No, this is not about defending Samsung. It's just logic. How could Apple claim billions in lost sales if Samsung's Tab sold so poorly? Money doesn't just disappear into thin air. It has to end up in someone's hands. If not Samsung's, then whose?
When the story was first reported a couple years ago Samsung executive Lee Young-hee clarified "those figures (2M in unit sales) don’t represent actual sales to consumers. Instead, they are the number of Galaxy Tab devices that Samsung has shipped to wireless companies and retailers around the world since product’s formal introduction in late September" according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.
Your regular pro-Androidnot-anti-Google-enough-for-you, pro-Samsung, :rolleyes: , anti-Apple :rolleyes: posts in a pro-Apple forum are not worth much more than one line by way of response.
Here's a bonus second line: see above for my 'opinion.' 8-)
You obviously don't read what I actually post then.
No, this is not about defending Samsung. It's just logic. How could Apple claim billions in lost sales if Samsung's Tab sold so poorly? Money doesn't just disappear into thin air. It has to end up in someone's hands. If not Samsung's, then whose?
Um... You do know that this lawsuit is more than just about tablets, right? Did you read Hauser's testimony? Any clue what device it dealt with? :rolleyes:
I'm not aware of anyone ever claiming even Samsung's entire lineup of tablets outsold any single iPad model. In addition if consumers weren't buying an iPad it wouldn't appear to be that they were buying a Samsung Tab instead. This report doesn't in any way help show Samsung stealing significant sales from Apple.
I did not say, "outsold".
Quote: From this article
Over the past three years, IDC, Gartner and Strategy Analytics have generated data on the global tablet market which specifically conveys the idea that Apple's iPad business has been dropping into minority market share while Samsung and other Android tablet makers have been shipping astronomical millions of units.
You make some fair points. However, I have to ask one question. If Samsung are doing SO well and outselling iPhones like they claim, why on earth are they so scared to release actual sales numbers for the world to see? This post by DED is a classic example of why they don't. They're simply a bunch of liars. This is a case of fake it, before you make it.
The estimates are that Samsung sold 82 million smartphones last quarter. It's gotta be somewhere in the ballpark.
But Samsung doesn't tell us which models those actually were.
All that anyone ever talks about are their flagship phones... Galaxy S, Galaxy Note, etc. And with good reason... those are nice phones that get a lot of attention. Those models are the face of the company. The image of Samsung. Their halo products.
But if I was to guess... I'd say that the bulk of their sales are actually made up of their much cheaper models... Galaxy Y, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Duo, etc.... sold in places like China and India.
There's certainly nothing wrong with that.... but it's just not sexy to promote that fact.
Samsung stopped reporting actual numbers about 4 years ago for probably that reason. Now they only talk about certain milestones like this:
200 million Galaxy S since 2010
That makes for a nice headline... a big number... but there's not much of a story after that. So how many non-Galaxy S smartphones have they sold since 2010? That would be an even bigger number! But it's not sexy to talk about non-flagships.
Apple doesn't break down their numbers either. But all estimates are that Apple's sales are something like this:
85% - current model
10% - 2nd tier model
5% - 3rd tier model
In Apple's case... the newest and most expensive iPhone makes up an overwhelming majority of their smartphone sales. Sure... we don't have any hard proof of that.... but let's be real. Do we really think the 5C is outselling the 5S? Or that the 4S sold anywhere close to the 5 in its day? Hell no.
You'd think if Samsung was actually selling 30-40 million of their newest flagship phone every quarter... that they'd be shouting from the rooftops. Instead... they simply add up the cumulative sales of ALL the Galaxy S models for the last 4 years and print a headline.
Maybe Honda should add up all the sales of the Honda Accord since 1976. That would be a huge number
Um... You do know that this lawsuit is more than just about tablets, right? Did you read Hauser's testimony? Any clue what device it dealt with? :rolleyes:
The Tab was the one of the primary subjects of the first lawsuit. I was referring to the damages assessed for the first lawsuit.
NEWS FLASH! The first lawsuit is over. You guys Samsung lost. TWICE. Get over it.
One big difference that's immediately obvious: Samsung wants it noted when Apple advised them that they were infringing on the pertinent Apple patent. Another major one is they want the jury's opinion on whether Apple has proved that accused components used in Samsung devices were inherently infringing and if not whether it was clear that supplying them for a finished Samsung device would have led to infringement. (Item 5&6 on Apple's form and 3, 8 and 13 on Samsung's)
Sammy also want a question answered by the jury on the OS itself.
NEWS FLASH! The first lawsuit is over. You guys Samsung lost. TWICE. Get over it.
The point still stands. Where did the money from the lost Apple sales claimed in that trial go? Was Samsung wildly profitable with garbage-bin devices like the Galaxy Ace?
If Sammy wasn't selling those Tabs they certainly wouldn't have been taking sales away from Apple. It does seem to be a very odd piece of evidence if it was Apple that wanted it entered.
It will be interesting to watch where they go with it, and all the opportunities for counterarguments it begs for. Samsung tablets stunk in 2011. These were pre Ice Cream Sandwich and had few apps- and they sold commensurate with their crappiness. Not many sales at all. Hardware-wise these were as 'iPad' clone as it gets.
The landscape is quite different in 2013, so what has changed? The design/shape of the tablet hasn't changed all that much, and if anything it is less like the iPad, so what's the real driver of their success? The software and ecosystem....? Samsung: "Hey Apple, go sue Google. Good luck with that."
The article doesn't say who is presenting the evidence, Apple or Samsung. Apple, however, can use the information to show Samsung was copying Apple because it was desperate for sales.
Except that is this trial is software patents that were on Samsung tablets from the very beginning not added because sales were slow.
It's going to be difficult for Apple to prove lost sales especially since Samsung sold so little.
The point still stands. Where did the money from the lost Apple sales claimed in that trial go? Was Samsung wildly profitable with garbage-bin devices like the Galaxy Ace?
What point? Unless you're claiming that the judge and the jury in the previous TWO trials (both of which Samsung lost) didn't take into account the actual numbers, AND unless you have a calculation that suggests a different number? If you do, please share. Otherwise, please stop the lazy insinuations -- a la Gatorguy -- and move along?
What point? Unless you're claiming that the judge and the jury in the previous TWO trials (both of which Samsung lost) didn't take into account the actual numbers, AND unless you have a calculation that suggests a different number? If you do, please share. Otherwise, please stop the lazy insinuations -- a la Gatorguy -- and move along?
The Galaxy Tab was accused of copying the literal look and feel of Apple's devices, not just some underlying software functions. If the Tab was not able to steal Apple's customers even with that level of copying, then doesn't that undermine the credibility of the damage estimates from either that trial or this one?
The Galaxy Tab was accused of copying the literal look and feel of Apple's devices, not just some underlying software functions. If the Tab was not able to steal Apple's customers even with that level of copying, then doesn't that undermine the credibility of the damage estimates from either that trial or this one?
This documentation illustrates the initial conditions under which, I'm betting, Apple will now go on to show how Samsung then scrambled to copy elements of iOS in an effort to close the gap with the iPad. Patience, patience. We'll get to that point soon enough.
The copied elements of iOS disputed in this trial were there from the very beginning. If anything, Android has only gotten less similar from iOS since the first trial. They replaced the bouncy scrolling with their own overscroll animation, they replaced the iOS style sliding bar with their own implementation of slide-to-unlock, etc.
Comments
Ah, I see the Androidefender is back again....
No, this is not about defending Samsung. It's just logic. How could Apple claim billions in lost sales if Samsung's Tab sold so poorly? Money doesn't just disappear into thin air. It has to end up in someone's hands. If not Samsung's, then whose?
No great 'meme' there. Just actual facts.
The two can be reconciled only with channel inventory data. Apple is the only company to provide that. Don't you wonder why....
You obviously don't read what I actually post then.
Um... You do know that this lawsuit is more than just about tablets, right? Did you read Hauser's testimony? Any clue what device it dealt with? :rolleyes:
I'm not aware of anyone ever claiming even Samsung's entire lineup of tablets outsold any single iPad model. In addition if consumers weren't buying an iPad it wouldn't appear to be that they were buying a Samsung Tab instead. This report doesn't in any way help show Samsung stealing significant sales from Apple.
I did not say, "outsold".
Remember, Perception is Reality!
The estimates are that Samsung sold 82 million smartphones last quarter. It's gotta be somewhere in the ballpark.
But Samsung doesn't tell us which models those actually were.
All that anyone ever talks about are their flagship phones... Galaxy S, Galaxy Note, etc. And with good reason... those are nice phones that get a lot of attention. Those models are the face of the company. The image of Samsung. Their halo products.
But if I was to guess... I'd say that the bulk of their sales are actually made up of their much cheaper models... Galaxy Y, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Duo, etc.... sold in places like China and India.
There's certainly nothing wrong with that.... but it's just not sexy to promote that fact.
Samsung stopped reporting actual numbers about 4 years ago for probably that reason. Now they only talk about certain milestones like this:
That makes for a nice headline... a big number... but there's not much of a story after that. So how many non-Galaxy S smartphones have they sold since 2010? That would be an even bigger number! But it's not sexy to talk about non-flagships.
Apple doesn't break down their numbers either. But all estimates are that Apple's sales are something like this:
85% - current model
10% - 2nd tier model
5% - 3rd tier model
In Apple's case... the newest and most expensive iPhone makes up an overwhelming majority of their smartphone sales. Sure... we don't have any hard proof of that.... but let's be real. Do we really think the 5C is outselling the 5S? Or that the 4S sold anywhere close to the 5 in its day? Hell no.
You'd think if Samsung was actually selling 30-40 million of their newest flagship phone every quarter... that they'd be shouting from the rooftops. Instead... they simply add up the cumulative sales of ALL the Galaxy S models for the last 4 years and print a headline.
Maybe Honda should add up all the sales of the Honda Accord since 1976. That would be a huge number
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217312959/Apple-s-proposed-verdict-form
Um... You do know that this lawsuit is more than just about tablets, right? Did you read Hauser's testimony? Any clue what device it dealt with?
The Tab was the one of the primary subjects of the first lawsuit. I was referring to the damages assessed for the first lawsuit.
Fair enough. Perception doesn't pay as much tho.
NEWS FLASH! The first lawsuit is over.
You guysSamsung lost. TWICE. Get over it.http://www.scribd.com/doc/217313220/Samsung-s-Proposed-Verdict-Form
One big difference that's immediately obvious: Samsung wants it noted when Apple advised them that they were infringing on the pertinent Apple patent. Another major one is they want the jury's opinion on whether Apple has proved that accused components used in Samsung devices were inherently infringing and if not whether it was clear that supplying them for a finished Samsung device would have led to infringement. (Item 5&6 on Apple's form and 3, 8 and 13 on Samsung's)
Sammy also want a question answered by the jury on the OS itself.
NEWS FLASH! The first lawsuit is over. You guys Samsung lost. TWICE. Get over it.
The point still stands. Where did the money from the lost Apple sales claimed in that trial go? Was Samsung wildly profitable with garbage-bin devices like the Galaxy Ace?
If Sammy wasn't selling those Tabs they certainly wouldn't have been taking sales away from Apple.
It will be interesting to watch where they go with it, and all the opportunities for counterarguments it begs for. Samsung tablets stunk in 2011. These were pre Ice Cream Sandwich and had few apps- and they sold commensurate with their crappiness. Not many sales at all. Hardware-wise these were as 'iPad' clone as it gets.
The landscape is quite different in 2013, so what has changed? The design/shape of the tablet hasn't changed all that much, and if anything it is less like the iPad, so what's the real driver of their success? The software and ecosystem....? Samsung: "Hey Apple, go sue Google. Good luck with that."
Except that is this trial is software patents that were on Samsung tablets from the very beginning not added because sales were slow.
It's going to be difficult for Apple to prove lost sales especially since Samsung sold so little.
What point? Unless you're claiming that the judge and the jury in the previous TWO trials (both of which Samsung lost) didn't take into account the actual numbers, AND unless you have a calculation that suggests a different number? If you do, please share. Otherwise, please stop the lazy insinuations -- a la Gatorguy -- and move along?
...anonymouse
Do you have a different number? Or just your lazy insinuations?
What point? Unless you're claiming that the judge and the jury in the previous TWO trials (both of which Samsung lost) didn't take into account the actual numbers, AND unless you have a calculation that suggests a different number? If you do, please share. Otherwise, please stop the lazy insinuations -- a la Gatorguy -- and move along?
The Galaxy Tab was accused of copying the literal look and feel of Apple's devices, not just some underlying software functions. If the Tab was not able to steal Apple's customers even with that level of copying, then doesn't that undermine the credibility of the damage estimates from either that trial or this one?
No.
This documentation illustrates the initial conditions under which, I'm betting, Apple will now go on to show how Samsung then scrambled to copy elements of iOS in an effort to close the gap with the iPad. Patience, patience. We'll get to that point soon enough.
The copied elements of iOS disputed in this trial were there from the very beginning. If anything, Android has only gotten less similar from iOS since the first trial. They replaced the bouncy scrolling with their own overscroll animation, they replaced the iOS style sliding bar with their own implementation of slide-to-unlock, etc.