I find his post funny because he took the time to use all caps, italicize, increase the font size, and change the color, yet with all that effort he could only think of calling [@]TeaEarleGreyHot[/@] an idiot.
Ah, more still of DED tilting at windmills and relying on old/irrelevant news. Such as the vast difference between Android in 2011/2012 and today.
And the bouncing that goes back and forth between:
1. Android is a stolen product that has cost Apple billions
2. Android is a failure that accounts for no sales other than cheap toys and "I have never seen Android tablets in the wild; they are always gathering dust and acting as doorstops in Costco/Best Buy or sold as cheap kids toys at Toys-R-US"
Here is some reality: actual Android tablet sales data based on app installations (which Android users do not buy).
Samsung is indeed a flop at 9%, meaning that their money from Android is basically coming from their (soon to be emulated by Apple) phablets.
Nexus is 8%, a bit below Samsung despite Google not putting anywhere near the marketing push behind their phones and tablets (yet, they will start in 2015) as they do other products like the Chromecast and Chromebooks (which incidentally are selling heavily).
But note that this study has a sample size of 500 million unique Android devices.
So does Googlesung pay more than the 20¢ per post that the Koch Brothers pay to troll liberal blogs? If not, 9633 posts in 37 months only comes to ~$52/month. Not much of a career.
Ah, so when you can't dispute the facts or find a flaw in the logic it's time for the trump card: Impune the character of the poster. So are congratulations in order for your timely investment in a time-honored playground tradition?
Apple wants Samsung to stop using its technologies and designs. The lawsuit is an attempt to stop Samsung, or at least attach a price to stealing so it will slow down or stop. Apple has to argue that it has lost profits and/or that Samsung should be dinged for profiting illegally from Apple’s work. That’s how the patent system and courts work.
Ah, so Apple doesn't really believe they're owed billions due to lost sales but they have to argue it that way because that's how patent trials work?
The suit is only partially about the Tab devices. There are more phones and the phones are doing more damage. I'm just glad we get to see Attorneys eyes only documents that show what a sham the tab numbers are in the analyst marketshare data. Now that this is out, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a class action lawsuit against Samsung for misleading investors.
I find his post funny because he took the time to use all caps, italicize, increase the font size, and change the color, yet with all that effort he could only think of calling [@]TeaEarleGreyHot[/@] an idiot.
Especially since @TeaEarleGreyHot was very respectful, and diplomatic is his/her post.
If this the truth, and Samsung fudged the figures to its shareholders, then there is greater at stake. Firstly the stockmarket would collapse the shares, indictments may commence against those who lied and manipulated the figures and shareholders generallly wont be too pleased so a general cleaning of house of upper management would occur. the company would be turned upside down and the stockmarket would take a while to trust the company again. This doesnt really seem to happening so the truth and veracity of all this of it may never be known.
We should expect to see a class action suit now that this is public since they mislead investors knowingly. They didn't lie which would be a bigger problem for them. They filled the channel and said by how much. That isn't illegal. Continuing to cite that number after you see your sells are a fraction of what you filled the channel with is a gray area, but it is misleading.
So if the tab range was a complete disaster and selling an embarrassing amount in the US then by showing it isn't Apple undermining their own argument on how it has lost billions in profit and irreparable harm?
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.
The article doesn't, but the images clearly show it was plaintiff's (Apple) exhibit.
More good stuff. Again, this does not rely on manufacturer sales figures but reputable information based on "what American businesses and institutions are buying through the commercial channel, which includes large distributors and resellers."
1. Apple iPad sales accounted for 59 percent of the volume in the tablet market. So why is not that news of Apple's great dominance being reported by DED or Apple Insider? Because:
2. Android tablet sales grew more than 160 percent.
3. More evidence that Chromebooks are taking off: they outsold Android tablets and had over half the sales of I-Pads.
Bottom line: regardless of what happens with Samsung, Android is a success, a maturing product with a growing market share, ever since the better OS versions and apps (basically Jelly Bean and onwards) came out. And ChromeOS cannot be understated either. (Gee, since Samsung's tablet sales stink anyway, they might as well put ChromeOS on tablets. Nothing is stopping them.)
I wonder how quickly Apple Insider pivots from going after Samsung to going after Amazon and Kindle. And from going after Android to going after ChromeOS (maybe when/if someone comes out with a ChromeOS smartphone, which the FireFox OS phones will make inevitable at some point)?
Ah, more still of DED tilting at windmills and relying on old/irrelevant news. Such as the vast difference between Android in 2011/2012 and today.
And the bouncing that goes back and forth between:
1. Android is a stolen product that has cost Apple billions
2. Android is a failure that accounts for no sales other than cheap toys and "I have never seen Android tablets in the wild; they are always gathering dust and acting as doorstops in Costco/Best Buy or sold as cheap kids toys at Toys-R-US"
Here is some reality: actual Android tablet sales data based on app installations (which Android users do not buy).
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/kindle-fire-nabs-33-of-android-tablet-market-nexus-7-just-8/
Kindle has 1/3 of the Android market in the U.S. With Fire TV, that will increase. Amazon is probably now the main Android player.
Nook is #2 at 10% of the market.
Samsung is indeed a flop at 9%, meaning that their money from Android is basically coming from their (soon to be emulated by Apple) phablets.
Nexus is 8%, a bit below Samsung despite Google not putting anywhere near the marketing push behind their phones and tablets (yet, they will start in 2015) as they do other products like the Chromecast and Chromebooks (which incidentally are selling heavily).
But note that this study has a sample size of 500 million unique Android devices.
500 mm Androids. 59% US. Kindle Fire has 33%. So you expect us to believe Amazon sold 98 MM units?
Oh btw, the report indicated 500 unique devices, not Android devices.
The suit is only partially about the Tab devices. There are more phones and the phones are doing more damage. I'm just glad we get to see Attorneys eyes only documents that show what a sham the tab numbers are in the analyst marketshare data. Now that this is out, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a class action lawsuit against Samsung for misleading investors.
Samsung marketed the S3 was by emphasizing how different it was from the iPhone, not by saying "look! we can do this too!" That was the first device where they genuinely tried to distinguish themselves from Apple, to the point that some observers remarked that it looked as though it were designed by lawyers. Remember this advert?
I didn't state that Galaxy S III had no other features (ignoring discussions on whether those worked at all). But GUI and interactions such as bounce-back, data detectors, etc were there. And that's what makes Apple's case.
I find his post funny because he took the time to use all caps, italicize, increase the font size, and change the color, yet with all that effort he could only think of calling [@]TeaEarleGreyHot[/@] an idiot.
More good stuff. Again, this does not rely on manufacturer sales figures but reputable information based on "what American businesses and institutions are buying through the commercial channel, which includes large distributors and resellers."
1. Apple iPad sales accounted for 59 percent of the volume in the tablet market. So why is not that news of Apple's great dominance being reported by DED or Apple Insider? Because:
2. Android tablet sales grew more than 160 percent.
3. More evidence that Chromebooks are taking off: they outsold Android tablets and had over half the sales of I-Pads.
Bottom line: regardless of what happens with Samsung, Android is a success, a maturing product with a growing market share, ever since the better OS versions and apps (basically Jelly Bean and onwards) came out. And ChromeOS cannot be understated either. (Gee, since Samsung's tablet sales stink anyway, they might as well put ChromeOS on tablets. Nothing is stopping them.)
I wonder how quickly Apple Insider pivots from going after Samsung to going after Amazon and Kindle. And from going after Android to going after ChromeOS (maybe when/if someone comes out with a ChromeOS smartphone, which the FireFox OS phones will make inevitable at some point)?
More channel stuffing. Come back with some usage information.
If this the truth, and Samsung fudged the figures to its shareholders, then there is greater at stake. Firstly the stockmarket would collapse the shares, indictments may commence against those who lied and manipulated the figures and shareholders generallly wont be too pleased so a general cleaning of house of upper management would occur. the company would be turned upside down and the stockmarket would take a while to trust the company again. This doesnt really seem to happening so the truth and veracity of all this of it may never be known.
I read a lot of posts regarding Samsung shareholders, and the stock market and investors, etc. For the record, Samsung is traded on the Korean stock exchange. They have no ADR in the US. US investors can only buy Samsung stock on the grey market which is probably a bad idea since there is no transparency, a lot of risk and the shares would be rather difficult to sell. Almost no one in the US holds any Samsung shares. And as far as being investigated, Samsung pretty much owns the Korean government so even if they were to be investigated nothing would ever become of it. Samsung stock is up around 25% over the past year so the Korean shareholders aren't really all that upset about anything.
1) This information begs the question: Why believe anything written by IDC, Gartner, Strategy Analytics, VentureBeat, Computerworld or Huffington Post about Apple? That's a shame because one would hope for legitimate, objective analysis from financial and technical sources. People make investment decisions based on these writers. And the world talks about Job's "Reality Distortion Field"!
2) What about the Samsung investors who were misled (outright lied to) about the success of the Samsung tablets? Sounds to me as if there may be grounds for an SEC investigation into market manipulation.
500 mm Androids. 59% US. Kindle Fire has 33%. So you expect us to believe Amazon sold 98 MM units?
Oh btw, the report indicated 500 unique devices, not Android devices.
Fair enough. My main point was that even if Samsung's tablets are flops, other quality Android tablets - Amazon's - are indeed selling. As a matter of fact, I will even say that Nexus almost selling as much as Samsung (despite not really trying) is good for the platform.
Originally Posted by jungmark
More channel stuffing. Come back with some usage information.
The usage information was in my first link: Amazon tablet app installation. To put it another way: Amazon freely admits that they break even on hardware. So wow, where does all the revenue from their Kindle platform come from I wonder? In totally unrelated news, shortly after releasing Fire TV, Amazon announced that they are now the #3 streaming site behind only YouTube and Netflix.
But hey, better for Amazon to be #1 than the company that Apple is suing, right? Oh yeah, as I have stated before, Amazon is coming out with a line of Fire smartphones later this year. With Kindle tablets, Fire TV and Amazon Cloud, that will give them the best Android ecosystem (better than Google's, and Samsung doesn't have an ecosystem) and the second best ecosystem to Apple (far better than Microsoft's disjointed stuff that doesn't even interoperate ... such as XBox running on Windows NT!!!).
I wonder if the bloggers and analytic teams also realize, that by their coercive misrepresentation of the markets, they may very well wake up some day and find their hero companies bankrupt. Thus depriving themselves of the very devices that they so desire and dote upon endlessly. You can't subsidize a product endlessly, losing millions in the process.
Denying the truth of the markets is dangerous, even if you're in the business of manipulating them. Allowing them to be manipulated is criminal.
Again, I don't understand Samsung's competitors in the PC/Android market why they are so docile in pointing out the unfair advantage that a convicted cheater is allowed to continue to harm their businesses. They have the most to lose in this fight, not Apple.
Well, this disclosure of lying to their investors about the success of their product line is guaranteed to get them a bevy of investor lawsuits. Whether the information presented here argues against their estimate of damages, really depends on how those damages have been measured. But, I don't see that happening. Apple is arguing that but for Samsung's patent infringement, Samsung's sales today would have been far lower, and that difference constitutes part of Apple's request for damages. I will presume Apple's lawyers made their arguments internally consistent.
But, by disclosure of what might be construed as investor fraud, Apple is meaning to damage Samsung financially other than by collecting legal damages for lost sales and patent infringement.
Samsung Galaxy S5 has about the same number of preorders as the HTC One M8. Whether that is good news for HTC or bad news for Samsung I will leave for others to ruminate over.
Ah, more still of DED tilting at windmills and relying on old/irrelevant news. Such as the vast difference between Android in 2011/2012 and today.
And the bouncing that goes back and forth between:
1. Android is a stolen product that has cost Apple billions
2. Android is a failure that accounts for no sales other than cheap toys and "I have never seen Android tablets in the wild; they are always gathering dust and acting as doorstops in Costco/Best Buy or sold as cheap kids toys at Toys-R-US"
Here is some reality: actual Android tablet sales data based on app installations (which Android users do not buy).
Samsung is indeed a flop at 9%, meaning that their money from Android is basically coming from their (soon to be emulated by Apple) phablets.
Nexus is 8%, a bit below Samsung despite Google not putting anywhere near the marketing push behind their phones and tablets (yet, they will start in 2015) as they do other products like the Chromecast and Chromebooks (which incidentally are selling heavily).
But note that this study has a sample size of 500 million unique Android devices.
You seem to have picked an article whose author has no idea how to present numbers, nor their meaning.
500 million unique Android devices do not represent only tablets. It might just happen that 99.99% of them are actually Android phones.
So, that is not the sample size of the study. The sample size is completely missing from the article.
Kindle's 33% of Android tablet market means nothing unless you know how large the whole Android tablet market is, NOT the Android market as a whole. Or, if you know exactly how many devices did Amazon ship, you can calculate the whole market size (based on those 33%). Strangely, no enough data is available to do the calculations. Sales numbers are given for a single quarter, while Localytics gives market share as a whole.
All that mixing of data is obviously intentional. The goal is to present some significant numbers (such as those 500 million units) without actually telling anything of significance.
Also, Kindle Fire is not exactly an Android device. Amazon did branch the Android project long long time ago, at version 1.6 I think.
Should you decide to answer with some idiotic comments, first try to answer the following simple question:
How many Kindle Fire devices represent those 33% of the Android tablet market?
Comments
I find his post funny because he took the time to use all caps, italicize, increase the font size, and change the color, yet with all that effort he could only think of calling [@]TeaEarleGreyHot[/@] an idiot.
Ah, more still of DED tilting at windmills and relying on old/irrelevant news. Such as the vast difference between Android in 2011/2012 and today.
And the bouncing that goes back and forth between:
1. Android is a stolen product that has cost Apple billions
2. Android is a failure that accounts for no sales other than cheap toys and "I have never seen Android tablets in the wild; they are always gathering dust and acting as doorstops in Costco/Best Buy or sold as cheap kids toys at Toys-R-US"
Here is some reality: actual Android tablet sales data based on app installations (which Android users do not buy).
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/kindle-fire-nabs-33-of-android-tablet-market-nexus-7-just-8/
Kindle has 1/3 of the Android market in the U.S. With Fire TV, that will increase. Amazon is probably now the main Android player.
Nook is #2 at 10% of the market.
Samsung is indeed a flop at 9%, meaning that their money from Android is basically coming from their (soon to be emulated by Apple) phablets.
Nexus is 8%, a bit below Samsung despite Google not putting anywhere near the marketing push behind their phones and tablets (yet, they will start in 2015) as they do other products like the Chromecast and Chromebooks (which incidentally are selling heavily).
But note that this study has a sample size of 500 million unique Android devices.
Ah, so when you can't dispute the facts or find a flaw in the logic it's time for the trump card: Impune the character of the poster. So are congratulations in order for your timely investment in a time-honored playground tradition?
Apple wants Samsung to stop using its technologies and designs. The lawsuit is an attempt to stop Samsung, or at least attach a price to stealing so it will slow down or stop. Apple has to argue that it has lost profits and/or that Samsung should be dinged for profiting illegally from Apple’s work. That’s how the patent system and courts work.
Ah, so Apple doesn't really believe they're owed billions due to lost sales but they have to argue it that way because that's how patent trials work?
The suit is only partially about the Tab devices. There are more phones and the phones are doing more damage. I'm just glad we get to see Attorneys eyes only documents that show what a sham the tab numbers are in the analyst marketshare data. Now that this is out, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a class action lawsuit against Samsung for misleading investors.
Especially since @TeaEarleGreyHot was very respectful, and diplomatic is his/her post.
If this the truth, and Samsung fudged the figures to its shareholders, then there is greater at stake. Firstly the stockmarket would collapse the shares, indictments may commence against those who lied and manipulated the figures and shareholders generallly wont be too pleased so a general cleaning of house of upper management would occur. the company would be turned upside down and the stockmarket would take a while to trust the company again. This doesnt really seem to happening so the truth and veracity of all this of it may never be known.
We should expect to see a class action suit now that this is public since they mislead investors knowingly. They didn't lie which would be a bigger problem for them. They filled the channel and said by how much. That isn't illegal. Continuing to cite that number after you see your sells are a fraction of what you filled the channel with is a gray area, but it is misleading.
So if the tab range was a complete disaster and selling an embarrassing amount in the US then by showing it isn't Apple undermining their own argument on how it has lost billions in profit and irreparable harm?
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.
The article doesn't, but the images clearly show it was plaintiff's (Apple) exhibit.
More good stuff. Again, this does not rely on manufacturer sales figures but reputable information based on "what American businesses and institutions are buying through the commercial channel, which includes large distributors and resellers."
http://www.zdnet.com/new-u-s-sales-figures-show-the-changing-face-of-pcs-and-tablets-in-2013-7000024657/
https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/u-s-commercial-channel-computing-device-sales-set-to-end-2013-with-double-digit-growth-according-to-npd/
1. Apple iPad sales accounted for 59 percent of the volume in the tablet market. So why is not that news of Apple's great dominance being reported by DED or Apple Insider? Because:
2. Android tablet sales grew more than 160 percent.
3. More evidence that Chromebooks are taking off: they outsold Android tablets and had over half the sales of I-Pads.
Bottom line: regardless of what happens with Samsung, Android is a success, a maturing product with a growing market share, ever since the better OS versions and apps (basically Jelly Bean and onwards) came out. And ChromeOS cannot be understated either. (Gee, since Samsung's tablet sales stink anyway, they might as well put ChromeOS on tablets. Nothing is stopping them.)
I wonder how quickly Apple Insider pivots from going after Samsung to going after Amazon and Kindle. And from going after Android to going after ChromeOS (maybe when/if someone comes out with a ChromeOS smartphone, which the FireFox OS phones will make inevitable at some point)?
500 mm Androids. 59% US. Kindle Fire has 33%. So you expect us to believe Amazon sold 98 MM units?
Oh btw, the report indicated 500 unique devices, not Android devices.
It was "out" in the last trial almost two years ago. Nothing in this story is actually new apparently. It's all old recycled stuff that was written about 18 months ago or more.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151854/quite-smooth-samsung-actually-sold-1-10-of-the-2-million-galaxy-tabs-it-claimed-in-2010
Samsung marketed the S3 was by emphasizing how different it was from the iPhone, not by saying "look! we can do this too!" That was the first device where they genuinely tried to distinguish themselves from Apple, to the point that some observers remarked that it looked as though it were designed by lawyers. Remember this advert?
I didn't state that Galaxy S III had no other features (ignoring discussions on whether those worked at all). But GUI and interactions such as bounce-back, data detectors, etc were there. And that's what makes Apple's case.
HA, HA, " Idiot is Idiot ! "
NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS
Why You NEED FRILL ON IT ? ????
More channel stuffing. Come back with some usage information.
If this the truth, and Samsung fudged the figures to its shareholders, then there is greater at stake. Firstly the stockmarket would collapse the shares, indictments may commence against those who lied and manipulated the figures and shareholders generallly wont be too pleased so a general cleaning of house of upper management would occur. the company would be turned upside down and the stockmarket would take a while to trust the company again. This doesnt really seem to happening so the truth and veracity of all this of it may never be known.
I read a lot of posts regarding Samsung shareholders, and the stock market and investors, etc. For the record, Samsung is traded on the Korean stock exchange. They have no ADR in the US. US investors can only buy Samsung stock on the grey market which is probably a bad idea since there is no transparency, a lot of risk and the shares would be rather difficult to sell. Almost no one in the US holds any Samsung shares. And as far as being investigated, Samsung pretty much owns the Korean government so even if they were to be investigated nothing would ever become of it. Samsung stock is up around 25% over the past year so the Korean shareholders aren't really all that upset about anything.
I’m bothered by how much sense this makes.
2) What about the Samsung investors who were misled (outright lied to) about the success of the Samsung tablets? Sounds to me as if there may be grounds for an SEC investigation into market manipulation.
500 mm Androids. 59% US. Kindle Fire has 33%. So you expect us to believe Amazon sold 98 MM units?
Oh btw, the report indicated 500 unique devices, not Android devices.
More channel stuffing. Come back with some usage information.
The usage information was in my first link: Amazon tablet app installation. To put it another way: Amazon freely admits that they break even on hardware. So wow, where does all the revenue from their Kindle platform come from I wonder? In totally unrelated news, shortly after releasing Fire TV, Amazon announced that they are now the #3 streaming site behind only YouTube and Netflix.
But hey, better for Amazon to be #1 than the company that Apple is suing, right? Oh yeah, as I have stated before, Amazon is coming out with a line of Fire smartphones later this year. With Kindle tablets, Fire TV and Amazon Cloud, that will give them the best Android ecosystem (better than Google's, and Samsung doesn't have an ecosystem) and the second best ecosystem to Apple (far better than Microsoft's disjointed stuff that doesn't even interoperate ... such as XBox running on Windows NT!!!).
Thanks again DED for a well researched post.
This question stands out for TL;DR crowd:
I wonder if the bloggers and analytic teams also realize, that by their coercive misrepresentation of the markets, they may very well wake up some day and find their hero companies bankrupt. Thus depriving themselves of the very devices that they so desire and dote upon endlessly. You can't subsidize a product endlessly, losing millions in the process.
Denying the truth of the markets is dangerous, even if you're in the business of manipulating them. Allowing them to be manipulated is criminal.
Again, I don't understand Samsung's competitors in the PC/Android market why they are so docile in pointing out the unfair advantage that a convicted cheater is allowed to continue to harm their businesses. They have the most to lose in this fight, not Apple.
Well, this disclosure of lying to their investors about the success of their product line is guaranteed to get them a bevy of investor lawsuits. Whether the information presented here argues against their estimate of damages, really depends on how those damages have been measured. But, I don't see that happening. Apple is arguing that but for Samsung's patent infringement, Samsung's sales today would have been far lower, and that difference constitutes part of Apple's request for damages. I will presume Apple's lawyers made their arguments internally consistent.
But, by disclosure of what might be construed as investor fraud, Apple is meaning to damage Samsung financially other than by collecting legal damages for lost sales and patent infringement.
More info:
Samsung Galaxy S5 has about the same number of preorders as the HTC One M8. Whether that is good news for HTC or bad news for Samsung I will leave for others to ruminate over.
http://www.cnet.com/news/galaxy-s5-launch-no-lines-but-pre-orders-look-strong/
Ah, more still of DED tilting at windmills and relying on old/irrelevant news. Such as the vast difference between Android in 2011/2012 and today.
And the bouncing that goes back and forth between:
1. Android is a stolen product that has cost Apple billions
2. Android is a failure that accounts for no sales other than cheap toys and "I have never seen Android tablets in the wild; they are always gathering dust and acting as doorstops in Costco/Best Buy or sold as cheap kids toys at Toys-R-US"
Here is some reality: actual Android tablet sales data based on app installations (which Android users do not buy).
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/kindle-fire-nabs-33-of-android-tablet-market-nexus-7-just-8/
Kindle has 1/3 of the Android market in the U.S. With Fire TV, that will increase. Amazon is probably now the main Android player.
Nook is #2 at 10% of the market.
Samsung is indeed a flop at 9%, meaning that their money from Android is basically coming from their (soon to be emulated by Apple) phablets.
Nexus is 8%, a bit below Samsung despite Google not putting anywhere near the marketing push behind their phones and tablets (yet, they will start in 2015) as they do other products like the Chromecast and Chromebooks (which incidentally are selling heavily).
But note that this study has a sample size of 500 million unique Android devices.
You seem to have picked an article whose author has no idea how to present numbers, nor their meaning.
500 million unique Android devices do not represent only tablets. It might just happen that 99.99% of them are actually Android phones.
So, that is not the sample size of the study. The sample size is completely missing from the article.
Kindle's 33% of Android tablet market means nothing unless you know how large the whole Android tablet market is, NOT the Android market as a whole. Or, if you know exactly how many devices did Amazon ship, you can calculate the whole market size (based on those 33%). Strangely, no enough data is available to do the calculations. Sales numbers are given for a single quarter, while Localytics gives market share as a whole.
All that mixing of data is obviously intentional. The goal is to present some significant numbers (such as those 500 million units) without actually telling anything of significance.
Also, Kindle Fire is not exactly an Android device. Amazon did branch the Android project long long time ago, at version 1.6 I think.
Should you decide to answer with some idiotic comments, first try to answer the following simple question:
How many Kindle Fire devices represent those 33% of the Android tablet market?