No, I think people here are trying to find anyway possible to take a jab at Samsung and are over blowing this.
What did he state? That Job's passing is getting people to look at Apple more during that time, which is unfortunate for Samsung. Yes, for Samsung from business viewpoint it could end up with less sales while people focus on Apple.
He also, states this is the best opportunity to attack iPhone.. but I don't believe he meant Job's death was the best time - that would be quite stupid actually, as people would turn away from Samsung if there was even a hint of such callousness. Samsung was in the middle of the legal battle with Apple at the time, but still extended their sympathy for the loss of Steve. No, if you look at the email trail, he was quoting from 4th October on the strategy of showing how advanced Samsung/Google are compared to iPhone (before Jobs death) and merely restates this as the best opportunity to attack iPhone the next day - not because of Jobs death, but because he keeps on trying to drum into the execs that they have to act now.
He wasn't having a dig at the passing of Jobs. Merely continuing to do his job and try and find angles to promote Samsung. That's what he is paid to do.
Whatever the merits and demerits of Samsung phones and of capitalism generally, this article's headline is materially misleading.
Bryan (quoted) above is right in saying that Mr Pennington is not, contrary to the headline, suggesting that Steve Jobs' death is "[Samsung's] best opportunity to attack iPhone".
I differ from Bryan, in that I think the email chain suggests that the best "opportunity" Mr Pennington is talking about is not a matter of timing triggered by the death. Rather, it when he says "this is our best opportunity to attack iPhone", he means "this method", namely getting Google to attack Apple, is Samsung's best opportunity. In his view, Google should seize on what he says the market research was showing: that Samsung kit was superior and that there was dissatisfaction among iPhone users awaiting a better upgrade from Apple. He says such a campaign by Google is "long overdue" and that "Google must be as motivated as we should be at this point."
He seems to be implying that the idea he has been championing has been ignored for too long, and now Steve Jobs' death has intervened to make the situation even worse. So in fact Mr Pennington's email is saying the opposite of what the AI headline is purporting was his view.
It's interesting that Dale Sohn's email to him is virtually a one-liner. I reckon Mr Pennington was in the habit of being ignored when it came to his idea that Google do Samsung's dirty work for it.
Look, frankly I do agree the original Samsung Galaxy S was pretty much a direct copy of the iPhone.. to the point even Google told them to try and differentiate more.. Yes, call it slimey or whatever, that's what Samsung sometimes does. Well, Apple won and got $1b. Case closed. Since then though, Android has come into's it's own and the Galaxy phones have a much wider range of features etc.. they are DIFFERENT to iPhone.
Did Apple really expect to be the only Smartphone player in town? Wouldn't that be like the company with the first LCD TV trying to sue all others that stop using Cathode Ray tubes and move to LCD? ... Not to mention there were good devices like the HP IPAQ about 5 years prior to iPhone which was good for the time.
Google & Samsung came up with the 7" and 8" form factor, which Steve famously said he would never get into as you would need to sand paper your finger to be able to use it... Well Apple did follow into that market.. Should Samsung/Google have tried to block this new entrant to the market through the courts? Samsung created the 'phablet' market which Apple is now also rumoured to be entering. Should they sue there too?
Absolutely they should sue. All they have to do is cough up the design patents in court proving that they invented in the 8 inch tablet and the 5 inch smartphone.
The rest of your screed is regurgitating the "let's all bury the hatchet so I can enjoy those iPhone features in my Sammy phone" meme.
IF they think they are on top, then they need to hire some new people. Market share and profit are two entirely different things. And Apple blows Samsung out of the water when it comes to profits from smartphones.
They can be the McDonald's of the smartphone as long as they want.
Samsung is profitable. According to legend... they're the only Android manufacturer who is actually making money selling Android phones.
But yes... Apple makes more smartphone profit than Samsung... while Samsung sells more smartphones than Apple. I wasn't talking about that.
My question was... is Samsung threatened by anyone today like they were by Apple in 2011?
Samsung is making money (the only profitable Android vendor) and they sell a lot of phones (#1 in the world). They're doing pretty good today.
But in 2011 their emails kept saying "Here's how we can attack Apple..." and "Beating Apple is our #1 priority..."
I was just wondering if Samsung is still writing "oh shit" emails today... like they were a few years ago.
They should be scared about the low-end Chinese vendors expanding and taking the highest volume segment away from Samsung. If that happens (which it is very likely) then Samsung won't have the high-end or low-end and will get squeezed on both sides. They would end up with mid-tier and high-end Android with moderate but shrinking volumes as they saturate their addressable market with BOGO offers on the top models.
From his June 5th 2012 e-mail in another article, Michael Pennington (Samsung) states " At the same time we are attacking Apple, We must thoroughly recognize where we are vulnerable. This will come in Many forms." And then he goes on to list three examples. He should have come to Appleinsider for more examples.
The one that should have been on the top of his list isn't the "Product quality, plastic feel" as he stated. It should have been "Morally bankrupt company bordering on criminal"
Bad comparison. McDonald's sells in high volume and makes a decent profit, Samsung doesn't. All the more reason to eliminate that razor-thin profit with a huge licensing fee from Apple.
OK, fair enough.
My point, however, was that Samsung sells junk for low margins. In that way, they are the same.
In business, it doesn't have to be ethical or legal, as long as the legal consequences don't hurt profits much. And as long as consumers continue to buy the product.
Samsung has a moral obligation to its investors to succeed in making profits. Until it can be as creative and as exceptional as Apple at finding new and better ways to do things, their only course is to copy. How can you blame them for that. They know this copying will land tham in court, because Apple must defend its intellectual property or lose their right to exercise their patents.
But Samsung, meanwhile, has made exceptional profits for its investors. And the cost of defending its use of Apple's intellectual property will be minimal compared to its profits. This will continue to be the case and Samsung will continue to copy, as will Google, until they can assemble teams as intense, smart, far-sighted and gifted as Apple's. And both companies will continue to be rewarded by investors for wisely using Apple's ideas to make better phones.
This is the moral business course of action. And it will continue until the punishment exceeds the benefit.
…one day the chickens will come home to roost. I cannot wait for that day to come.
In this case the chickens are North Korea, right? Because good luck getting any justice out of them.
Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao
He also, states this is the best opportunity to attack iPhone.. but I don’t believe he meant Job’s death was the best time…
So you didn’t read the e-mail? That’s exactly what he said. He said it nigh word for word.
Originally Posted by DewMe
…talks about “ ttacking” a competitors customers (like Apple did with the “‘m a Mac, you're a PC" campaign)...
You’ll want to watch every single one of those again and point out just where Apple attacked customers, please.
Originally Posted by vaporland
That's equivalent to "The world would be a far better place if all churches were like Jonestown.
Enjoy the Kool Aid...
Turn into yourself and blow away in the wind.
Originally Posted by hembreeder
How can you blame them for that.
PRETTY EASILY, in fact.
But Samsung, meanwhile, has made exceptional profits for its investors.
Really? Their investors are just pretending that Apple doesn’t exist, huh.
And the cost of defending its use of Apple's intellectual property will be minimal compared to its profits.
Until they lose and are made to pay six billion dollars (for a START) to Apple, as well as being legally forced not to copy again under penalty of import ban.
Reminds me of Microsoft in the Bill Gates era: fixated on beating their competitors rather than enhancing their customers experience with the company's products. It's an old, tired, reactive strategy that prioritized Microsoft's interests firmly ahead of their users'.
They remained that way under Ballmer. Watch some of their shareholder's meeting. You'd think they're rallying troops for war.
While distasteful, strategically speaking it makes sense that Samsung would take advantage of "a competitors weakness." That's not illegal. Bringing it up is an appeal to emotion and not relevant to the patents-in-suit.
Seriously, there's a lot to criticize Samsung for, but this is borderline dishonest by DED. The title of "Samsung email targeted Steve Jobs' death as our best opportunity" is distorting timing with intent. It's pretty clear from the emails that the marketing guy felt they could attack the iPhone on merits (imagined or not) based on the growing maturity of their product around that time. Steve's death was not the determining factor and to imply otherwise is not just in poor taste, but dishonest.
Are some seriously stating that competitors should not attack each other in ads? Should Audi be criticized for their BMW attack ads? Should Taco Bell be criticized for their McDonald attack ads?
Foaming at the mouth of EVERY anti-Samsung post without first thinking is why real, legitimate criticisms often get lost in the noise and people say stuff like "it's Apple fanatics being Apple fanatics."
Attacking competitors by name is woeful as it says your own merits aren't enough. Witness political ads and negative campaigning.
Well, if you can't do something better than your competitor, try and convince people that the competitor's product is worse than yours. That way you don't have to try to make yours better.
I'm looking forward to a few years with a larger iPhone on the market. Firstly it'll give people something else to moan about that Apple isn't doing, plus it'll give people time to realise that these over sized phones are a fad and you neither need or want one.
I can't believe how sick samsung actually is. False advertising, adverts that show people happy when really there like "what crap apps, where's this where that?"
Comments
No, I think people here are trying to find anyway possible to take a jab at Samsung and are over blowing this.
What did he state? That Job's passing is getting people to look at Apple more during that time, which is unfortunate for Samsung. Yes, for Samsung from business viewpoint it could end up with less sales while people focus on Apple.
He also, states this is the best opportunity to attack iPhone.. but I don't believe he meant Job's death was the best time - that would be quite stupid actually, as people would turn away from Samsung if there was even a hint of such callousness. Samsung was in the middle of the legal battle with Apple at the time, but still extended their sympathy for the loss of Steve. No, if you look at the email trail, he was quoting from 4th October on the strategy of showing how advanced Samsung/Google are compared to iPhone (before Jobs death) and merely restates this as the best opportunity to attack iPhone the next day - not because of Jobs death, but because he keeps on trying to drum into the execs that they have to act now.
He wasn't having a dig at the passing of Jobs. Merely continuing to do his job and try and find angles to promote Samsung. That's what he is paid to do.
Whatever the merits and demerits of Samsung phones and of capitalism generally, this article's headline is materially misleading.
Bryan (quoted) above is right in saying that Mr Pennington is not, contrary to the headline, suggesting that Steve Jobs' death is "[Samsung's] best opportunity to attack iPhone".
I differ from Bryan, in that I think the email chain suggests that the best "opportunity" Mr Pennington is talking about is not a matter of timing triggered by the death. Rather, it when he says "this is our best opportunity to attack iPhone", he means "this method", namely getting Google to attack Apple, is Samsung's best opportunity. In his view, Google should seize on what he says the market research was showing: that Samsung kit was superior and that there was dissatisfaction among iPhone users awaiting a better upgrade from Apple. He says such a campaign by Google is "long overdue" and that "Google must be as motivated as we should be at this point."
He seems to be implying that the idea he has been championing has been ignored for too long, and now Steve Jobs' death has intervened to make the situation even worse. So in fact Mr Pennington's email is saying the opposite of what the AI headline is purporting was his view.
It's interesting that Dale Sohn's email to him is virtually a one-liner. I reckon Mr Pennington was in the habit of being ignored when it came to his idea that Google do Samsung's dirty work for it.
Absolutely they should sue. All they have to do is cough up the design patents in court proving that they invented in the 8 inch tablet and the 5 inch smartphone.
The rest of your screed is regurgitating the "let's all bury the hatchet so I can enjoy those iPhone features in my Sammy phone" meme.
They should be scared about the low-end Chinese vendors expanding and taking the highest volume segment away from Samsung. If that happens (which it is very likely) then Samsung won't have the high-end or low-end and will get squeezed on both sides. They would end up with mid-tier and high-end Android with moderate but shrinking volumes as they saturate their addressable market with BOGO offers on the top models.
From his June 5th 2012 e-mail in another article, Michael Pennington (Samsung) states " At the same time we are attacking Apple, We must thoroughly recognize where we are vulnerable. This will come in Many forms." And then he goes on to list three examples. He should have come to Appleinsider for more examples.
The one that should have been on the top of his list isn't the "Product quality, plastic feel" as he stated. It should have been "Morally bankrupt company bordering on criminal"
Scum. Foreign imports should be taxed severely.
That's equivalent to "The world would be a far better place if all churches were like Jonestown.
Enjoy the Kool Aid...
A single tear just ran down my cheek, like that Indian on his horse looking at the litter.
Bad comparison. McDonald's sells in high volume and makes a decent profit, Samsung doesn't. All the more reason to eliminate that razor-thin profit with a huge licensing fee from Apple.
OK, fair enough.
My point, however, was that Samsung sells junk for low margins. In that way, they are the same.
A single tear just ran down my cheek, like that Indian on his horse looking at the litter.
Holy crap. Are we all that old here?
In business, it doesn't have to be ethical or legal, as long as the legal consequences don't hurt profits much. And as long as consumers continue to buy the product.
But Samsung, meanwhile, has made exceptional profits for its investors. And the cost of defending its use of Apple's intellectual property will be minimal compared to its profits. This will continue to be the case and Samsung will continue to copy, as will Google, until they can assemble teams as intense, smart, far-sighted and gifted as Apple's. And both companies will continue to be rewarded by investors for wisely using Apple's ideas to make better phones.
This is the moral business course of action. And it will continue until the punishment exceeds the benefit.
In this case the chickens are North Korea, right? Because good luck getting any justice out of them.
He also, states this is the best opportunity to attack iPhone.. but I don’t believe he meant Job’s death was the best time…
So you didn’t read the e-mail? That’s exactly what he said. He said it nigh word for word.
You’ll want to watch every single one of those again and point out just where Apple attacked customers, please.
Enjoy the Kool Aid...
Turn into yourself and blow away in the wind.
PRETTY EASILY, in fact.
Really? Their investors are just pretending that Apple doesn’t exist, huh.
Until they lose and are made to pay six billion dollars (for a START) to Apple, as well as being legally forced not to copy again under penalty of import ban.
I'm sure there was a big 'oh shit' moment when they found out that the CPUs they were building for Apple were 64 bit, and let's not forget Touch ID.
Reminds me of Microsoft in the Bill Gates era: fixated on beating their competitors rather than enhancing their customers experience with the company's products. It's an old, tired, reactive strategy that prioritized Microsoft's interests firmly ahead of their users'.
They remained that way under Ballmer. Watch some of their shareholder's meeting. You'd think they're rallying troops for war.
Holy crap. Are we all that old here?
Heh, many of us remember Iron Eyes Cody as a teenager.
Horrible analogy. Why shouldn't all companies strive to be Apple: profits without compromising the user experience.
Attacking competitors by name is woeful as it says your own merits aren't enough. Witness political ads and negative campaigning.
Well, if you can't do something better than your competitor, try and convince people that the competitor's product is worse than yours. That way you don't have to try to make yours better.
I'm looking forward to a few years with a larger iPhone on the market. Firstly it'll give people something else to moan about that Apple isn't doing, plus it'll give people time to realise that these over sized phones are a fad and you neither need or want one.