn and quartered.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
The stat he gave, 38K shipped instead of the announced 1M, had no corroborating cite he could supply. I think that one may have been chalked up to a faulty memory.
The stat he gave, 38K shipped instead of the announced 1M, had no corroborating cite he could supply. I think that one may have been chalked up to a faulty memory.
Oh, the figures are correct; I distinctly remember those numbers during the court case. If you're really interested in verifying the figures, I presume there is a transcript somewhere online. Or you could put your trust in your fellow posters. Or both.
Sorry, can't be bothered. AI covered the whole trial, so why not do a search here?
I did. You apparently have a faulty memory when it comes to those figures. You can't find it exists either.
I haven't tried. The figures may be slightly inaccurate, but only by small amounts. I remember the contrast being huge—pretty well a million less than the estimate made, which in itself was about a million. Off the top of my head, the 1,000,000 figure may well have been right, being an estimate, as it was likely to be a round number. Possibly 1,100,000. The 38,000, however, may have been something like 38,325, as it was the actual internal sales figure that Samsung were reluctantly obliged to reveal at trial.
I did. You apparently have a faulty memory when it comes to those figures. You can't find it exists either.
If Google is not delivering results, perhaps Bing will deliver superior results.
Quite a few.
It seems Google is being surpassed.
It makes me glad I no longer need to rely on their seemingly biased results, sweeping unfavourable stuff under the carpet so to speak.
Nope, not there either.Those "Samsung or IDC said 1M tablets but really only 30K or sumthin" figures aren't found in a Bing search. Not even anything close. Maybe Bing is also faulty since you thought it was there too.
You, Mel and Mr Frost may all be remembering that the sales revealed in the lawsuit seemed not to equal PR announcements and/or IDC reports. The thing is the IDC estimates were for worldwide shipments AFAIK as I believe Samsung's were. The figures culled from the Apple/Samsung trial were US only, and only a subset of those related to the supposedly infringing models. That's why I questioned Mel in the first place. I thought perhaps he had some evidence or source I hadn't seen yet.
In any event tho the US Samsung units did appear on the surface to be lower than some had assumed. Nothing was certain since not all Samsung sales were included as not all Samsung models available in the US were included in Apple's accusations and thus reported per court order.
What time frame are you referring? According to the court's documents Samsung sold 1.4 million in over 2.5 years. The graph shows about 11 quarters so even when averaged that only 127k per quarter but as you cans see on the graph that had some quarters that were better than that. That last quarter looks like it could be much lower that 38k.
That's what I asked Mel several posts back.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/176236/why-did-microsoft-port-office-to-apples-ios-ipad-before-android/40#post_2506477
Then again tried to get clarification on it here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/176236/why-did-microsoft-port-office-to-apples-ios-ipad-before-android/40#post_2506479
As I've said more than once I don't recall it but I'm not saying it's definitively wrong. Several here apparently believe it was reported, yet no one seems to have a source for it. That does seem to indicate their memories may be faulty.
Here is one that states… "The court documents show that in the U.S., between April and June, Samsung sold 37,000 units."
That's fine but where did Samsung or IDC or Gartner or whoever report 1M US during that same period? Mel used that point to prove we shouldn't have any trust in IDC reports and that's the only reason I even bothered questioning him as to his accuracy. I wasn't questioning widely reported poor sales of Samsung tablets here in the US. Thanks for the effort you're making tho. No one else was even getting this close. I'd guess this must be the report they recall, and validating my initial comments that IDC reported worldwide shipments while only US sales were reported in the lawsuit. The two aren't directly comparable.
Thx!
True but I doubt US sales would be a small fraction of total sales of Sammy tablets.