Introduce you a good online electronics mall : http://www.shoppingease360.com/ ,which is 100% trustable for that i am a english teacher in one university in beijing,china,i have gone to their store to buy 50 Apple iPhone 5s, Space Gray 16GB (Unlocked) Samsung Galaxy Note II N7100 Factory Unlocked International Version for my friend who live in Altamonte springs,CA,USA.The phones are original and brand new and works well.We are very satisfied with the deal.
In overall mobile phone market share I believe Motorola held the number two spot by quite a large percentage over Samsung, whose market share was falling, with Nokia #1 of course. In the smartphone category Samsung had an even worse showing, lumped into the "others" category". If you have something that disagrees and shows Samsung as more successful than any manufacturer other than Nokia at the time I wouldn't mind seeing it tho.
Samsung's transition mirrors the general market move towards smartphones becoming a larger proportion of handsets sold.
Their rise to number one occurred pre-Android.
Yup, I did notice which is why I linked the market data for overall mobile phone sales before the iPhone's introduction which is what your original claim pertained to. I also added another link for smartphone specific share as simply a point of interest. Your linked source is noting market share after the iPhone was introduced which you didn't mention in the first post. Thanks for that data too tho.
BTW did you notice how Samsung unseated Motorola for first place in the US at the end of 2008? The same way they've unseated every other smartphone vendor now including Apple.
"...a broad device portfolio across multiple carriers, technologies and segments.... from high-end products such as the touch-screen Instinct to lower-end phones given free to customers who sign up with a particular carrier"
And what does that have to do with Apple's reasons for making a larger iPhone? No one has yet explained how, in 2012 and 2013 Apple couldn't build a larger screen iPhone, but in 2014 they can. I'm not arguing for or against it - I'm quite happy with my 5S but also think it makes sense for Apple to offer multiple screen sizes like they do with iPads and Macs. I'm just interested to see how Apple announces this bigger phone to the world. Will there be something about this bigger phone that is so much better than the competition that it won't look like Apple is playing catch-up? I hope so. I'd love it if 2014 was 2007 all over again.
Actually, just back in comment #197 of this comment thread I did exactly that (explained why, in 2012 or 2013, apple might not have felt ready to build a larger screen iPhone, but in 2014, with their sapphire deal, they are now ready. Here's that post again so you won't have to scroll back to it:
#197: Actually, a spreadsheet and some basic math skills can yield remarkable insights. For example, the current iPhone is 2.31" wide, but the display is 1.94" wide. If Apple were to extend the screen to the edges, using software numbing to ignore touch input at the edges, thus creating a virtual bezel (easily accomplished) and maintaining the display's current 16:9 aspect ratio, the screen could grow to 4.3" diagonal measurement without increasing the width of the handset. The top bezel could be shrunk to accommodate the greater height of this 4.3" display (perhaps this is why Apple moved the headset jack to the bottom back with the iPhone 5 in anticipation of decreasing the top bezel). With these changes you could have a 4.3" display in a handset the exact same dimensions as the iPhone 5 series handsets.
What's more, going side edge to side edge with a 4.85" 16:9 display would require Apple to widen the handset less than 1/5th of an inch. This iPhone would be slightly taller too, but at only about 1/5th inch wider it would still easily qualify for one handed use. So perhaps there is a reason Apple has waited; they didn't want to compromise on an edge to edge display being covered by gorilla glass, which falls at about a 6.5 on the MOHs hardness scale, versus 9 on that same scale for sapphire (diamond, by comparison, is a 10, the hardest substance known).
What's more, going side edge to side edge with a 4.85" 16:9 display would require Apple to widen the handset less than 1/5th of an inch. This iPhone would be slightly taller too, but at only about 1/5th inch wider it would still easily qualify for one handed use. So perhaps there is a reason Apple has waited; they didn't want to compromise on an edge to edge display being covered by gorilla glass, which falls at about a 6.5 on the MOHs hardness scale, versus 9 on that same scale for sapphire (diamond, by comparison, is a 10, the hardest substance known).
And they don't necessarily have to literally go edge-to-edge. They could just use IGZO or some other new technology to get closer to the edge which will negate some of the width that is gained from the increased display width.
Increased height really isn't an issue and if it was they have enough room to play negate that by 100%.
And what does that have to do with Apple's reasons for making a larger iPhone? No one has yet explained how, in 2012 and 2013 Apple couldn't build a larger screen iPhone, but in 2014 they can. I'm not arguing for or against it - I'm quite happy with my 5S but also think it makes sense for Apple to offer multiple screen sizes like they do with iPads and Macs. I'm just interested to see how Apple announces this bigger phone to the world. Will there be something about this bigger phone that is so much better than the competition that it won't look like Apple is playing catch-up? I hope so. I'd love it if 2014 was 2007 all over again.
Technological advances and little to no compromises.
I just watched the movie Preditor and toward the end, Preditor uses Slide to Unlock feature on his wrist based computer. That is 20 years before Steve Jobs "invented" it.
I just watched the movie Preditor and toward the end, Preditor uses Slide to Unlock feature on his wrist based computer. That is 20 years before Steve Jobs "invented" it.
I read Homer's Icarus and Daedalus, the Wright Brothers were a couple of thousand years too late.
A fictional representation is not a working implementation although it can provide inspiration.
I just watched the movie Preditor and toward the end, Preditor uses Slide to Unlock feature on his wrist based computer. That is 20 years before Steve Jobs "invented" it.
1) What [@]hill60[/@] said.
2) Where does Preditor[sic] slide to unlock the device. Looks like he touches it and it pops open. If you really want to show something actually sliding to actually unlock a physical device then you missed the obvious one.
I just watched the movie Preditor and toward the end, Preditor uses Slide to Unlock feature on his wrist based computer. That is 20 years before Steve Jobs "invented" it.
You realize that means, nothing, right?
Also, if you have an issue with the slide-to-unlock patent, then take it up with the USTPO. The fact is, the only thing that matters in this case is that Apple holds a patent on this, and Samsung copied it. That part is indisputable. Now, the issue is what are the damages? That's the question being determined (among others, as slide-to-unlock is not the only patent at issue here).
You lost me, when you stated the following: %u201CWhen Steve Jobs demonstrated Slide to Unlock in 2007, the feature generated applause from the audience because it was a new concept, executed in an aesthetically pleasing and intuitive way, based on years of research and development.%u201C
%u201CYears of research and development%u201C...seriously? So Apple didn't copy %u201CSlide-to-Unlock%u201C from - let's say - Win CE? Seriously?
You lost me, when you stated the following: %u201CWhen Steve Jobs demonstrated Slide to Unlock in 2007, the feature generated applause from the audience because it was a new concept, executed in an aesthetically pleasing and intuitive way, based on years of research and development.%u201C
%u201CYears of research and development%u201C...seriously? So Apple didn't copy %u201CSlide-to-Unlock%u201C from - let's say - Win CE? Seriously?
Indeed; Samsung yet again trying to sully the waters.
Oh yeah...There has been a “S“ in the Galaxy nomenclatura since the first generation Galaxy “S“. Subsequently the following generations got the numbers 2/3/4/5 added to said “S“. But let's face it: Samsung anticipated that Apple would start to use the “S“ at some point in time and so they precautionary copied this “Apple Invention“. Leaves us with tue question: Has Samsung finally managed to build a time machine?
One important thing to keep in mind is that neither Samsung nor Apple can be reasonably accused of stealing an item if that item is not claimed to be owned by someone else. If either party copies and utilizes something first used by the other but not claimed as their intellectual property, there is no theft. So the answer to your first question is that unless the item has been declared as someone else's intellectual property, Apple is free to use it without being accused of stealing.
You seriously think it's not stealing to take ideas others already came up with before you and declare them “your intelectual property“?
A good patent gives the world something it truly didn't have before, whereas a bad patent tries to take away something the world already had.
Only because it is possible in a deranged world to patent ideas others came up with before you, that doesen't mean it's morally right to do so...
Comments
Dear friends,
Introduce you a good online electronics mall : http://www.shoppingease360.com/ ,which is 100% trustable for that i am a english teacher in one university in beijing,china,i have gone to their store to buy 50 Apple iPhone 5s, Space Gray 16GB (Unlocked) Samsung Galaxy Note II N7100 Factory Unlocked International Version for my friend who live in Altamonte springs,CA,USA.The phones are original and brand new and works well.We are very satisfied with the deal.
Sincerely,
Sabina Morgan
In overall mobile phone market share I believe Motorola held the number two spot by quite a large percentage over Samsung, whose market share was falling, with Nokia #1 of course. In the smartphone category Samsung had an even worse showing, lumped into the "others" category". If you have something that disagrees and shows Samsung as more successful than any manufacturer other than Nokia at the time I wouldn't mind seeing it tho.
http://www.canalys.com/newsroom/64-million-smart-phones-shipped-worldwide-2006
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/501734
Even as late as 2008 Samsung's smartphone sales were essentially non-existent.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/08/02/05/iphones_share_of_us_smartphone_market_rises_to_28_percent.html
Notice I stated handset vendor, not smartphone vendor.
http://edablog.com/2008/02/21/nokia-strategy-analytics/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/13/samsung-passes-motorola-takes-number-two-market-share-spot/
I was slightly out on the US, that didn't happen until 2008
http://www.symbian-freak.com/news/008/11/samsung_became_the_number_one_handset_vendor_in_us.htm
Samsung's transition mirrors the general market move towards smartphones becoming a larger proportion of handsets sold.
Their rise to number one occurred pre-Android.
Yup, I did notice which is why I linked the market data for overall mobile phone sales before the iPhone's introduction which is what your original claim pertained to. I also added another link for smartphone specific share as simply a point of interest. Your linked source is noting market share after the iPhone was introduced which you didn't mention in the first post. Thanks for that data too tho.
BTW did you notice how Samsung unseated Motorola for first place in the US at the end of 2008? The same way they've unseated every other smartphone vendor now including Apple.
"...a broad device portfolio across multiple carriers, technologies and segments.... from high-end products such as the touch-screen Instinct to lower-end phones given free to customers who sign up with a particular carrier"
As DED would say, we've seen all this before.
And what does that have to do with Apple's reasons for making a larger iPhone? No one has yet explained how, in 2012 and 2013 Apple couldn't build a larger screen iPhone, but in 2014 they can. I'm not arguing for or against it - I'm quite happy with my 5S but also think it makes sense for Apple to offer multiple screen sizes like they do with iPads and Macs. I'm just interested to see how Apple announces this bigger phone to the world. Will there be something about this bigger phone that is so much better than the competition that it won't look like Apple is playing catch-up? I hope so. I'd love it if 2014 was 2007 all over again.
Actually, just back in comment #197 of this comment thread I did exactly that (explained why, in 2012 or 2013, apple might not have felt ready to build a larger screen iPhone, but in 2014, with their sapphire deal, they are now ready. Here's that post again so you won't have to scroll back to it:
#197: Actually, a spreadsheet and some basic math skills can yield remarkable insights. For example, the current iPhone is 2.31" wide, but the display is 1.94" wide. If Apple were to extend the screen to the edges, using software numbing to ignore touch input at the edges, thus creating a virtual bezel (easily accomplished) and maintaining the display's current 16:9 aspect ratio, the screen could grow to 4.3" diagonal measurement without increasing the width of the handset. The top bezel could be shrunk to accommodate the greater height of this 4.3" display (perhaps this is why Apple moved the headset jack to the bottom back with the iPhone 5 in anticipation of decreasing the top bezel). With these changes you could have a 4.3" display in a handset the exact same dimensions as the iPhone 5 series handsets.
What's more, going side edge to side edge with a 4.85" 16:9 display would require Apple to widen the handset less than 1/5th of an inch. This iPhone would be slightly taller too, but at only about 1/5th inch wider it would still easily qualify for one handed use. So perhaps there is a reason Apple has waited; they didn't want to compromise on an edge to edge display being covered by gorilla glass, which falls at about a 6.5 on the MOHs hardness scale, versus 9 on that same scale for sapphire (diamond, by comparison, is a 10, the hardest substance known).
And they don't necessarily have to literally go edge-to-edge. They could just use IGZO or some other new technology to get closer to the edge which will negate some of the width that is gained from the increased display width.
Increased height really isn't an issue and if it was they have enough room to play negate that by 100%.
Technological advances and little to no compromises.
I just watched the movie Preditor and toward the end, Preditor uses Slide to Unlock feature on his wrist based computer. That is 20 years before Steve Jobs "invented" it.
I read Homer's Icarus and Daedalus, the Wright Brothers were a couple of thousand years too late.
A fictional representation is not a working implementation although it can provide inspiration.
1) What [@]hill60[/@] said.
2) Where does Preditor[sic] slide to unlock the device. Looks like he touches it and it pops open. If you really want to show something actually sliding to actually unlock a physical device then you missed the obvious one.
I just watched the movie Preditor and toward the end, Preditor uses Slide to Unlock feature on his wrist based computer. That is 20 years before Steve Jobs "invented" it.
You realize that means, nothing, right?
Also, if you have an issue with the slide-to-unlock patent, then take it up with the USTPO. The fact is, the only thing that matters in this case is that Apple holds a patent on this, and Samsung copied it. That part is indisputable. Now, the issue is what are the damages? That's the question being determined (among others, as slide-to-unlock is not the only patent at issue here).
%u201CYears of research and development%u201C...seriously? So Apple didn't copy %u201CSlide-to-Unlock%u201C from - let's say - Win CE? Seriously?
%u201CYears of research and development%u201C...seriously? So Apple didn't copy %u201CSlide-to-Unlock%u201C from - let's say - Win CE? Seriously?
A good patent gives the world something it truly didn't have before, whereas a bad patent tries to take away something the world already had.
Only because it is possible in a deranged world to patent ideas others came up with before you, that doesen't mean it's morally right to do so...