I don't remember what your thoughts were on Mueller. Objective? Biased? Shill? Clue me in. Perhaps you've been with me all along seeing him as shilling for both stated and unstated clients for the past few years?
That's not an assumption Apple has the luxury to make. Who can say without uncertainty that those who get a low end Samsung won't in the future get a high end Samsung?
I can.
With few exceptions, people tend to remain at the same economic level for most, if not all, of their lives. People buy things that they can afford and that they are used to. Someone doesn't buy a Chevy then replace it with a $120k Mercedes. People don't buy a Timex then replace it with a Rolex (well, a real one, anyways).
With few exceptions, people tend to remain at the same economic level for most, if not all, of their lives. People buy things that they can afford and that they are used to. Someone doesn't buy a Chevy then replace it with a $120k Mercedes. People don't buy a Timex then replace it with a Rolex (well, a real one, anyways).
So you're making the same money you did at 18 yrs old, 25 yrs old? How many companies made assumptions that their customers wouldn't switch to the iPhone? Where are those companies now?
You can buy phone of the contract which saves you pennies upfront
People buy reconditioned
Some people by secondhand
And everybody likes a little bit of luxury sometimes
Even some people overstretch themselves I'm working class so when I buy Apple products I have two type my belt and make sacrifices even doing a little bit of overtime
The only reason I have Apple shares because I had a near fatal accident which I got a payout .
I don't remember what your thoughts were on Mueller. Objective? Biased? Shill? Clue me in. Perhaps you've been with me all along seeing him as shilling for both stated and unstated clients for the past few years?
I have no view on Mueller, other than that he seems to be one of the smarter commentators out there on the topic of patents/IP, and is highly evidence-based in his assessments. Doesn't just pull stuff off the net....
That's not an assumption Apple has the luxury to make. Who can say without uncertainty that those who get a low end Samsung won't in the future get a high end Samsung?
I can.
With few exceptions, people tend to remain at the same economic level for most, if not all, of their lives. People buy things that they can afford and that they are used to. Someone doesn't buy a Chevy then replace it with a $120k Mercedes. People don't buy a Timex then replace it with a Rolex (well, a real one, anyways).
It also depends on what's important to you. I'm lower-middle class (to be charitable). I don't mind living in a small apartment. My car is a rusty piece of junk that will probably get me to the grocery store every week or two for years to come, but I use public transit for everything else.
On the other hand, I have a kick-ass stereo system that I wouldn't give up for any amount of money, since 128,000 bps noise has replaced CD-quality and 9% THD+noise is the new normal hardware-wise. I know undeniably rich people whose only stereo system is some $100 "portable" unit stuck in a corner of the living room.
I have a TV that most people would assume belonged to someone several economic notches above me. Same for my MBP. OTOH, my cell phone and carrier plan is the absolute cheapest I can get, and it wouldn't take much of a change in my family or work situation for me to take great pleasure in flushing it down the toilet. I hate being on call 24/7 and I hate, hate, HATE the way the business is organized.
My point is, different people have different priorities and spend their money in different ways. I'm frequently shamed for not buying a house (and being completely, dead-ass broke otherwise). It doesn't work on me. Just wasn't assimilated into baby-boomer culture the way I was supposed to be, I guess.
So basically smartphones before the iPhone looked like Blackberry's and after looked like the candy bar style phones we have today, plus the android app drawer screen is not the same as the home screen.
Don't get wrong, Samsung was obsessed with cloning the iPhone just like before it they were obsessed with cloning Blackberry. Samsung is the prime example of a fast follower and they mimic a lot of their competitors. Look at the vacuum cleaner that mirrors one from Dyson. Of course Dyson sued but then ended up withdrawing the suit. I'm not arguing whether Samsung copied or not, but whether all of this is worth it in the end for Apple. People here say Samsung needs to be publicly shamed. OK well Apple won the previous trial but I don't see where Samsung felt any shame or the public thinks of them in a more negative way. Do you have any links or examples of how this trial is really hurting Samsung?
You are basically "Concern Trolling" with little to support your POV.
For the record, Samsung absolutely needs to be concerned about the "fast followers" below it, the Chinese OEM's, as Samsung's profits are taking a hit from commoditization in the mid and low end of the market. These "fast followers" won't have any problem in copying Samsung, but they may think twice about copying Apple.
Meanwhile, Apple is preparing its own version of a phat phone that will certainly regain more of the premium market, the only part of the market that it participates in.
Wanna bet that Apple's big phone will take some of the wind out of Samsung?
So you're making the same money you did at 18 yrs old, 25 yrs old? How many companies made assumptions that their customers wouldn't switch to the iPhone? Where are those companies now?
Actually, I was making significantly more money when I was 25. But there are numerous studies that show that economic movement has come to a screeching halt in the US.
And the reason I didn't have a phone like the iPhone before it came out is because nothing like it existed before it came out.
The fact is, if someone bought a cheap phone, they did that because having a flagship phone wasn't important, and/or they couldn't afford it. That's unlikely to have changed in the meantime.
Totally irrelevant. These sorts of "surveys" remind me of Cinemascore. And none of this has any real effect on anything. Real world effect equals zero.
Can't say I really disagree. Forrester Research, the chart provider, is often cited here at AI s proof of Apple's success or AI editor claims and no assurance they were any more or less accurate in those cases either. A lot of these "research" companies get cited as support for whatever point someone may be making at the moment and ignored when they don't. Whether a particular one should be believed may be more dependent on whether it supports a preconceived notion as much as anything else.
I have no view on Mueller, other than that he seems to be one of the smarter commentators out there on the topic of patents/IP, and is highly evidence-based in his assessments. Doesn't just pull stuff off the net....
So reading between the lines you consider him an excellent fact-based source of opinion on patent issues, not appearing to be slanted towards any particular manufacturer or contractor of his services. What do you suspect was his epiphany with regard to Apple and their courtroom efforts? He's certainly done a 180 in the past few days. Do you agree with his most recent evidence-based articles that generally paint Apple to be at fault in their latest patent lawsuit against Samsung, tilting at windmills so to speak?
So reading between the lines you consider him an excellent fact-based source of opinion on patent issues, not appearing to be slanted towards any particular manufacturer or contractor of his services. What do you suspect was his epiphany with regard to Apple and their courtroom efforts? He's certainly done a 180 in the past few days. Do you agree with his most recent evidence-based articles that generally paint Apple to be at fault in their latest patent lawsuit against Samsung, tilting at windmills so to speak?
I am afraid I have absolutely no clue what you're saying or the conspiracy theories you're implying.
As usual, your sole purpose in this thread is defending Samsung or Google or Android.
I know that some like to engage you, but I am going on to other things......
You are basically "Concern Trolling" with little to support your POV.
For the record, Samsung absolutely needs to be concerned about the "fast followers" below it, the Chinese OEM's, as Samsung's profits are taking a hit from commoditization in the mid and low end of the market. These "fast followers" won't have any problem in copying Samsung, but they may think twice about copying Apple.
Meanwhile, Apple is preparing its own version of a phat phone that will certainly regain more of the premium market, the only part of the market that it participates in.
Wanna bet that Apple's big phone will take some of the wind out of Samsung?
Call it concern trolling if you want. I don't give a crap. And if you think a larger screen iPhone will take the wind out of Samsung, why did it take Apple this long to build one? Why did Apple allow Samsung to get as big as it is in the mobile phone market?
Daniel, you’re preaching to the choir here. We know Samsung copied the iPhone and iOS. We know Google dropped its phone designs the day the iPhone was released. You won’t convince the iHaters and AI resident trolls. They have an explanation for everything. The only thing that matters is convincing the jury. And even with a conviction it will be years or maybe never that Apple collects a dime from Samsung. I wish Apple would just get to the point and go after Google itself. But with Samsung hedging its bets with Tizen, Amazon forking Android to unrecognizable dimensions, and Microsoft gunning for Android too, I’m wondering if Apple really needs to do anything. If I were an Android fanatic sycophant I’d be worried what the future holds.
That's not what Wikipedia is gonna say when this is all over.
It's pretty clear that there were many slide-to-unlock options, Samsung chose to ignore them and instead implemented something that Apple had patented... What was that infingement worth? Hard to know...
One can reasonably argue if the USPTO should or should not issue patents for things like slide-to-unlock, but once they do, competitors are obligated to 1. implement another option or 2. negotiate a license fee paid to the patent holder... Samsung did neither...
A second page "efficiency - sweeping unlock," observed that Samsung's Kepler was "hard to unlock because the touch length for unlock is long," and "users complain of inconvenience as the length of motion seems long even for the hand sizes of Americans."
LOL. Sounds like Samsung gave up on "hand size" considerations a while back.
I know this is AI, I'm just playing devil's advocate here: Sure, Samsung does all these market research and found out that Apple's UI is more intuitive than theirs. Maybe Apple should just accept it as part of being popular and successful. I mean, Chicken McNuggets was so popular that every fast food chain has a chicken nugget on the menu. I'm sure that McDonald's even sued a few of its competitors for it, but eventually, everyone has a chicken nugget item on the menu and McDonald's had to accept it.
The difference is that McDonalds has Trademarked Chicken McNuggets. It has nothing to do with others selling chicken bites. Wendy's for example calls theres Chicken Nuggets. If they used Chicken McNuggets they would be sued.
I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
I whole heartedly disagree with you. It is not just one UI element that draws people to a mobile device, but a host of them Slide to unlock is just one of hundreds literally. If you just take one thing by itself and say that is not worthy for me to make my purchase that is just silly. It is the way iOS does things as a whole as a collection of UI ideas that make people want an iPhone.
Older Samsung models. Newer methods used by Samsung likely don't infringe.
But doesn't every device named in the current lawsuit (GNexus, GS3, etc) use these "newer methods"? Every one of them was released post-Ice Cream Sandwich, which implemented slide-to-unlock using the circle method.
Call it concern trolling if you want. I don't give a crap. And if you think a larger screen iPhone will take the wind out of Samsung, why did it take Apple this long to build one? Why did Apple allow Samsung to get as big as it is in the mobile phone market?
As to why Apple hasn't built a phat phone to date, Tim Cook has already spelled it out; the answer in in the public domain. As to why Apple "allowed" Samsung to get as big in the market?
That's easy:
Apple is in it for the profits, of which it has captured 2/3 of in the market since the iPhone was announced. Samsung almost caught Apple last quarter but missed, and that was after massive unit sales of low and mid range phones, and some ten billion plus dollars in marketing. Think they can sustain that?
I don't, and based on their guidance, they don't either.
Comments
I don't remember what your thoughts were on Mueller. Objective? Biased? Shill? Clue me in. Perhaps you've been with me all along seeing him as shilling for both stated and unstated clients for the past few years?
That's not an assumption Apple has the luxury to make. Who can say without uncertainty that those who get a low end Samsung won't in the future get a high end Samsung?
I can.
With few exceptions, people tend to remain at the same economic level for most, if not all, of their lives. People buy things that they can afford and that they are used to. Someone doesn't buy a Chevy then replace it with a $120k Mercedes. People don't buy a Timex then replace it with a Rolex (well, a real one, anyways).
So you're making the same money you did at 18 yrs old, 25 yrs old? How many companies made assumptions that their customers wouldn't switch to the iPhone? Where are those companies now?
People buy reconditioned
Some people by secondhand
And everybody likes a little bit of luxury sometimes
Even some people overstretch themselves
I'm working class so when I buy Apple products I have two type my belt and make sacrifices even doing a little bit of overtime
The only reason I have Apple shares because I had a near fatal accident which I got a payout .
Um... I see ONE AI commenter raising a question.
Did I somehow miss all the others?
I don't remember what your thoughts were on Mueller. Objective? Biased? Shill? Clue me in. Perhaps you've been with me all along seeing him as shilling for both stated and unstated clients for the past few years?
I have no view on Mueller, other than that he seems to be one of the smarter commentators out there on the topic of patents/IP, and is highly evidence-based in his assessments. Doesn't just pull stuff off the net....
It also depends on what's important to you. I'm lower-middle class (to be charitable). I don't mind living in a small apartment. My car is a rusty piece of junk that will probably get me to the grocery store every week or two for years to come, but I use public transit for everything else.
On the other hand, I have a kick-ass stereo system that I wouldn't give up for any amount of money, since 128,000 bps noise has replaced CD-quality and 9% THD+noise is the new normal hardware-wise. I know undeniably rich people whose only stereo system is some $100 "portable" unit stuck in a corner of the living room.
I have a TV that most people would assume belonged to someone several economic notches above me. Same for my MBP. OTOH, my cell phone and carrier plan is the absolute cheapest I can get, and it wouldn't take much of a change in my family or work situation for me to take great pleasure in flushing it down the toilet. I hate being on call 24/7 and I hate, hate, HATE the way the business is organized.
My point is, different people have different priorities and spend their money in different ways. I'm frequently shamed for not buying a house (and being completely, dead-ass broke otherwise). It doesn't work on me. Just wasn't assimilated into baby-boomer culture the way I was supposed to be, I guess.
So basically smartphones before the iPhone looked like Blackberry's and after looked like the candy bar style phones we have today, plus the android app drawer screen is not the same as the home screen.
Don't get wrong, Samsung was obsessed with cloning the iPhone just like before it they were obsessed with cloning Blackberry. Samsung is the prime example of a fast follower and they mimic a lot of their competitors. Look at the vacuum cleaner that mirrors one from Dyson. Of course Dyson sued but then ended up withdrawing the suit. I'm not arguing whether Samsung copied or not, but whether all of this is worth it in the end for Apple. People here say Samsung needs to be publicly shamed. OK well Apple won the previous trial but I don't see where Samsung felt any shame or the public thinks of them in a more negative way. Do you have any links or examples of how this trial is really hurting Samsung?
You are basically "Concern Trolling" with little to support your POV.
For the record, Samsung absolutely needs to be concerned about the "fast followers" below it, the Chinese OEM's, as Samsung's profits are taking a hit from commoditization in the mid and low end of the market. These "fast followers" won't have any problem in copying Samsung, but they may think twice about copying Apple.
Meanwhile, Apple is preparing its own version of a phat phone that will certainly regain more of the premium market, the only part of the market that it participates in.
Wanna bet that Apple's big phone will take some of the wind out of Samsung?
So you're making the same money you did at 18 yrs old, 25 yrs old? How many companies made assumptions that their customers wouldn't switch to the iPhone? Where are those companies now?
Actually, I was making significantly more money when I was 25. But there are numerous studies that show that economic movement has come to a screeching halt in the US.
And the reason I didn't have a phone like the iPhone before it came out is because nothing like it existed before it came out.
The fact is, if someone bought a cheap phone, they did that because having a flagship phone wasn't important, and/or they couldn't afford it. That's unlikely to have changed in the meantime.
Can't say I really disagree. Forrester Research, the chart provider, is often cited here at AI s proof of Apple's success or AI editor claims and no assurance they were any more or less accurate in those cases either. A lot of these "research" companies get cited as support for whatever point someone may be making at the moment and ignored when they don't. Whether a particular one should be believed may be more dependent on whether it supports a preconceived notion as much as anything else.
So reading between the lines you consider him an excellent fact-based source of opinion on patent issues, not appearing to be slanted towards any particular manufacturer or contractor of his services. What do you suspect was his epiphany with regard to Apple and their courtroom efforts? He's certainly done a 180 in the past few days. Do you agree with his most recent evidence-based articles that generally paint Apple to be at fault in their latest patent lawsuit against Samsung, tilting at windmills so to speak?
I am afraid I have absolutely no clue what you're saying or the conspiracy theories you're implying.
As usual, your sole purpose in this thread is defending Samsung or Google or Android.
I know that some like to engage you, but I am going on to other things......
Daniel, you’re preaching to the choir here. We know Samsung copied the iPhone and iOS. We know Google dropped its phone designs the day the iPhone was released. You won’t convince the iHaters and AI resident trolls. They have an explanation for everything. The only thing that matters is convincing the jury. And even with a conviction it will be years or maybe never that Apple collects a dime from Samsung. I wish Apple would just get to the point and go after Google itself. But with Samsung hedging its bets with Tizen, Amazon forking Android to unrecognizable dimensions, and Microsoft gunning for Android too, I’m wondering if Apple really needs to do anything. If I were an Android fanatic sycophant I’d be worried what the future holds.
That's not what Wikipedia is gonna say when this is all over.
It's pretty clear that there were many slide-to-unlock options, Samsung chose to ignore them and instead implemented something that Apple had patented... What was that infingement worth? Hard to know...
One can reasonably argue if the USPTO should or should not issue patents for things like slide-to-unlock, but once they do, competitors are obligated to 1. implement another option or 2. negotiate a license fee paid to the patent holder... Samsung did neither...
A second page "efficiency - sweeping unlock," observed that Samsung's Kepler was "hard to unlock because the touch length for unlock is long," and "users complain of inconvenience as the length of motion seems long even for the hand sizes of Americans."
LOL. Sounds like Samsung gave up on "hand size" considerations a while back.
I can't wait for the court battle over the innovative android windowshade vs. apples borrowed notification center.
Your anti-Apple fantasies amuse me. Keep posting them.
Just a clarification: I'm a she, not a he.
Congrats! (The operation was a success, then?
)
I know this is AI, I'm just playing devil's advocate here: Sure, Samsung does all these market research and found out that Apple's UI is more intuitive than theirs. Maybe Apple should just accept it as part of being popular and successful. I mean, Chicken McNuggets was so popular that every fast food chain has a chicken nugget on the menu. I'm sure that McDonald's even sued a few of its competitors for it, but eventually, everyone has a chicken nugget item on the menu and McDonald's had to accept it.
The difference is that McDonalds has Trademarked Chicken McNuggets. It has nothing to do with others selling chicken bites. Wendy's for example calls theres Chicken Nuggets. If they used Chicken McNuggets they would be sued.
I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
I whole heartedly disagree with you. It is not just one UI element that draws people to a mobile device, but a host of them Slide to unlock is just one of hundreds literally. If you just take one thing by itself and say that is not worthy for me to make my purchase that is just silly. It is the way iOS does things as a whole as a collection of UI ideas that make people want an iPhone.
Older Samsung models. Newer methods used by Samsung likely don't infringe.
But doesn't every device named in the current lawsuit (GNexus, GS3, etc) use these "newer methods"? Every one of them was released post-Ice Cream Sandwich, which implemented slide-to-unlock using the circle method.
Call it concern trolling if you want. I don't give a crap. And if you think a larger screen iPhone will take the wind out of Samsung, why did it take Apple this long to build one? Why did Apple allow Samsung to get as big as it is in the mobile phone market?
As to why Apple hasn't built a phat phone to date, Tim Cook has already spelled it out; the answer in in the public domain. As to why Apple "allowed" Samsung to get as big in the market?
That's easy:
Apple is in it for the profits, of which it has captured 2/3 of in the market since the iPhone was announced. Samsung almost caught Apple last quarter but missed, and that was after massive unit sales of low and mid range phones, and some ten billion plus dollars in marketing. Think they can sustain that?
I don't, and based on their guidance, they don't either.