In totally unrelated news, shortly after releasing Fire TV, Amazon announced that they are now the #3 streaming site behind only YouTube and Netflix.
1. Amazon instant video and streaming services are available for quite some time (more than an year).
2. As I wrote earlier, Amazon does not use vanilla Android. They forked the project at v1.6. And if you have the slightest idea how much Android changed since that version, and how much Amazon's version changed, you would understand why Amazon do not refer to their OS as Android. Because it is not.
Sailfish and Firefox OS are able to run Android applications as well. That doesn't mean they are Android.
Daniel, you should update your article. The first slide from Samsung are NOT global numbers (both sldies are US only). There are a few places in your article where your mistaken assumption leads you to the wrong conclusion.
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?
I suppose that could be a compelling argument. However... this data is from the early stages of a nascent market, which has continued beyond the 2011/12 data points (as a growth market) for another two years. Samsung has surely sold enough across that time period to warrant a large-loss claim.
Second, I had a background suspicion before that the 2012 "smoking gun" doc (and now this one) showing how "absolutely awful" Samsung's "actual sales" were, could very well be fabrications created by Samsung, designed to elicit exactly the same response and perspective that you gave... "See, your honor? We didn't actually sell enough to warrant a large claim!" ...
Sure, it's mildly 'conspiracy theory' sounding, but with Samsung's overall behavior, I wouldn't put it past them at all.
Who's checking their books? The US courts? Really? Believing the validity of those documents is in part based on the good faith of lawyers and company executives. Who from the court or the Apple side is inside Samsung HQ in Korea making sure those are actual, accountable figures? That's right. No one. We have to "trust Samsung" (and their well-paid lawyers). Bwaa ha ha ha...
Either way (lying to their investors/market, or lying to the courts), it shows Samsung to be a seriously dishonest company, with that dishonesty being a clear foundation of their corporate culture. I will avoid their products regardless of whether they compete with Apple or not.
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?
Since you are incapable of having a discussion without making accusations and insults, I have determined that you are unworthy of dialogue of any sort. Goodbye and have a nice life.
Many people here claim Apple will lose the suit because they won't be able to prove a loss. Samsung lied, these lies affected Apple stock prices. In fact Samsung should be investigated for purposely misrepresenting their numbers which directly affected Apple stock. There may be enough to Charge Samsung with stock manipulation.
Yes, you would be after Samsung/Google implemented a whole host of Apple innovations into the software that runs it. Even if it turns out that some of Apple's innovations are not patentable (i.e, if Samsung successfully contests the validity of some Apple patents) and therefore Samsung and Google are legally allowed to adopt Apple's innovations, the evidence seems to be mounting that it's Apple that is the innovation leader where it counts in this space and not Samsung.
It is actually one of the reasons the trolls support any of the following positions:
1. "No one company should be allowed to control ____ feature"
2. "Apple should be forced to license their patents"
3. "The government should declare Apple's patents as SEP and seize them"
4. "Patent laws should change to make it easier to do (any of the above)"
Basically, they want the iPhone or iPad without having to buy one from Apple.
This only further proves what many have been saying for years now.
Samsung is a fraud, and nothing at all can be trusted when it comes to Android sales figures.
Everything is a lie. And you have stupid morons that keep using these bogus figures in their so-called "research" reports and fake marketshare stats. These people are truly bad people, not to mention extremely dishonest and very possibly criminally negligent.
Hopefully they will all get what they deserve soon, one way or another.
Many people here claim Apple will lose the suit because they won't be able to prove a loss. Samsung lied, these lies affected Apple stock prices. In fact Samsung should be investigated for purposely misrepresenting their numbers which directly affected Apple stock. There may be enough to Charge Samsung with stock manipulation.
In Korea of course since they don't have a presence in the US stock market.
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.
Not true. The U.S. information on three Tab models from 2012 was included at the bottom. When that was previously reported, there was great outcry from commenters like yourself who insisted that none of this was true.
The new data pertains to global tablet sales and a detailed breakdown of US sales and competitors performedby Samsung.
So no, you’re just beside yourself desperately trying to spin things in a favorable light for Android, but have no direction to take them in, so you’re just making stuff up to cloud the water. As always.
I wonder how quickly Apple Insider pivots from going after Samsung to going after Amazon and Kindle.
Maybe, maybe not. I do agree that Amazon has a stronger ecosystem than Samsung which makes Amazon a sort of a competitor for Apple. However, Apple and Amazon are still very different companies and Apple may realize that there is room for both, a content company (Amazon - books/products/sales medium/music/movies) and a hardware company (Apple). Interestingly and quite ironically, I think that Amazon is more a competitor of Samsung.
In fact Samsung should be investigated for purposely misrepresenting their numbers which directly affected Apple stock.
There may be enough to Charge Samsung with stock manipulation.
In Korea of course since they don't have a presence in the US stock market.
RS9 was apparently suggesting that Apple stock was criminally manipulated in the US. Usually, the way it works is you try to influence other investors to either buy or sell then you take an opposite position to either pump and dump or trash talk and short, but it might be a situation where Samsung just wanted to cause harm to Apple without actually taking a position in AAPL.
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?
You clearly don't understand patent law and the trials related to intellectual property. At all. Why are you commenting as if you do?
If it was as simple as "lost sales due to infringement", it'd be a matter of scouring some accounting ledgers, estimating losses, doing a little math and we're done.....
But it's not only that or remotely that simple. It's about how markets are created, what the measurable potential is, how much momentum is lost, how much licensable income is lost, and so on. It's intense and complex.
For example, how has the "Galaxy" line of products become viable AT ALL today? Well, in part by leveraging someone else's (Apple's) technology for a few years first, without paying even a license fee for the use of it. Some of Apple's "signature" features and patents (and design style) were copied whole cloth. Samsung knew full well it would take years to prosecute, and they could likely "settle" or walk away with the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
They are THE competitor in the iPhone-like smartphone space. Why? In part due to copying Apple. That alone weakened Apple's position. How do we measure THOSE losses. It isn't on a sales-only basis.
Some patent holding companies never produce a single thing with their patents, but they can legitimately sue for infringement and "damages" regardless. That fact alone should show you how oversimple your "standing point" is on these suits.
As is evidence in Samsung's advertising and of the third party market/anecdotal research, as well as just asking any of your friends, colleagues or anyone you meet who have purchased the tabs, the most common response from them is, "It's outselling Apple, [so it must be better]."
The same has been declared for Samsung's smartphones.
Interesting that the iOS gets such significantly high internet usage with such a smaller market?
Obviously, one is myth, the other math. And for the ignorant, myth outsells math.
I do think Samsung out sells Apple in phones... pads... not so much.
And I think the old school argument of what is 'hot selling' (you better buy what others are buying) is the reason for fudging the numbers on sales.
But in the end, (after about 3 phones or 5 years), people will buy the right phone for them.
I also think people who know WHY they want to buy a smartphone or tablet buy the right one for them
People who use the internet mobilely, buy the phone that is best for them
- we are seeing that in the stats
People who buy a phone for a phone and for just one or 2 apps.... or for size, buy that phone.
Most people buying smartphones for the first time are not avid internet users... they have dumb/feature phones and browsing if there at all is painful. But they want FaceSpace or TweetsApp or RealHousewiveOnBravo App... and they see 'bigger' and 'same price' and buy that phone. in 2 years they see all the other stuff they want to do... and decide, is this the phone for me?
And that's where I see Apple getting people who 'need' the internet...
so... if 100 Million people buy a new smartphone this year for the first time, 50% are samsung, in 2 years (50 million), I suspect that 40% of those (20Million) will buy an iPhone in 2-4 years, because they see it as the right phone for the job the need the phone to do.
Given that the markets have only just opened, and given that it is a blog news report, it may take a while for markets to react. If regulators here and elsewhere do go after Samsung, and can prove the assertion of lying to investors and regulators, the company may well wish that they had never seen an iPhone.
But, my money is on the concept that they will have a designated scapegoat far enough down the line that no high executive will ever have a problem. It's a shame there is no other way to punish the company legally for lying to investors.
Therein lies one of the inherent problems with "corporations are people, my friend". A corporation enjoys all the rights of an individual, but almost none of the direct accountability. You won't hear of a corporation "going to prison" for a crime that any individual would do 10 years for...
Drilling down and plucking individuals out for prosecution leads to the inevitable "fall guy" or even "patsy" taking responsibility for the corporate-person.
That's a law/definition that badly needs to change. Then we can exclusively hold responsible the people holding the reins, and provide no cover for malfeasance.
Didn't it used to be a "crime" to use 'false advertising' and lying to the public about product performance, etc.? What happened to the requirements for honesty? "Free Market" philosophies have sure changed, eh?
Comments
Listen, Your ( Plural ) Knowledge & Wisdom is Very Very LIMITED !
So DON'T TRY TO PREACH ME ANYTHING As If You Were Superior to Me !
INSTEAD, Argue SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL.
In totally unrelated news, shortly after releasing Fire TV, Amazon announced that they are now the #3 streaming site behind only YouTube and Netflix.
1. Amazon instant video and streaming services are available for quite some time (more than an year).
2. As I wrote earlier, Amazon does not use vanilla Android. They forked the project at v1.6. And if you have the slightest idea how much Android changed since that version, and how much Amazon's version changed, you would understand why Amazon do not refer to their OS as Android. Because it is not.
Sailfish and Firefox OS are able to run Android applications as well. That doesn't mean they are Android.
The typeface is getting bigger and brighter. Does that mean the comments are more important and deserve more consideration now? :rolleyes:
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?
I suppose that could be a compelling argument. However... this data is from the early stages of a nascent market, which has continued beyond the 2011/12 data points (as a growth market) for another two years. Samsung has surely sold enough across that time period to warrant a large-loss claim.
Second, I had a background suspicion before that the 2012 "smoking gun" doc (and now this one) showing how "absolutely awful" Samsung's "actual sales" were, could very well be fabrications created by Samsung, designed to elicit exactly the same response and perspective that you gave... "See, your honor? We didn't actually sell enough to warrant a large claim!" ...
Sure, it's mildly 'conspiracy theory' sounding, but with Samsung's overall behavior, I wouldn't put it past them at all.
Who's checking their books? The US courts? Really? Believing the validity of those documents is in part based on the good faith of lawyers and company executives. Who from the court or the Apple side is inside Samsung HQ in Korea making sure those are actual, accountable figures? That's right. No one. We have to "trust Samsung" (and their well-paid lawyers). Bwaa ha ha ha...
Either way (lying to their investors/market, or lying to the courts), it shows Samsung to be a seriously dishonest company, with that dishonesty being a clear foundation of their corporate culture. I will avoid their products regardless of whether they compete with Apple or not.
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?
Since you are incapable of having a discussion without making accusations and insults, I have determined that you are unworthy of dialogue of any sort. Goodbye and have a nice life.
Many people here claim Apple will lose the suit because they won't be able to prove a loss. Samsung lied, these lies affected Apple stock prices. In fact Samsung should be investigated for purposely misrepresenting their numbers which directly affected Apple stock. There may be enough to Charge Samsung with stock manipulation.
It is actually one of the reasons the trolls support any of the following positions:
1. "No one company should be allowed to control ____ feature"
2. "Apple should be forced to license their patents"
3. "The government should declare Apple's patents as SEP and seize them"
4. "Patent laws should change to make it easier to do (any of the above)"
Basically, they want the iPhone or iPad without having to buy one from Apple.
EDIT: added a fourth bullet item
Good OP!
This only further proves what many have been saying for years now.
Samsung is a fraud, and nothing at all can be trusted when it comes to Android sales figures.
Everything is a lie. And you have stupid morons that keep using these bogus figures in their so-called "research" reports and fake marketshare stats. These people are truly bad people, not to mention extremely dishonest and very possibly criminally negligent.
Hopefully they will all get what they deserve soon, one way or another.
In Korea of course since they don't have a presence in the US stock market.
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
Not true. The U.S. information on three Tab models from 2012 was included at the bottom. When that was previously reported, there was great outcry from commenters like yourself who insisted that none of this was true.
The new data pertains to global tablet sales and a detailed breakdown of US sales and competitors performed by Samsung.
So no, you’re just beside yourself desperately trying to spin things in a favorable light for Android, but have no direction to take them in, so you’re just making stuff up to cloud the water. As always.
Maybe it's just an indicator for readers to skip/block.
I wonder how quickly Apple Insider pivots from going after Samsung to going after Amazon and Kindle.
Maybe, maybe not. I do agree that Amazon has a stronger ecosystem than Samsung which makes Amazon a sort of a competitor for Apple. However, Apple and Amazon are still very different companies and Apple may realize that there is room for both, a content company (Amazon - books/products/sales medium/music/movies) and a hardware company (Apple). Interestingly and quite ironically, I think that Amazon is more a competitor of Samsung.
In fact Samsung should be investigated for purposely misrepresenting their numbers which directly affected Apple stock.
There may be enough to Charge Samsung with stock manipulation.
In Korea of course since they don't have a presence in the US stock market.
RS9 was apparently suggesting that Apple stock was criminally manipulated in the US. Usually, the way it works is you try to influence other investors to either buy or sell then you take an opposite position to either pump and dump or trash talk and short, but it might be a situation where Samsung just wanted to cause harm to Apple without actually taking a position in AAPL.
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?
You clearly don't understand patent law and the trials related to intellectual property. At all. Why are you commenting as if you do?
If it was as simple as "lost sales due to infringement", it'd be a matter of scouring some accounting ledgers, estimating losses, doing a little math and we're done.....
But it's not only that or remotely that simple. It's about how markets are created, what the measurable potential is, how much momentum is lost, how much licensable income is lost, and so on. It's intense and complex.
For example, how has the "Galaxy" line of products become viable AT ALL today? Well, in part by leveraging someone else's (Apple's) technology for a few years first, without paying even a license fee for the use of it. Some of Apple's "signature" features and patents (and design style) were copied whole cloth. Samsung knew full well it would take years to prosecute, and they could likely "settle" or walk away with the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
They are THE competitor in the iPhone-like smartphone space. Why? In part due to copying Apple. That alone weakened Apple's position. How do we measure THOSE losses. It isn't on a sales-only basis.
Some patent holding companies never produce a single thing with their patents, but they can legitimately sue for infringement and "damages" regardless. That fact alone should show you how oversimple your "standing point" is on these suits.
As is evidence in Samsung's advertising and of the third party market/anecdotal research, as well as just asking any of your friends, colleagues or anyone you meet who have purchased the tabs, the most common response from them is, "It's outselling Apple, [so it must be better]."
The same has been declared for Samsung's smartphones.
Interesting that the iOS gets such significantly high internet usage with such a smaller market?
Obviously, one is myth, the other math. And for the ignorant, myth outsells math.
I do think Samsung out sells Apple in phones... pads... not so much.
And I think the old school argument of what is 'hot selling' (you better buy what others are buying) is the reason for fudging the numbers on sales.
But in the end, (after about 3 phones or 5 years), people will buy the right phone for them.
I also think people who know WHY they want to buy a smartphone or tablet buy the right one for them
People who use the internet mobilely, buy the phone that is best for them
- we are seeing that in the stats
People who buy a phone for a phone and for just one or 2 apps.... or for size, buy that phone.
Most people buying smartphones for the first time are not avid internet users... they have dumb/feature phones and browsing if there at all is painful. But they want FaceSpace or TweetsApp or RealHousewiveOnBravo App... and they see 'bigger' and 'same price' and buy that phone. in 2 years they see all the other stuff they want to do... and decide, is this the phone for me?
And that's where I see Apple getting people who 'need' the internet...
so... if 100 Million people buy a new smartphone this year for the first time, 50% are samsung, in 2 years (50 million), I suspect that 40% of those (20Million) will buy an iPhone in 2-4 years, because they see it as the right phone for the job the need the phone to do.
And Peter Bright is happy with his Windows 8.1
Given that the markets have only just opened, and given that it is a blog news report, it may take a while for markets to react. If regulators here and elsewhere do go after Samsung, and can prove the assertion of lying to investors and regulators, the company may well wish that they had never seen an iPhone.
But, given the criminal legal history of one exec at Samsung, they may feel bullet proof. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/business/global/30samsung.html?_r=0). Fortunately, since they are listed on many nation's stock markets, being bullet proof could be a false feeling.
But, my money is on the concept that they will have a designated scapegoat far enough down the line that no high executive will ever have a problem. It's a shame there is no other way to punish the company legally for lying to investors.
Therein lies one of the inherent problems with "corporations are people, my friend". A corporation enjoys all the rights of an individual, but almost none of the direct accountability. You won't hear of a corporation "going to prison" for a crime that any individual would do 10 years for...
Drilling down and plucking individuals out for prosecution leads to the inevitable "fall guy" or even "patsy" taking responsibility for the corporate-person.
That's a law/definition that badly needs to change. Then we can exclusively hold responsible the people holding the reins, and provide no cover for malfeasance.
Didn't it used to be a "crime" to use 'false advertising' and lying to the public about product performance, etc.? What happened to the requirements for honesty? "Free Market" philosophies have sure changed, eh?
Nah... just some ketchup and mayo please... hold the pickle. No I didn't mean your own!!!! :smokey: