That’s a pretty funny joke. Good thing you don’t actually believe this, otherwise…
Yes, you two; we already know you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the products you discuss. Mind doing us a favor and actually leaving forever?
Samsung had the product six months ago translates to Samsung had 65 different handsets, and the features found in the iPhone 6 were probably available across the product line, though not on any one handset. It's a bit like saying that over the course of his career, some A leaguer pitched like Clayton Kershaw in that one of his pitches had the same speed, one had the same rotation, one had the same location, and one had the same element of surprise that most of Kershaw's pitches have in every inning.
Apple and Android (and their phone makers) have succeeded by making a product that a segment of the market want. It's really that simple. If someone didn't want or desire the product, they wouldn't buy it. The numbers speak for themselves. 10 million iPhones sold over the weekend. Android has a higher market share. It is what it is!
As for 64 bit. I and most people don't care or know about what is on the inside. If the phone works and is speedy enough, who cares.
If "Samsung had it a year ago" then why isn't the market saturated with "it" by now? Instead we see Apple selling tens of millions per week. Clearly, the "it" that Samsung had isn't the same "it" that Apple is selling now! Schmidt needs to consider how stupid he sounds.
IMO Schmidt shouldn't be permitted as an official spokesman for Google. I don't care what he says, it's going to be spun and it's his own fault that it is. With that said these recents soundbites are from interviews supporting a book he's authored isn't it rather than official Google position statements?
Yea, bigger phones but not better phones like the iPhone 6 and 6 plus. There's a big difference Mr.Schmidt. The iPhone 6/6Plus actually work, have better software and hardware including the best cameras again. Samsung has big and a lot of gimmicky software that doesn't do a whole lot of anything. There made of cheap plastic and still break more easily then the iPhones do. Sorry your answer Mr. Schmidt doesn't hold water.
If "Samsung had it a year ago" then why isn't the market saturated with "it" by now? Instead we see Apple selling tens of millions per week. Clearly, the "it" that Samsung had isn't the same "it" that Apple is selling now! Schmidt needs to consider how stupid he sounds.
The Galaxy phone did sell a lot of phones. Just because something has better or the same specs doesn't mean it will sell better. Look at cars as an example. The car with the best specs is not the top seller. Apple has done some things better so the market has responded to that plus Apple is really good at creating brand loyalty. Overall Samsung does sell more phones but Apple is able to create a buzz that Samsung and others haven't been able to match.
I too thought that he sounded stupid bringing up Samsung and his answer was condescending. But he also was correct in many ways. I actually think he was frustrated by the fact that the Samsung phones overall didn't create the buzz and sales frenzy that Apple phones do. Thoughts?
IMO Schmidt shouldn't be permitted as an official spokesman for Google. I don't care what he says, it's going to be spun and it's his own fault that it is. With that said these recents soundbites are from interviews supporting a book he's authored isn't it rather than official Google position statements?
In his position, EVERYTHING, is the official position of Google; he cannot dissociate himself, just like Jobs or Cook couldn't dissociate themselves. If he wants to publish a book that doesn't reflect on Google, he should resign from Google.
C level execs, basically have no private opinions, especially when taking to the media.
"The fact of the matter is you can make a small marketshare with a lot of profits, or you can make the same amount of money with a much larger marketshare with lesser profits."
How can you make the same amount of money with lesser profits?
He's talking about margins. But, even there its not a given. Commodity pricing, say 0-5% profit margin, makes it very hard to make money in the tens of billions like Apple. You have to sell 8-15 times more than Apple just to get the same amount of money. The problem, the reason your product is commodity is that there is fierce undifferentiated competition. So, getting this very high sale volume is impossible. Because of low profit margins, you are also very vulnerable to market fluctuations.
For example, say Apple has 10% of the overall smart phone business, 90% is everyone else. Of those 90%, probably 85% are low end sales, with the 0-5% margin. Say there are 20 major vendors possibly battling out for this 80%. One vendor would need to have a 50-60% control of that market to equal Apple. Since most handset have very similar hardware and a very similar, how on earth would a company manage that? It is more probable that there would be a few a controling 10-20%, while others are all under 10% (like the PC market).
Some of those makers would be making money in the mid range to high end. But, unless they differentiate themselves and spend much are marketing, nobody will really stand out and thus margins and market shares will be depressed.
Of course, 64 bits registers aren't needed for that, but they do make addressing 128 GB of storage more efficient. The 64-bit ARM instruction set also supports twice the registers (32 integer and 32 floating point) for even greater speed. This is twice the registers of Intel's latest Xeons.
That's much of the reason why the A8 processor in the iPhone 6 is basically as fast* as Samsung S5, despite having half as many cores and running at a vastly slower clock rate (for higher energy efficiency).
Processor design just isn't Samsung's core competency." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
*Only in multi-threaded tasks. In single-threaded tasks, the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus absolutely smoke Samsung and all others.
Of course, 64 bits registers aren't needed for that, but they do make addressing 128 GB of storage more efficient. The 64-bit ARM instruction set also supports twice the registers (32 integer and 32 floating point) for even greater speed. This is twice the registers of Intel's latest Xeons.
That's much of the reason why the A8 processor in the iPhone 6 is basically as fast* as Samsung S5, despite having half as many cores and running at a vastly slower clock rate (for higher energy efficiency).
Processor design just isn't Samsung's core competency.
*Only in multi-threaded tasks. In single-threaded tasks, the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus absolutely smoke Samsung and all others.:smokey:
I thought the Snapdragon 801 used in the S5 was a quad-core processor, same as Apple's A8 being quad-core?
he should have said: the lines are awesome, it means tech and the economy at large can support ongoing growth at Google. The more phones our competitors sell, the more folks that will use our products.
That's how a smart person would respond. Maintain some composure and don't EVER act like the loser.
Schmidt needs a reality check. When was the last Google breakthrough service or device? Just copying the industry and reducing the price is not innovation. They're fighting against China with that unwinnable strategy.
...
Google is not into innovation. Google's strategy is bringing technology to the mass for free/low price. Any I think Google is failing. Seems like people on food stamps are buying iphone 6. (know a few people like that personally.) What a subsidy from the gov't.
"The question was again rebuffed, with Schmidt repeating, "I think Samsung had the products a year ago, that's what I think.""
Did you expect another answer? Was he supposed to say "Well the 5S is better than anything running Android, and now Apple has three sizes and a new OS, and we are going to see a lot of switchers, and Samsung is about to report some huge losses. That sucks for us. But buy our stuff anyway!"
Like Ballmer if Apple has a better OS. Reality is not the issue. Advertising is.
Comments
That’s a pretty funny joke. Good thing you don’t actually believe this, otherwise…
Yes, you two; we already know you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the products you discuss. Mind doing us a favor and actually leaving forever?
Favor? You can buy me out.
Samsung had the product six months ago translates to Samsung had 65 different handsets, and the features found in the iPhone 6 were probably available across the product line, though not on any one handset. It's a bit like saying that over the course of his career, some A leaguer pitched like Clayton Kershaw in that one of his pitches had the same speed, one had the same rotation, one had the same location, and one had the same element of surprise that most of Kershaw's pitches have in every inning.
Apple and Android (and their phone makers) have succeeded by making a product that a segment of the market want. It's really that simple. If someone didn't want or desire the product, they wouldn't buy it. The numbers speak for themselves. 10 million iPhones sold over the weekend. Android has a higher market share. It is what it is!
As for 64 bit. I and most people don't care or know about what is on the inside. If the phone works and is speedy enough, who cares.
If "Samsung had it a year ago" then why isn't the market saturated with "it" by now? Instead we see Apple selling tens of millions per week. Clearly, the "it" that Samsung had isn't the same "it" that Apple is selling now! Schmidt needs to consider how stupid he sounds.
Sorry your answer Mr. Schmidt doesn't hold water.
If "Samsung had it a year ago" then why isn't the market saturated with "it" by now? Instead we see Apple selling tens of millions per week. Clearly, the "it" that Samsung had isn't the same "it" that Apple is selling now! Schmidt needs to consider how stupid he sounds.
The Galaxy phone did sell a lot of phones. Just because something has better or the same specs doesn't mean it will sell better. Look at cars as an example. The car with the best specs is not the top seller. Apple has done some things better so the market has responded to that plus Apple is really good at creating brand loyalty. Overall Samsung does sell more phones but Apple is able to create a buzz that Samsung and others haven't been able to match.
I too thought that he sounded stupid bringing up Samsung and his answer was condescending. But he also was correct in many ways. I actually think he was frustrated by the fact that the Samsung phones overall didn't create the buzz and sales frenzy that Apple phones do. Thoughts?
Samsung = First to Market
Apple = First to the Bank
IMO Schmidt shouldn't be permitted as an official spokesman for Google. I don't care what he says, it's going to be spun and it's his own fault that it is. With that said these recents soundbites are from interviews supporting a book he's authored isn't it rather than official Google position statements?
In his position, EVERYTHING, is the official position of Google; he cannot dissociate himself, just like Jobs or Cook couldn't dissociate themselves. If he wants to publish a book that doesn't reflect on Google, he should resign from Google.
C level execs, basically have no private opinions, especially when taking to the media.
"The fact of the matter is you can make a small marketshare with a lot of profits, or you can make the same amount of money with a much larger marketshare with lesser profits."
How can you make the same amount of money with lesser profits?
He's talking about margins. But, even there its not a given. Commodity pricing, say 0-5% profit margin, makes it very hard to make money in the tens of billions like Apple. You have to sell 8-15 times more than Apple just to get the same amount of money. The problem, the reason your product is commodity is that there is fierce undifferentiated competition. So, getting this very high sale volume is impossible. Because of low profit margins, you are also very vulnerable to market fluctuations.
For example, say Apple has 10% of the overall smart phone business, 90% is everyone else. Of those 90%, probably 85% are low end sales, with the 0-5% margin. Say there are 20 major vendors possibly battling out for this 80%. One vendor would need to have a 50-60% control of that market to equal Apple. Since most handset have very similar hardware and a very similar, how on earth would a company manage that? It is more probable that there would be a few a controling 10-20%, while others are all under 10% (like the PC market).
Some of those makers would be making money in the mid range to high end. But, unless they differentiate themselves and spend much are marketing, nobody will really stand out and thus margins and market shares will be depressed.
Of course, 64 bits registers aren't needed for that, but they do make addressing 128 GB of storage more efficient. The 64-bit ARM instruction set also supports twice the registers (32 integer and 32 floating point) for even greater speed. This is twice the registers of Intel's latest Xeons.
That's much of the reason why the A8 processor in the iPhone 6 is basically as fast* as Samsung S5, despite having half as many cores and running at a vastly slower clock rate (for higher energy efficiency).
Processor design just isn't Samsung's core competency.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
*Only in multi-threaded tasks. In single-threaded tasks, the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus absolutely smoke Samsung and all others.
Thanks for the explanation!
Well said .. This guy for sure Ballmer (2.0)2 ..
That's how a smart person would respond. Maintain some composure and don't EVER act like the loser.
Schmidt needs a reality check. When was the last Google breakthrough service or device? Just copying the industry and reducing the price is not innovation. They're fighting against China with that unwinnable strategy.
...
Google is not into innovation. Google's strategy is bringing technology to the mass for free/low price. Any I think Google is failing. Seems like people on food stamps are buying iphone 6. (know a few people like that personally.) What a subsidy from the gov't.
Google is not into innovation. Google's strategy is bringing technology to the mass
If they're not innovating, then why is there new tech to bring to the masses?
Did you expect another answer? Was he supposed to say "Well the 5S is better than anything running Android, and now Apple has three sizes and a new OS, and we are going to see a lot of switchers, and Samsung is about to report some huge losses. That sucks for us. But buy our stuff anyway!"
Like Ballmer if Apple has a better OS. Reality is not the issue. Advertising is.
Even if Samsung did have the iPhone 6 hardware last year, they definitely didn't have the software then or even now.
Samsung it takes an OS and Apps as well as hardware to be the same.
Google's android spying knows that !