The causality goes the other way. By selling iPhone clones Samsung's brand increased in value. Without stealing pages from the Apple playbook, Samsung wouldn't have the cache it's starting to have.
But if you look at the numbers Samsung's fortunes didn't really take off until the S3, which went away from a iPhone clone design. One could argue that it got it's cachet is because they're different from Apple, not because they're similar.
The causality goes the other way. By selling iPhone clones Samsung's brand increased in value. Without stealing pages from the Apple playbook, Samsung wouldn't have the cache it's starting to have.
But if you look at the numbers Samsung's fortunes didn't really take off until the S3, which went away from a iPhone clone design. One could argue that it got it's cachet is because they're different from Apple, not because they're similar.
If you're clueless about Interbrand's methodology, best not to say much about it.
When did the One come out and when did the Sammy clone come out? If it's just branding, why did Sammy copy every almost everything about the iPhone. Why didnt Sammy just brand its pre-clone phone?
The HTC One came out in 2013, and the SGS 2 in 2011. I don't understand your branding question. All Samsung phones I've ever seen are branded including the SGS 2.
If you're clueless about Interbrand's methodology, best not to say much about it.
Lemme see, Samsung had a meteoric rise in 2012, the very same year they released the SGS 3, and the Note which went away from using the iPhone's design. Seems like it proves my point.
Lemme see, Samsung had a meteoric rise in 2012, the very same year they released the SGS 3, and the Note which went away from using the iPhone's design. Seems like it proves my point.
Ah, our two apologists are out in full force again, since the topic is Samsung/Android.
This thread is headed south....
I'm no Samsung apologist, and I honestly don't like them. They're getting exactly what they deserve. Now if you took logic in school than you know it doesn't change. If something works for one thing it works for the another. The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful? If you don't know the answer then say so, but don't resort childish name calling, because I know you're better than that.
My answer is effective marketing. Corrections would have you believe that spending money on marketing should automatically get one results, but all the money in the world can't help ineffective marketing.
I'm no Samsung apologist, and I honestly don't like them. They're getting exactly what they deserve. Now if you took logic in school than you know it doesn't change. If something works for one thing it works for the another. The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful? If you don't know the answer then say so, but don't resort childish name calling, because I know you're better than that.
Well, it's simple. Just because not everyone is successful at engaging in a particular act doesn't mean that engaging in that act can't lead to success. In other words, just because Samsung is better (and has way more money to market their products) at selling smartphones than HTC or Moto doesn't, in and of itself, somehow negate the argument that Apple is making.
Just because most strippers don't make much money doesn't mean that Julia Ann and Janine didn't make $35k a night as "Blondage" years ago.
The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful?
"violate the very same patents"
Stop already. Please show me where HTC, Motorola and all the others violated Apple's design patents the way Samsung did. Samsungs huge marketing budget PLUS making a phone that was a complete rip of the iPhone is what got the ball rolling for Samsung. And once rolling there was no turning back.
I'm no Samsung apologist, and I honestly don't like them. They're getting exactly what they deserve. Now if you took logic in school than you know it doesn't change. If something works for one thing it works for the another. The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful? If you don't know the answer then say so, but don't resort childish name calling, because I know you're better than that.
My answer is effective marketing. Corrections would have you believe that spending money on marketing should automatically get one results, but all the money in the world can't help ineffective marketing.
The design patents aren't at issue in this case.
Most of your pots have been irrelevant sidetracks.
This case is about Samsung's phones working the same as iPhones.
War, terrible war. Widows, orphans, a motherless child. This was the uprising that rocked our land. Thirteen districts rebelled against the country that fed them, loved them, protected them. Brother turned on brother until nothing remained. And then came the peace, hard fought, sorely won. A people rose up from the ashes and a new era was born. But freedom has a cost. When the traitors were defeated, we swore as a nation we would never know this treason again. And so it was decreed, that each year, the various districts of Panem would offer up in tribute, one young man and woman, to fight to the death in a pageant of honor, courage and sacrifice. The lone victor, bathed in riches, would serve as a reminder of our generosity and our forgiveness. This is how we remember our past. This is how we safeguard our future.
Stop already. Please show me where HTC, Motorola and all the others violated Apple's design patents the way Samsung did. Samsungs huge marketing budget PLUS making a phone that was a complete rip of the iPhone is what got the ball rolling for Samsung. And once rolling there was no turning back.
But this trial isn't about design patents is it? I thought that was the last trial (that Apple won).
Comments
But if you look at the numbers Samsung's fortunes didn't really take off until the S3, which went away from a iPhone clone design. One could argue that it got it's cachet is because they're different from Apple, not because they're similar.
I don't. My claim is that I don't think Samsung's argument is without merit. Can I assume you do?
The causality goes the other way. By selling iPhone clones Samsung's brand increased in value. Without stealing pages from the Apple playbook, Samsung wouldn't have the cache it's starting to have.
But if you look at the numbers Samsung's fortunes didn't really take off until the S3, which went away from a iPhone clone design. One could argue that it got it's cachet is because they're different from Apple, not because they're similar.
If you're clueless about Interbrand's methodology, best not to say much about it.
I've been saying that all along. It's Goo-thieving-bastards-gle that should be in the dock.
The HTC One came out in 2013, and the SGS 2 in 2011. I don't understand your branding question. All Samsung phones I've ever seen are branded including the SGS 2.
I don't. My claim is that I don't think Samsung's argument is without merit. Can I assume you do?
Anything could be with or without merit. That's an utterly vacuous statement.
What's your point, other than predictably showing up again to take the side of Samsung/Google/Android on AI?
(Despite what you claim, your posts speak louder than your claims about yourself).
What's worse ...? The thief or the receiver of stolen goods?
In 2012...
So why ....
So now icons ....
Many of which are also ....
But if you look at the numbers .....
I don't. My claim is that ....
The HTC One came .....
Ah, our two apologists are out in full force again, since the topic is Samsung/Android.
This thread is headed south....
What's worse ...? The thief or the receiver of stolen goods?
Heh.
Lemme see, Samsung had a meteoric rise in 2012, the very same year they released the SGS 3, and the Note which went away from using the iPhone's design. Seems like it proves my point.
Lemme see, Samsung had a meteoric rise in 2012, the very same year they released the SGS 3, and the Note which went away from using the iPhone's design. Seems like it proves my point.
Yeah, it sure does. Brilliant. Case closed.
I'm no Samsung apologist, and I honestly don't like them. They're getting exactly what they deserve. Now if you took logic in school than you know it doesn't change. If something works for one thing it works for the another. The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful? If you don't know the answer then say so, but don't resort childish name calling, because I know you're better than that.
My answer is effective marketing. Corrections would have you believe that spending money on marketing should automatically get one results, but all the money in the world can't help ineffective marketing.
Then if you don't disagree with what I wrote what was the point of your post??:no:
I'm no Samsung apologist, and I honestly don't like them. They're getting exactly what they deserve. Now if you took logic in school than you know it doesn't change. If something works for one thing it works for the another. The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful? If you don't know the answer then say so, but don't resort childish name calling, because I know you're better than that.
Well, it's simple. Just because not everyone is successful at engaging in a particular act doesn't mean that engaging in that act can't lead to success. In other words, just because Samsung is better (and has way more money to market their products) at selling smartphones than HTC or Moto doesn't, in and of itself, somehow negate the argument that Apple is making.
Just because most strippers don't make much money doesn't mean that Julia Ann and Janine didn't make $35k a night as "Blondage" years ago.
Lol. Do you seriously think I did not disagree?
As usual, it's totally pointless.... Carry on...
He should have responded Samsung would have nothing to market and brand if they had not stolen from Apple.
The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful?
"violate the very same patents"
Stop already. Please show me where HTC, Motorola and all the others violated Apple's design patents the way Samsung did. Samsungs huge marketing budget PLUS making a phone that was a complete rip of the iPhone is what got the ball rolling for Samsung. And once rolling there was no turning back.
The design patents aren't at issue in this case.
Most of your pots have been irrelevant sidetracks.
This case is about Samsung's phones working the same as iPhones.