-Possible customers waiting to see Apple's iPhone6? (me too)
-Customers no longer wanting a Google Android SPYWARE OS?
-Poor quality?
Samdung had one strategy....100% pure replica of Apple device. Apple is now focusing on software services and integrated hardware solutions that aren't easily copied. Software services work best on a non-fragmented platform. Apple's CPU, graphics, and motion chips also require a non-fragmented platform and require long lead times in planning.
There's a lot of irony in Apple leapfrogging the industry in hardware design. They were criticized when they bought PA semiconductor. Now who's laughing. I think it is a beautiful thing that Apple has Samdung fab a more advanced chip than Samdung can design. Does no one else see the irony in this?
I hope Apple always continues to use Samdung for fabricating. It will keep costs down and reminds Samdung about who's boss. If I had to guess, Samsung hates the relationship more than Apple does.
They were the first with a multitouch capacitive display. Remember LG Prada had a shitty single ouch capacitive screen with a shitty OS announced right before the iPhone.
Thanks, I was already in the process of adding 'multi touch' when you replied.
ummm, 7 billion in profit is nothing to sneeze at. I very much doubt heads are going to roll. From a business standpoint, copying Apple was totally the right thing to do. Think of all the catastrophic failures from companies who tried to compete with Apple by partially copying and adding their own flair to it (note that the entire smartphone industry copied Apple to some degree). I'm sure the 100% pure copyists at Samdung are heroes in the eyes of Samdung shareholders. Of all the copyists, they did it the best.
My post was only about their numbers not copying. Copying by Samsung isn't even worth debating. It's not about the numbers in isolation. It's about the numbers in relation to where they were and in relation to shipments. Three quarters of profit decline at the same time as actual numbers shipped increased, is not a good path to be on. Heads do roll for such things.
Though I agree that Samsung (like others, it should be noted) have largely copied apple after the debut of the iphone- Samsung has something viable up its sleeves. Imagine a Samsung phone with Tizen, not android. Apple has homekit, and naturally google is following suit with whatever terrible interfaced copycat kit they have. But Samsung makes cars, tools, computers, washers, dryers, tellys, a/c, and other home appliances. If they make Tizen secure- they can let you automate your home cheaply and without the google data collecting BS.
Samsung is potentially sitting on an easy to configure goldmine.
Sounds easy on paper, but I think Tizen would be a disaster. Samsung customers are like Microsoft customers. They didn't care about performance to begin with, which is why they chose Samsung (or Microsoft) in the first place. Once they learned how to use their shitty software, the worst thing you can do to them is make them learn new shitty software. Look at Microsoft XP customers. MS can't get them to upgrade over a decade later. Every new MS OS release is followed by years of bitching. While quality shares part of the blame, a big part of it is the customers. Think about it, if the Samdung customers were smart enough or wealthy enough to select good software, they wouldn't be using Samdung or MS in the first place. The galaxy S owners over the age of 50 are the one exception. They need the bigger screen to avoid using reading glasses.
Also, Samsung just tried Tizen on some of its watches and it didn't go well. They are now going to release watches for Android. If Samsung experiments with Tizen on the Galaxy S phones, I think it will be very short lived.
Samsung is really screwed because Apple hasn't even released the new iPhone yet. Samsung has played most of its cards, Apple hasn't.
Well they always make an even bigger phone with an even bigger battery and throw in more sensors that work 50% of the time. More retina-searing color saturation. Maybe more cores. More specs should please all the concern trolls who keep saying Apple should get back to innovating, while they keep demanding more specs from Samsung.
So what was the excuse Wall Street made about AAPL? Apple stock was down because Samsung was gonna slaughter them in the low end phone market? Oh…right.
Of course Apple can't develop a brand new product category annually, it's not possible. Three products that were revolutionary and innovative is simple.
HDTV, DVR/DVD's, NFC (although it's not too commonly used), RFID tagging, CD's, mainstream GPS, hybrid and electric cars, 3D printing, Google, USB flash, Wifi, and social media, just to name a few have completely revolutionized our lifes.
You didn't answer my question at all. I said name a single company that has released 3 revolutionary products in the last 15 years. I didn't say name revolutionary things- that would be ludicrous. I said name a company. Which, of course, you can't do.
Apple is the innovator the past decade and a half. Particularly in the technology field. Period.
You're the clown that came in here touting that Apple doesn't innovate anything. So when you come in here with that douchebag attitude, don't expect to kindly be responded to. Douchebags will be responded to like douchebags should be responded to.
Regarding previous stories, I thought this one was pertinent:
Quote:
Samsung’s management team is meeting from December 17th through the 20th to discuss its plans for the next year, and one of the main topics is “crisis awareness,”ZDNet reported. It is not clear if Samsung has a specific crisis in mind — perhaps the slowing sales of its high-end smartphones...
Bottom line: I think Samsung saw this coming. Last November, they probably recognized the second Apple lawsuit looming (which they largely ducked), a slow-down in the smartphone market, their flop launch of smartwatches, being behind in 64-bit development, little new to offer in their upcoming S5, and Apple's progressive move to other suppliers. In addition, I personally think Tizen will be as successful as if Dell had switched from Windows boxes to Linux.
Yeah, they still make money - Samsung makes vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, industrial equipment, and a billion other things. But their smartphone success is evaporating.
My post was only about their numbers not copying. Copying by Samsung isn't even worth debating. It's not about the numbers in isolation. It's about the numbers in relation to where they were and in relation to shipments. Three quarters of profit decline at the same time as actual numbers shipped increased, is not a good path to be on. Heads do roll for such things.
Good point. Three quarters of decline is not good. However, I think the success of the Samsung mobile is so great that the management team has a lot of room to fall. Samsung's huge success is still emblazoned in the minds of its shareholders. Samsung may lose to Apple, but they beat Google-Motorola, Microsoft, LG, HTC, Sony, Huawei, Nokia, and Blackberry. These companies all lost money trying to compete with Apple. Samsung is the lone successful competitor. Samsung took home the silver medal. Whether you think that is impressive or not depends on your perspective and expectations. At a minimum, they can say they were the only company that competed head to head with Apple during its mobile growth spurt.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying silver is better than gold. Those of us that have owned Apple stock for years are perfectly content with our returns. I'm just saying most people don't chop off a competitors head because they take the silver medal (unless you are Colombian).
... Samsung on Tuesday warned investors that it is set to announce a quarterly profit decline of as much as 26 percent year-over-year, citing weak smartphone demand and increased competition in China and Europe ...
And in other South Korean news: "Gangnam Style," the worldwide viral super-hit by K-Pop star PSY has drastically declined in popularity year-over-year since its peak in 2012.
But really, Samsung's smartphone sales decline and "Gangnam Style"'s decline were both inevitable.
Good point. Three quarters of decline is not good. However, I think the success of the Samsung mobile is so great that the management team has a lot of room to fall. Samsung's huge success is still emblazoned in the minds of its shareholders. Samsung may lose to Apple, but they beat Google-Motorola, Microsoft, LG, HTC, Sony, Huawei, Nokia, and Blackberry. These companies all lost money trying to compete with Apple. Samsung is the lone successful competitor. Samsung took home the silver medal. Whether you think that is impressive or not depends on your perspective and expectations. At a minimum, they can say they were the only ones that competed head to head with Apple during its mobile growth spurt.
I can't disagree with your summation although a silver for (and now back to copying) ripping off Apple's IP at every turn (which they have admitted in court) isn't a worthy medal in my book. Although, I am sure their shareholders didn't care.
Bottom line: I think Samsung saw this coming. Last November, they probably recognized the second Apple lawsuit looming (which they largely ducked), a slow-down in the smartphone market, their flop launch of smartwatches, being behind in 64-bit development, little new to offer in their upcoming S5, and Apple's progressive move to other suppliers. In addition, I personally think Tizen will be as successful as if Dell had switched from Windows boxes to Linux.
Yeah, they still make money - Samsung makes vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, industrial equipment, and a billion other things. But their smartphone success is evaporating.
Yup. To me, the S5 felt like a cheap way to freshen up the Galaxy S line. And apparently consumers felt that way too.
But Samsung may still eventually switch to Tizen. Yes, it's absolutely terrible. I've played with one or two Tizen test devices,
and they were godawful. But Tizen runs Android apps, and Samsung has their own bizarre UI layer that covers up bare Android.
End users might never know the difference, except that their purchases happen on Samsung Hub instead of Google Play.
Don't worry about Samsung though. Their core competencies are TVs, refrigerators, and other medium-tech home appliances.
Come to think of it, Samsung and Google are two of a kind. They have no partners in their respective industries. Only enemies.
Because they enter markets and attempt to copy features from successful products, then undercut competitors' pricing.
They grow roots, pry their way into many markets, and go as far as they can. Like some kind of mindless weed.
Google is far worse, though. Their products don't even need to sell. They make all their money from ads.
Touch ID, I will give to Apple, is a pretty innovative feature and one that actually works well as I've played with it on my girlfriends 5S.
64-bit processing is something all smartphones should have, which is one huge issue I have with Samsung... makes for a super smooth and fluid feel across the OS, which is why I enjoy the iPhone more.
Of course Apple can't develop a brand new product category annually, it's not possible.
I am well aware of Apple's advances in technology, but I don't find them innovative.
?_?
So after listing clear, recent examples of Apple innovation and technological prowess, which corporate pariah Samsung has been unable to copy, and after acknowledging that it's impossible for any company to introduce revolutionary products every year, you then contradict yourself by claiming you don't find them innovative? Who do you find innovative? Samsung? Google? Microsoft?
Apple did not invent the touchscreen, it has been around since the 80's, probably earlier. Apple brought the multi-point touchscreen to the smartphone.
Apple didn't invent the touchscreen - they did much more than that. After many years of the top tech companies in the world producing and refining their cell phones, Apple introduced a product that completely revolutionized the field in multiple ways. They perfected the touchscreen - not just in terms of responsiveness and display clarity, but also in user interface design. Ridiculed by both the press and competitors alike, they did away with the tired idea of cramming a desktop UI into a handheld device and completely simplified it to the point where anyone could instantly figure out how to use it with little or no instruction. They delivered the first real mobile web browsing experience that didn't suck. They incorporated a multitude of sensors and leveraged them to make the device work like magic.
All this with version 1.0 of a product with which they had zero experience. And all of this they continue to do today, albeit in a more iterative fashion since as you readily admit, it's impossible to change the world on a regular yearly schedule.
No offense, but you come across as the stereotypical PC guy: focused entirely on a product's spec sheet with little regard for real word utility - little appreciation for things like good design, high quality materials, and a company's focus on its end users' satisfaction, privacy and security. Apple often mentions focusing on the intersection of technology and liberal arts. You seem to have a limited understanding of one and a total disregard for the other.
I can't disagree with your summation although a silver for (and now back to copying) ripping off Apple's IP at every turn (which they have admitted in court) isn't a worthy medal in my book. Although, I am sure their shareholders didn't care.
What makes Samsung good business people is that they recognized there wasn't time to develop a platform from scratch. Wholesale copying was the only chance they had. I'm not condoning the copying. I'm just saying that Samsung is a better-run company than Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, etc, because Samsung recognized the path to success. And it wasn't just because Samdung has a culture of copying and companies like Microsoft don't. Quite the contrary, Microsoft has a history of copying and anti-competition. No, I think Microsoft took a different approach because MS thought it could do a better job. MS has this delusional belief that it has a successful brand when in reality it has a successful monopoly. If anything, MS's brand has negative value.
You guys speak of innovation and Apple, but honestly, what innovation have they supplied to the smartphone market? They keep making their phones slimmer, upgrading internals with better chips, increasing screen resolution, and now following Samsung, they are finally increasing their screen size to something respectable. You think that innovation is slimming down and making a screen bigger, big whoop.
Touch ID, I will give to Apple, is a pretty innovative feature and one that actually works well as I've played with it on my girlfriends 5S. 64-bit processing is something all smartphones should have, which is one huge issue I have with Samsung. The difference of using a 64-bit processor makes for a super smooth and fluid feel across the OS, which is why I enjoy the iPhone more.
Clueless? No. I put my opinion out there, and I am well aware of Apple's advances in technology, but I don't find them innovative.
Hot damn, we found the guy who is the arbiter of innovation! I'm glad you gave Apple credit for the 64-bit chip. What about the M7?
Outside of Apple, what other company has innovated in the cell phone market since 2007?
So after listing clear, recent examples of Apple innovation and technological prowess, which corporate pariah Samsung has been unable to copy, and after acknowledging that it's impossible for any company to introduce revolutionary products every year, you then contradict yourself by claiming you don't find them innovative? Who do you find innovative? Samsung? Google? Microsoft?
Apple didn't invent the touchscreen - they did much more than that. After many years of the top tech companies in the world producing and refining their cell phones, Apple introduced a product that completely revolutionized the field in multiple ways. They perfected the touchscreen - not just in terms of responsiveness and display clarity, but also in user interface design. Ridiculed by both the press and competitors alike, they did away with the tired idea of cramming a desktop UI into a handheld device and completely simplified it to the point where anyone could instantly figure out how to use it with little or no instruction. They delivered the first real mobile web browsing experience that didn't suck. They incorporated a multitude of sensors and leveraged them to make the device work like magic.
All this with version 1.0 of a product with which they had zero experience. And all of this they continue to do today, albeit in a more iterative fashion since as you readily admit, it's impossible to change the world on a regular yearly schedule.
No offense, but you come across as the stereotypical PC guy: focused entirely on a product's spec sheet with little regard for real word utility - little appreciation for things like good design, high quality materials, and a company's focus on its end users' satisfaction, privacy and security. Apple often mentions focusing on the intersection of technology and liberal arts. You seem to have a limited understanding of one and a total disregard for the other.
Totally agree. Remember when all the pundits said that the iPhone would be a paper weight and that Apple had no business getting into the smartphone market? Remember how they all told us that the business world would never use a phone without a physical keyboard? Remember how everyone said the iPhone was just a "toy." Remember how the iPad was just a big iPod touch?
In patent law, commercial success and copying are two important indicia of non-obviousness. I've always thought that Apple should have tried to get broader utility patents on the iPhone simply based on its commercial success and copying. They should be able to shut Samsung down.
They got lucky. Flat out. They stumbled upon making GIAGANTIC screens and the market ate it up. There would always be a huge market for Android phones because of price. Samsung was just the lucky one. It will only go down hill from now on. Profits are down 25% and top end unit sales are down 35%. Soon they will need to cut marketing and that will lessen sales even more. The Chinese companies will destroy Samsung's mid-range phones and they will be forced to cut prices even more.
Can you say Nokia 2.0?
This.
The things Samsung does best are strealing, bribing governments, and turning a blind eye for a decade while their employees get cancer. They have those 3 things down to an art.
Comments
Well I wonder why Samsung is going downhill?
Could it be:
-Less parts sales to Apple?
-Less copying of Apple's latest designs?
-Possible customers waiting to see Apple's iPhone6? (me too)
-Customers no longer wanting a Google Android SPYWARE OS?
-Poor quality?
Samdung had one strategy....100% pure replica of Apple device. Apple is now focusing on software services and integrated hardware solutions that aren't easily copied. Software services work best on a non-fragmented platform. Apple's CPU, graphics, and motion chips also require a non-fragmented platform and require long lead times in planning.
There's a lot of irony in Apple leapfrogging the industry in hardware design. They were criticized when they bought PA semiconductor. Now who's laughing. I think it is a beautiful thing that Apple has Samdung fab a more advanced chip than Samdung can design. Does no one else see the irony in this?
I hope Apple always continues to use Samdung for fabricating. It will keep costs down and reminds Samdung about who's boss. If I had to guess, Samsung hates the relationship more than Apple does.
Thanks, I was already in the process of adding 'multi touch' when you replied.
My post was only about their numbers not copying. Copying by Samsung isn't even worth debating. It's not about the numbers in isolation. It's about the numbers in relation to where they were and in relation to shipments. Three quarters of profit decline at the same time as actual numbers shipped increased, is not a good path to be on. Heads do roll for such things.
Though I agree that Samsung (like others, it should be noted) have largely copied apple after the debut of the iphone- Samsung has something viable up its sleeves. Imagine a Samsung phone with Tizen, not android. Apple has homekit, and naturally google is following suit with whatever terrible interfaced copycat kit they have. But Samsung makes cars, tools, computers, washers, dryers, tellys, a/c, and other home appliances. If they make Tizen secure- they can let you automate your home cheaply and without the google data collecting BS.
Samsung is potentially sitting on an easy to configure goldmine.
Sounds easy on paper, but I think Tizen would be a disaster. Samsung customers are like Microsoft customers. They didn't care about performance to begin with, which is why they chose Samsung (or Microsoft) in the first place. Once they learned how to use their shitty software, the worst thing you can do to them is make them learn new shitty software. Look at Microsoft XP customers. MS can't get them to upgrade over a decade later. Every new MS OS release is followed by years of bitching. While quality shares part of the blame, a big part of it is the customers. Think about it, if the Samdung customers were smart enough or wealthy enough to select good software, they wouldn't be using Samdung or MS in the first place. The galaxy S owners over the age of 50 are the one exception. They need the bigger screen to avoid using reading glasses.
Also, Samsung just tried Tizen on some of its watches and it didn't go well. They are now going to release watches for Android. If Samsung experiments with Tizen on the Galaxy S phones, I think it will be very short lived.
Well they always make an even bigger phone with an even bigger battery and throw in more sensors that work 50% of the time. More retina-searing color saturation. Maybe more cores. More specs should please all the concern trolls who keep saying Apple should get back to innovating, while they keep demanding more specs from Samsung.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/07/us-brazil-heist-samsung-elec-idUSKBN0FC2I820140707
So what was the excuse Wall Street made about AAPL? Apple stock was down because Samsung was gonna slaughter them in the low end phone market? Oh…right.
Of course Apple can't develop a brand new product category annually, it's not possible. Three products that were revolutionary and innovative is simple.
HDTV, DVR/DVD's, NFC (although it's not too commonly used), RFID tagging, CD's, mainstream GPS, hybrid and electric cars, 3D printing, Google, USB flash, Wifi, and social media, just to name a few have completely revolutionized our lifes.
You didn't answer my question at all. I said name a single company that has released 3 revolutionary products in the last 15 years. I didn't say name revolutionary things- that would be ludicrous. I said name a company. Which, of course, you can't do.
Apple is the innovator the past decade and a half. Particularly in the technology field. Period.
You're the clown that came in here touting that Apple doesn't innovate anything. So when you come in here with that douchebag attitude, don't expect to kindly be responded to. Douchebags will be responded to like douchebags should be responded to.
Regarding previous stories, I thought this one was pertinent:
(PS- Appleinsider covered it too)
Bottom line: I think Samsung saw this coming. Last November, they probably recognized the second Apple lawsuit looming (which they largely ducked), a slow-down in the smartphone market, their flop launch of smartwatches, being behind in 64-bit development, little new to offer in their upcoming S5, and Apple's progressive move to other suppliers. In addition, I personally think Tizen will be as successful as if Dell had switched from Windows boxes to Linux.
Yeah, they still make money - Samsung makes vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, industrial equipment, and a billion other things. But their smartphone success is evaporating.
My post was only about their numbers not copying. Copying by Samsung isn't even worth debating. It's not about the numbers in isolation. It's about the numbers in relation to where they were and in relation to shipments. Three quarters of profit decline at the same time as actual numbers shipped increased, is not a good path to be on. Heads do roll for such things.
Good point. Three quarters of decline is not good. However, I think the success of the Samsung mobile is so great that the management team has a lot of room to fall. Samsung's huge success is still emblazoned in the minds of its shareholders. Samsung may lose to Apple, but they beat Google-Motorola, Microsoft, LG, HTC, Sony, Huawei, Nokia, and Blackberry. These companies all lost money trying to compete with Apple. Samsung is the lone successful competitor. Samsung took home the silver medal. Whether you think that is impressive or not depends on your perspective and expectations. At a minimum, they can say they were the only company that competed head to head with Apple during its mobile growth spurt.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying silver is better than gold. Those of us that have owned Apple stock for years are perfectly content with our returns. I'm just saying most people don't chop off a competitors head because they take the silver medal (unless you are Colombian).
... Samsung on Tuesday warned investors that it is set to announce a quarterly profit decline of as much as 26 percent year-over-year, citing weak smartphone demand and increased competition in China and Europe ...
And in other South Korean news: "Gangnam Style," the worldwide viral super-hit by K-Pop star PSY has drastically declined in popularity year-over-year since its peak in 2012.
But really, Samsung's smartphone sales decline and "Gangnam Style"'s decline were both inevitable.
Weren't they.
I can't disagree with your summation although a silver for (and now back to copying) ripping off Apple's IP at every turn (which they have admitted in court) isn't a worthy medal in my book. Although, I am sure their shareholders didn't care.
Regarding previous stories, I thought this one was pertinent:
(PS- Appleinsider covered it too)
Bottom line: I think Samsung saw this coming. Last November, they probably recognized the second Apple lawsuit looming (which they largely ducked), a slow-down in the smartphone market, their flop launch of smartwatches, being behind in 64-bit development, little new to offer in their upcoming S5, and Apple's progressive move to other suppliers. In addition, I personally think Tizen will be as successful as if Dell had switched from Windows boxes to Linux.
Yeah, they still make money - Samsung makes vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, industrial equipment, and a billion other things. But their smartphone success is evaporating.
Yup. To me, the S5 felt like a cheap way to freshen up the Galaxy S line. And apparently consumers felt that way too.
But Samsung may still eventually switch to Tizen. Yes, it's absolutely terrible. I've played with one or two Tizen test devices,
and they were godawful. But Tizen runs Android apps, and Samsung has their own bizarre UI layer that covers up bare Android.
End users might never know the difference, except that their purchases happen on Samsung Hub instead of Google Play.
Don't worry about Samsung though. Their core competencies are TVs, refrigerators, and other medium-tech home appliances.
Come to think of it, Samsung and Google are two of a kind. They have no partners in their respective industries. Only enemies.
Because they enter markets and attempt to copy features from successful products, then undercut competitors' pricing.
They grow roots, pry their way into many markets, and go as far as they can. Like some kind of mindless weed.
Google is far worse, though. Their products don't even need to sell. They make all their money from ads.
I am well aware of Apple's advances in technology, but I don't find them innovative.
?_?
So after listing clear, recent examples of Apple innovation and technological prowess, which corporate pariah Samsung has been unable to copy, and after acknowledging that it's impossible for any company to introduce revolutionary products every year, you then contradict yourself by claiming you don't find them innovative? Who do you find innovative? Samsung? Google? Microsoft?
Apple didn't invent the touchscreen - they did much more than that. After many years of the top tech companies in the world producing and refining their cell phones, Apple introduced a product that completely revolutionized the field in multiple ways. They perfected the touchscreen - not just in terms of responsiveness and display clarity, but also in user interface design. Ridiculed by both the press and competitors alike, they did away with the tired idea of cramming a desktop UI into a handheld device and completely simplified it to the point where anyone could instantly figure out how to use it with little or no instruction. They delivered the first real mobile web browsing experience that didn't suck. They incorporated a multitude of sensors and leveraged them to make the device work like magic.
All this with version 1.0 of a product with which they had zero experience. And all of this they continue to do today, albeit in a more iterative fashion since as you readily admit, it's impossible to change the world on a regular yearly schedule.
No offense, but you come across as the stereotypical PC guy: focused entirely on a product's spec sheet with little regard for real word utility - little appreciation for things like good design, high quality materials, and a company's focus on its end users' satisfaction, privacy and security. Apple often mentions focusing on the intersection of technology and liberal arts. You seem to have a limited understanding of one and a total disregard for the other.
I can't disagree with your summation although a silver for (and now back to copying) ripping off Apple's IP at every turn (which they have admitted in court) isn't a worthy medal in my book. Although, I am sure their shareholders didn't care.
What makes Samsung good business people is that they recognized there wasn't time to develop a platform from scratch. Wholesale copying was the only chance they had. I'm not condoning the copying. I'm just saying that Samsung is a better-run company than Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, etc, because Samsung recognized the path to success. And it wasn't just because Samdung has a culture of copying and companies like Microsoft don't. Quite the contrary, Microsoft has a history of copying and anti-competition. No, I think Microsoft took a different approach because MS thought it could do a better job. MS has this delusional belief that it has a successful brand when in reality it has a successful monopoly. If anything, MS's brand has negative value.
This guy's a loon. / play along with him.
Hot damn, we found the guy who is the arbiter of innovation! I'm glad you gave Apple credit for the 64-bit chip. What about the M7?
Outside of Apple, what other company has innovated in the cell phone market since 2007?
?_?
So after listing clear, recent examples of Apple innovation and technological prowess, which corporate pariah Samsung has been unable to copy, and after acknowledging that it's impossible for any company to introduce revolutionary products every year, you then contradict yourself by claiming you don't find them innovative? Who do you find innovative? Samsung? Google? Microsoft?
Apple didn't invent the touchscreen - they did much more than that. After many years of the top tech companies in the world producing and refining their cell phones, Apple introduced a product that completely revolutionized the field in multiple ways. They perfected the touchscreen - not just in terms of responsiveness and display clarity, but also in user interface design. Ridiculed by both the press and competitors alike, they did away with the tired idea of cramming a desktop UI into a handheld device and completely simplified it to the point where anyone could instantly figure out how to use it with little or no instruction. They delivered the first real mobile web browsing experience that didn't suck. They incorporated a multitude of sensors and leveraged them to make the device work like magic.
All this with version 1.0 of a product with which they had zero experience. And all of this they continue to do today, albeit in a more iterative fashion since as you readily admit, it's impossible to change the world on a regular yearly schedule.
No offense, but you come across as the stereotypical PC guy: focused entirely on a product's spec sheet with little regard for real word utility - little appreciation for things like good design, high quality materials, and a company's focus on its end users' satisfaction, privacy and security. Apple often mentions focusing on the intersection of technology and liberal arts. You seem to have a limited understanding of one and a total disregard for the other.
Totally agree. Remember when all the pundits said that the iPhone would be a paper weight and that Apple had no business getting into the smartphone market? Remember how they all told us that the business world would never use a phone without a physical keyboard? Remember how everyone said the iPhone was just a "toy." Remember how the iPad was just a big iPod touch?
In patent law, commercial success and copying are two important indicia of non-obviousness. I've always thought that Apple should have tried to get broader utility patents on the iPhone simply based on its commercial success and copying. They should be able to shut Samsung down.
In a race to the bottom, gravity gets you down as you achieve terminal velocity towards controlled impact into terrain...
Google's most profitable Android partner is losing altitude. But, hey, just [B]look[/B] at that market share!
Go Go Go!
Samsung is not good in business.
They got lucky. Flat out. They stumbled upon making GIAGANTIC screens and the market ate it up. There would always be a huge market for Android phones because of price. Samsung was just the lucky one. It will only go down hill from now on. Profits are down 25% and top end unit sales are down 35%. Soon they will need to cut marketing and that will lessen sales even more. The Chinese companies will destroy Samsung's mid-range phones and they will be forced to cut prices even more.
Can you say Nokia 2.0?
This.
The things Samsung does best are strealing, bribing governments, and turning a blind eye for a decade while their employees get cancer. They have those 3 things down to an art.