Volume and profit are two very different things. Apple is the king of profit. Clearly profits is the ultimate goal of a company, no? Apple will continue to be a threat as long as they are making more per handset than Samsung.
Samsung is profitable... albeit not as much as Apple per handset. So what does that mean?
Yes... there can only be one king of profit. And that is Apple... no doubt.
So should all other companies just pack up and go home?
Honda will never make as much money as Toyota... nor sell as many cars as Toyota. Does that mean Honda is doomed because of that?
Of course not. There are dozens of car companies who don't post the kinds of numbers Toyota does. That doesn't mean they're failures though.
I never understood the "king of the mountain" attitude. It is possible for more than one company to exist in an industry... and make money.
Samsung is profitable... albeit not as much as Apple per handset. So what does that mean?
...
So should all other companies just pack up and go home?
...
I never understood the "king of the mountain" attitude. It is possible for more than one company to exist in an industry... and make money.
I think you misunderstood my post. Samsung is the one that wants to be the king of all. Apple is only the king because they have a successful business model and honourable principles in business ethics, operations and high-class product design. I wasn't saying Samsung should just surrender their desire to overtake Apple.
I think you misunderstood my post. Samsung is the one that wants to be the king of all. Apple is only the king because they have a successful business model and honourable principles in business ethics, operations and high-class product design. I wasn't saying Samsung should just surrender their desire to overtake Apple.
And what if Samsung is never king of it all?
Isn't it possible for them to exist comfortably in the #2 position?
I think it's great for a company to strive to be #1... but they also have to be willing to make do with being a successful #2
There can only ever be one#1... that's the very nature of it. So there are a lot more non-#1 companies out there.
Be careful not to miss the intelligence of this discussion. They may well be overly focused on the competition, but Apple is no less focused on Samsung after their recent advertising so embarrased Apple. Apple's marketing has probably lost more of it's edge then the products themselves with Steve's passing. Samsung has had an advantage: larger screens and batteries because they were the supplier for the best screens and could start using them on their smaller subsection of customers at an earlier point in the new adoption trajectory. They have done a decent job on hardware. The question here is how much of their software is copying and how much is simply understanding how to design good products.
I think it is really easy to see Samsung lacks Apple's ability to polish the software in its products. Samsung knows this as well as Apple does. They are really in a lot worse spot then most of their customers understand. If Apple wins even a few billion more in judgements in America and begins to pull away with new highly polished tech such as a true fashion statement watch and new hardware, then Samsung is going to look bad in court, at the sales counter and in their bank accounts. Dirty tricks will keep you in a second place, but they don't allow you to leapfrog the competition.
Apple is really getting ready to hand Samsung their heads during the next 12 months of product announcements.
Be careful not to miss the intelligence of this discussion. They may well be overly focused on the competition, but Apple is no less focused on Samsung after their recent advertising so embarrased Apple. Apple's marketing has probably lost more of it's edge then the products themselves with Steve's passing. Samsung has had an advantage: larger screens and batteries because they were the supplier for the best screens and could start using them on their smaller subsection of customers at an earlier point in the new adoption trajectory. They have done a decent job on hardware. The question here is how much of their software is copying and how much is simply understanding how to design good products.
I think it is really easy to see Samsung lacks Apple's ability to polish the software in its products. Samsung knows this as well as Apple does. They are really in a lot worse spot then most of their customers understand. If Apple wins even a few billion more in judgements in America and begins to pull away with new highly polished tech such as a true fashion statement watch and new hardware, then Samsung is going to look bad in court, at the sales counter and in their bank accounts. Dirty tricks will keep you in a second place, but they don't allow you to leapfrog the competition.
Apple is really getting ready to hand Samsung their heads during the next 12 months of product announcements.
HTC introduced a larger screen first, the desire I think it was, Samsung stifled them by withholding screen supplies forcing HTC to scramble to find new suppliers.
This is why some of them had AMOLED screens and others didn't.
The large screen was introduced to solve an engineering problem, where to put the larger battery these power hungry Android phones required to get through a day, without sacrificing thinness.
The manufactured screen size issue is probably Samsung's most successful marketing strategy to date, judging purely by the number of people who continue to harp on about it.
HTC introduced a larger screen first, the desire I think it was, Samsung stifled them by withholding screen supplies forcing HTC to scramble to find new suppliers.
This is why some of them had AMOLED screens and others didn't.
The large screen was introduced to solve an engineering problem, where to put the larger battery these power hungry Android phones required to get through a day, without sacrificing thinness.
The manufactured screen size issue is probably Samsung's most successful marketing strategy to date, judging purely by the number of people who continue to harp on about it.
Harp is too pleasant a word. Bang on ad nauseam is more like it.
The large screen was introduced to solve an engineering problem, where to put the larger battery these power hungry Android phones required to get through a day, without sacrificing thinness.
Doesn't a larger display require more power than a smaller display of the same type and resolution? Seems like putting a bigger display in there, particularly a higher resolution one, works against your theory.
HTC introduced a larger screen first, the desire I think it was, Samsung stifled them by withholding screen supplies forcing HTC to scramble to find new suppliers.
It was HTC HD2 which was released late 2009, and it had a 4.3" screen.
Doesn't a larger display require more power than a smaller display of the same type and resolution? Seems like putting a bigger display in there, particularly a higher resolution one, works against your theory.
Not proportionally, no. And when you get to iPad size, even more so; hence, the outstanding battery life on the iPad.
[quote name="dasanman69" url="/t/178523/samsung-email-targeted-steve-jobs-death-as-our-best-opportunity-to-attack-iphone/100_100#post_2518065"] Like this?
Doesn't a larger display require more power than a smaller display of the same type and resolution? Seems like putting a bigger display in there, particularly a higher resolution one, works against your theory.
I believe I've read somewhere that you can get more power capacity than your power requirements grow with more real estate. Rest of the system doesn't grow power requirements regardless of phone size.
Comments
Samsung is profitable... albeit not as much as Apple per handset. So what does that mean?
Yes... there can only be one king of profit. And that is Apple... no doubt.
So should all other companies just pack up and go home?
Honda will never make as much money as Toyota... nor sell as many cars as Toyota. Does that mean Honda is doomed because of that?
Of course not. There are dozens of car companies who don't post the kinds of numbers Toyota does. That doesn't mean they're failures though.
I never understood the "king of the mountain" attitude. It is possible for more than one company to exist in an industry... and make money.
It doesn’t seem to be possible for more than one company to exist in the technology industry, make money, and make their own products, however.
Samsung is profitable... albeit not as much as Apple per handset. So what does that mean?
...
So should all other companies just pack up and go home?
...
I never understood the "king of the mountain" attitude. It is possible for more than one company to exist in an industry... and make money.
I think you misunderstood my post. Samsung is the one that wants to be the king of all. Apple is only the king because they have a successful business model and honourable principles in business ethics, operations and high-class product design. I wasn't saying Samsung should just surrender their desire to overtake Apple.
And what if Samsung is never king of it all?
Isn't it possible for them to exist comfortably in the #2 position?
I think it's great for a company to strive to be #1... but they also have to be willing to make do with being a successful #2
There can only ever be one #1... that's the very nature of it. So there are a lot more non-#1 companies out there.
Great, I'm finally able to comment. Seriously, how disgusting is it that Scamsung did this? Apple, quit using Scamsung components ASAP.
I think I need a little more clarification on that...
Are you saying that there cannot be two or more technology companies selling products... and all of them make money?
It is possible but this is Sammy: lie, cheat, steal.
Another possible motto for Samsung:
We lied, we cheated, we stole.
I think it is really easy to see Samsung lacks Apple's ability to polish the software in its products. Samsung knows this as well as Apple does. They are really in a lot worse spot then most of their customers understand. If Apple wins even a few billion more in judgements in America and begins to pull away with new highly polished tech such as a true fashion statement watch and new hardware, then Samsung is going to look bad in court, at the sales counter and in their bank accounts. Dirty tricks will keep you in a second place, but they don't allow you to leapfrog the competition.
Apple is really getting ready to hand Samsung their heads during the next 12 months of product announcements.
Be careful not to miss the intelligence of this discussion. They may well be overly focused on the competition, but Apple is no less focused on Samsung after their recent advertising so embarrased Apple. Apple's marketing has probably lost more of it's edge then the products themselves with Steve's passing. Samsung has had an advantage: larger screens and batteries because they were the supplier for the best screens and could start using them on their smaller subsection of customers at an earlier point in the new adoption trajectory. They have done a decent job on hardware. The question here is how much of their software is copying and how much is simply understanding how to design good products.
I think it is really easy to see Samsung lacks Apple's ability to polish the software in its products. Samsung knows this as well as Apple does. They are really in a lot worse spot then most of their customers understand. If Apple wins even a few billion more in judgements in America and begins to pull away with new highly polished tech such as a true fashion statement watch and new hardware, then Samsung is going to look bad in court, at the sales counter and in their bank accounts. Dirty tricks will keep you in a second place, but they don't allow you to leapfrog the competition.
Apple is really getting ready to hand Samsung their heads during the next 12 months of product announcements.
HTC introduced a larger screen first, the desire I think it was, Samsung stifled them by withholding screen supplies forcing HTC to scramble to find new suppliers.
This is why some of them had AMOLED screens and others didn't.
The large screen was introduced to solve an engineering problem, where to put the larger battery these power hungry Android phones required to get through a day, without sacrificing thinness.
The manufactured screen size issue is probably Samsung's most successful marketing strategy to date, judging purely by the number of people who continue to harp on about it.
Harp is too pleasant a word. Bang on ad nauseam is more like it.
Doesn't a larger display require more power than a smaller display of the same type and resolution? Seems like putting a bigger display in there, particularly a higher resolution one, works against your theory.
It was HTC HD2 which was released late 2009, and it had a 4.3" screen.
Not proportionally, no. And when you get to iPad size, even more so; hence, the outstanding battery life on the iPad.
Like this?
Like this?
Yes!!! ????????????
Honestly, his post looks like much better waste of time than yours.
Hmmm...hill60 or nikon133? hill60. Goodbye nickersinatwist133.
I believe I've read somewhere that you can get more power capacity than your power requirements grow with more real estate. Rest of the system doesn't grow power requirements regardless of phone size.
No problem. Stay frosty