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.
Those years of Fandroid sheeps giving wonderful praises to their Samsung overlord, while knowing the Galaxy tablets were complete trash.
All the stores I walk into that have Galaxy Tabs show them gathering dust, not working, and simply just neglected. The saddest ones are at the Costco stores in my area. They place them fairly close to the entry of the warehouse, and each time I pass by it, not a soul in the area.
It's bad enough that Samsung tries to lie to everyone about it. We know that's the only thing they do best. What's really sad and pathetic, not to mention shameful, are the Fandroid kook-aid drinkers that always thought Samsung was the best-of-the-best.
How's that humble-pie tasting?
Tastes pretty bitter to me.
Relax, and learn to accept that some people have different preferences :-)
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.
[...]
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.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that damages are computed using two concrete criteria: lost profits, and reasonable royalties. There are four factors involved in estimating lost profits:
(1) demand for the patented product
(2) absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes
(3) his manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand, and
It would seem that these numbers are in fact obtained largely by "scouring accounting ledgers, estimating losses, doing a little math."
"Calculating lost profits requires a two-prong analysis: first, calculate the lost revenues and second, calculate the cost associated with generating the lost revenues. The difference between the two generally constitutes the lost profits." (http://www.bpbcpa.com/fraud/calculating-lost-profits-by-richard-pollack/)
AI reported just a few days ago how Apple arrived at its damages estimate (emphasis mine):
Apple is trying to convince the jury that the addition of the infringing features caused customers to buy the products on trial when they would have otherwise bought Apple alternatives. The Galaxy Tab is an example of a product that failed to sell despite imitating Apple's look and feel in addition to harboring all the "forbidden" software features like overscroll bounce or data detectors. In particular, the infringing features clearly did not cause people to choose it over Apple's devices. It seems at best a non-example for Apple's case.
The Galaxy Tab is an example of a product that failed to sell despite imitating Apple's look and feel in addition to harboring all the "forbidden" software features like overscroll bounce or data detectors. In particular, the infringing features clearly did not cause people to choose it over Apple's devices. It seems at best a non-example for Apple's case.
Stealing doesn’t come with an automatic guarantee of success. Samsung’s inability to sell tablets isn’t proof that it didn’t infringe Apple’s IP.
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.
Yes... Amazon tablets are selling. Well we think they are. All we get are analyst's estimates of shipments.
Amazon only has significant Kindle Fire movement during the Holiday quarter. (but they're not really that great overall)
Last quarter (which included Christmas sales)... Amazon shipped 5.8 million Kindle Fire tablets... for 7.6% of the worldwide tablet market.
But the rest of the year Amazon doesn't ship too many Kindle Fires and thus doesn't have much market share. Amazon gets a boost during the Holidays... but they're not the powerhouse Android tablet manufacturer you think they are.
Microsoft announced it would spend $1B marketing Windows 8 and Surface, and again for 8.1 & Surface 2. Yet all those billions in brand marketing didn't result in blockbuster sales.
So for Samsung to claim that its pilfered features aren't attracting customers and that it's all brand advertising driving its sales is kind of nuts.
Yes... Amazon tablets are selling. Well we think they are. All we get are analyst's estimates of shipments.
Amazon only has significant Kindle Fire movement during the Holiday quarter. (but they're not really that great overall)
Last quarter (which included Christmas sales)... Amazon shipped 5.8 million Kindle Fire tablets... for 7.6% of the worldwide tablet market.
But the rest of the year Amazon doesn't ship too many Kindle Fires and thus doesn't have much market share. Amazon gets a boost during the Holidays... but they're not the powerhouse Android tablet manufacturer you think they are.
What?
Last quarter... Samsung shipped 14.5 million tablets for 18.8% of the tablet market.
Asus... who makes the Nexus 7... only shipped 3.9 million tablets for 5.1% market share.
These are shipments... not end-user sales... but I'm still not seeing how the Nexus 7 can possibly be selling as much as Samsung.
Samsung's number is more than 3 times higher than Asus' number.
Again... these are analyst's estimates... but the proportions are probably in the ballpark.
Sammy hasn't released numbers and they have misled everyone before. Sammy probably did ship as many tablets as the Nexus, only it's probably closer to the latter's amount.
Didn't you say marketing led to Sammy's success as well?
I think it's a combination of things, but better marketing is definitely why they're beating the other manufacturers since they also infringe or have a license agreement with Apple (HTC).
Why hasn't Samsung's smartphone success transferred over to their tablets?
I think it's a combination of things, but better marketing is definitely why they're beating the other manufacturers since they also infringe or have a license agreement with Apple (HTC).
Why hasn't Samsung's smartphone success transferred over to their tablets?
Better marketing now but they practically cloned the iPhone earlier down the color of the icons. None of the Android vendors did that.
As for Sammy's tabs, they weren't offering anything new or cheaper than the iPad.
Samsung grew from a family business that the mafia probably compares favorably to. The thing is, it amounts to roughly 20% of the entire GDP of South Korea. The _CEO_ of Samsung was convicted of bribing high officials, including the _President of that country_ . He was later pardoned by a subsequent "pro-business" president, and took back his post as Samsung's CEO, saying of the bribery "I didn't do it":
As we know, they've rigged (and then denied rigging) benchmarking tests, and recently sued a South Korean newspaper for millions, for suggesting that supplies of the optical sensor for the camera in the S5 may be constrained. They're suing Dyson for suggesting that the design of Samsung's Dyson-knockoff vacuum cleaner might have been borrowed a teensy bit.
I'm not sure why the press is tiptoeing around the issue - maybe because they've been so successful in what they've done, or maybe they're literally afraid of Samsung's wrath, but this company is not like a typical large multinational corporation - it's really more of a family-controlled, corporate rogue state.
Don't forget this recent tidbit :
Quote:
Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-Hee Summoned By India’s Top Court To Face Criminal Charges Over Non-Payment Of $1.4M In Dues Owed To Indian Company By UAE Subsidiary
The Supreme Court of India, the country’s highest court, ordered Lee Kun-Hee, the chairman of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (KRX:005935), to appear before a court in the city of Ghaziabad in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, to face criminal charges over non-payment of $1.4 million owed by the Korean company's subsidiary to an Indian vendor.
Charging Lee of cheating, fraud and criminal conspiracy, the court said that the executive needs to appear before the lower court within the next six weeks, and if he fails to do so, Indian police will have orders to arrest him the next time he enters the country. The case was filed by JCE Consultancy, a New-Delhi-based maker of coke calcination packages, used in the aluminum industry.
Sammy hasn't released numbers and they have misled everyone before. Sammy probably did ship as many tablets as the Nexus, only it's probably closer to the latter's amount.
You're right... Samsung doesn't release numbers at all.
The numbers we do get are from analysts using their own research, tracking methods and other sources.
I don't see how Samsung could possibly mislead people by fudging the numbers... when it's a bunch of 3rd parties who are gathering this data.
I might not have the highest regard for Samsung... but I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with the numbers presented by IDC, Strategy Analytics, etc. Those analytics firms are doing their own research.
The analysts might not be able count every single device shipment in the world... but they gotta be pretty close. If they say one company has 15% of tablet shipments compared to another company's 5%... you gotta figure it's at least somewhere in the ballpark.
As for the Nexus... it's another case of a particular device that we love to talk about on tech blogs... but that's not actually a big seller.
Asus hasn't released sales figures for the Nexus 7... and neither has Google. But analysts are saying roughly 4 million for all Asus tablets for 5% of the market.
If the Nexus 7 had sold 20 million in a quarter... someone would have said something about it
Comments
????????????????????
Chinese?
It would seem so, according to Google Translate. He's apparently saying: "Sir, you and your comments will be, if you continue, banned."
Chinese?
It would seem so, according to Google Translate. He's apparently saying: "Sir, you and your comments will be, if you continue, banned."
I would have thought HAMETA was Japanese the way he went on a rant about the Android statistics in Japan and also wrote some in Japanese.
???
Fire up the Universal Translator!
Inside voice, please.
It seems to me that anyone that needs write so obnoxiously probably already has plenty of voices inside his head speaking to him¡
Those years of Fandroid sheeps giving wonderful praises to their Samsung overlord, while knowing the Galaxy tablets were complete trash.
All the stores I walk into that have Galaxy Tabs show them gathering dust, not working, and simply just neglected. The saddest ones are at the Costco stores in my area. They place them fairly close to the entry of the warehouse, and each time I pass by it, not a soul in the area.
It's bad enough that Samsung tries to lie to everyone about it. We know that's the only thing they do best. What's really sad and pathetic, not to mention shameful, are the Fandroid kook-aid drinkers that always thought Samsung was the best-of-the-best.
How's that humble-pie tasting?
Tastes pretty bitter to me.
Relax, and learn to accept that some people have different preferences :-)
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.
[...]
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.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that damages are computed using two concrete criteria: lost profits, and reasonable royalties. There are four factors involved in estimating lost profits:
(1) demand for the patented product
(2) absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes
(3) his manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand, and
(4) the amount of the profit he would have made.
(Panduit Corp v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works 1978 http://www.leagle.com/decision/19781727575F2d1152_21511)
It would seem that these numbers are in fact obtained largely by "scouring accounting ledgers, estimating losses, doing a little math."
"Calculating lost profits requires a two-prong analysis: first, calculate the lost revenues and second, calculate the cost associated with generating the lost revenues. The difference between the two generally constitutes the lost profits." (http://www.bpbcpa.com/fraud/calculating-lost-profits-by-richard-pollack/)
AI reported just a few days ago how Apple arrived at its damages estimate (emphasis mine):
"Part of the claim is based on alleged lost profits due to customers buying Samsung products instead of the iPhone, while another portion was calculated on proposed royalties on more than 37 million accused infringing devices." (http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/08/apple-explains-full-22b-damages-against-samsung-come-from-lost-profits-royalties)
Apple is trying to convince the jury that the addition of the infringing features caused customers to buy the products on trial when they would have otherwise bought Apple alternatives. The Galaxy Tab is an example of a product that failed to sell despite imitating Apple's look and feel in addition to harboring all the "forbidden" software features like overscroll bounce or data detectors. In particular, the infringing features clearly did not cause people to choose it over Apple's devices. It seems at best a non-example for Apple's case.
so all appears to have been forgiven
Strange, i thought that it was quite serious to deliberately misrepresent facts and figures to the share market.
Any hoo
The Galaxy Tab is an example of a product that failed to sell despite imitating Apple's look and feel in addition to harboring all the "forbidden" software features like overscroll bounce or data detectors. In particular, the infringing features clearly did not cause people to choose it over Apple's devices. It seems at best a non-example for Apple's case.
Stealing doesn’t come with an automatic guarantee of success. Samsung’s inability to sell tablets isn’t proof that it didn’t infringe Apple’s IP.
Yes... Amazon tablets are selling. Well we think they are. All we get are analyst's estimates of shipments.
Amazon only has significant Kindle Fire movement during the Holiday quarter. (but they're not really that great overall)
Last quarter (which included Christmas sales)... Amazon shipped 5.8 million Kindle Fire tablets... for 7.6% of the worldwide tablet market.
But the rest of the year Amazon doesn't ship too many Kindle Fires and thus doesn't have much market share. Amazon gets a boost during the Holidays... but they're not the powerhouse Android tablet manufacturer you think they are.
What?
Last quarter... Samsung shipped 14.5 million tablets for 18.8% of the tablet market.
Asus... who makes the Nexus 7... only shipped 3.9 million tablets for 5.1% market share.
These are shipments... not end-user sales... but I'm still not seeing how the Nexus 7 can possibly be selling as much as Samsung.
Samsung's number is more than 3 times higher than Asus' number.
Again... these are analyst's estimates... but the proportions are probably in the ballpark.
Another Apple internal doc submitted to, this one showing carriers beginning to limit iPhone sales due to costs.
Yet you wrote this the other day claiming that it was indeed the pilfered patents that have led to Samsung's success.
Sammy hasn't released numbers and they have misled everyone before. Sammy probably did ship as many tablets as the Nexus, only it's probably closer to the latter's amount.
Didn't you say marketing led to Sammy's success as well?
I think it's a combination of things, but better marketing is definitely why they're beating the other manufacturers since they also infringe or have a license agreement with Apple (HTC).
Why hasn't Samsung's smartphone success transferred over to their tablets?
Better marketing now but they practically cloned the iPhone earlier down the color of the icons. None of the Android vendors did that.
As for Sammy's tabs, they weren't offering anything new or cheaper than the iPad.
Artist's rendition of @HAMETA…
LOL! Perfect.
Your naivete is charming.
Samsung grew from a family business that the mafia probably compares favorably to. The thing is, it amounts to roughly 20% of the entire GDP of South Korea. The _CEO_ of Samsung was convicted of bribing high officials, including the _President of that country_ . He was later pardoned by a subsequent "pro-business" president, and took back his post as Samsung's CEO, saying of the bribery "I didn't do it":
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/tax-evasion-bribery-and-pricefixing-how-samsung-became-the-giant-that-ate-korea-8510588.html
As we know, they've rigged (and then denied rigging) benchmarking tests, and recently sued a South Korean newspaper for millions, for suggesting that supplies of the optical sensor for the camera in the S5 may be constrained. They're suing Dyson for suggesting that the design of Samsung's Dyson-knockoff vacuum cleaner might have been borrowed a teensy bit.
I'm not sure why the press is tiptoeing around the issue - maybe because they've been so successful in what they've done, or maybe they're literally afraid of Samsung's wrath, but this company is not like a typical large multinational corporation - it's really more of a family-controlled, corporate rogue state.
Don't forget this recent tidbit :
He a criminal lol.
Here is a quote from the article at: http://www.ibtimes.com/samsung-chairman-lee-kun-hee-summoned-indias-top-court-face-criminal-charges-over-non-1566776
The Supreme Court of India, the country’s highest court, ordered Lee Kun-Hee, the chairman of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (KRX:005935), to appear before a court in the city of Ghaziabad in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, to face criminal charges over non-payment of $1.4 million owed by the Korean company's subsidiary to an Indian vendor.
Charging Lee of cheating, fraud and criminal conspiracy, the court said that the executive needs to appear before the lower court within the next six weeks, and if he fails to do so, Indian police will have orders to arrest him the next time he enters the country. The case was filed by JCE Consultancy, a New-Delhi-based maker of coke calcination packages, used in the aluminum industry.
You're right... Samsung doesn't release numbers at all.
The numbers we do get are from analysts using their own research, tracking methods and other sources.
I don't see how Samsung could possibly mislead people by fudging the numbers... when it's a bunch of 3rd parties who are gathering this data.
I might not have the highest regard for Samsung... but I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with the numbers presented by IDC, Strategy Analytics, etc. Those analytics firms are doing their own research.
The analysts might not be able count every single device shipment in the world... but they gotta be pretty close. If they say one company has 15% of tablet shipments compared to another company's 5%... you gotta figure it's at least somewhere in the ballpark.
As for the Nexus... it's another case of a particular device that we love to talk about on tech blogs... but that's not actually a big seller.
Asus hasn't released sales figures for the Nexus 7... and neither has Google. But analysts are saying roughly 4 million for all Asus tablets for 5% of the market.
If the Nexus 7 had sold 20 million in a quarter... someone would have said something about it
Fair enough. Perception doesn't pay as much tho.
Ask Amazon....and Google...