When those companies had mindshare there were plenty of articles about their successes and failures.
i have never seen articles about there quarterly earnings details like this ever. just how some companies stocks floundered or climbed.
yes, samsung copied, sometimes blatantly. so did google- remember the pre-iphone and post-iphone? google might be based off of oracle and microsoft took tonnes from apple. google, who has been supplying the software android device makers need, is not seeing the same treatment. or that everything apple does google plans to do minutes after even the rumour of it comes up (cleaner os, homekit, watch, phone, etc.).
if you think google has no mindshare then i guess you are right.
So, Android app environment could be folded into a controlled ChromeOS environment for Google and their phones. They could then let Android go and let it be whatever.
Not unusual for a founder to be replaced. Rubin may have been great for setting up shop, but it's not always founders who are good for taking things to the next level. There are different phases of maturity that need different people and personalities. Natural handoff. You may need a storming person, a forming person, and norming and performing person, so to speak.
Let's hope that Google comes out with something that's very nicely polished and locked down apps that can't be pirated so developers really care a lot more about the platform. Kind of like what Apple does. It would be great to have some really good competition. It would push Apple to fix their bugs and focus on what they have now and make it better (like fixing the junky Podcast app). Apple is becoming the 800 pound gorilla for people's dollars.
And it would give people a nice option for something other than iOS. Nothing wrong with that. We were at the mall and the Apple Store was buzzing with people and the MS store across the street was fairly empty and the employees looked bored. Windows Phone OS and mobile platform might soon be a not-viable platform, if it is not. They don't have the apps and they don't have the Google apps most importantly. The fill-in apps or official apps are purported to be not that great. So, Windows OS will probably be gone for mass market (it will probably exist only in the low-end market with Firefox OS, etc).
Google could pull it off to be a great ChromeOS with Android app platform. Maybe the company still doesn't have laser focus. Maybe its like Apple in the late 80s existing without adult supervision, so to speak.
Let Samsung have Tizen. It probably won't catch on. Samsung will struggle in the profit arena.
It will be interesting. Let's just hope Apple slows down a little and fixes what it has. Like fixing search in iOS 8, among other things.
I've been saying that Samsung needs to move to Tizen sooner rather then later. In mean come on. All they are doing is making phones, most are cheaper ones running a OS you have zero control over!!!. Not only that, but can't have your own app store to make money after the sale. They've tried, but no one wants to use it!. The people want to use Google's services. So where does that leave sanding and these other company's relying on Android. No one really making money from it. It was a race to the bottom price rise. How do you really stand out at this point?. Android is Android. Screens really can't get much bigger. Camera megapixels are pretty high where if you need better get a DSLR. All they have left is gimmicks. That crap can only take you so far. Where's that 64-bit phone?. Is it going to be 2 years or more until you get one out?. The finger print scanner sucks the big one. Jay as crappy as it was on my old HP iPAQ Windows mobile 5 PDA.
You can't go anywhere with Android. The only company that makes out is Google!. They don't give a crap who's making the phones. Just that they and sell ads and make money from all the services.
SamSuck. That's what happens when you lie about numbers in sales, cheat buy stealing patents, and steal buy copying ideas. Then have the nerve to make commercials claiming to be innovators and bashing Apple when they got everything from Apple. Better hope Apple doesn't make a TV. They'll go bankrupt. Everything Samsung makes suck anyways. That's why they copy everyone in the market their in
DED: I enjoy reading all of your articles - especially the long ones containing a couple decades worth of history on whatever the topic happens to be - and also the ones that debunk false claims from trolls and mainstream media.
Please don't let any whiny, self-obsessed idiots influence your choice of topics. They need not read past the headline to determine whether the topic interests them or not - and they sure as hell don't speak for me! My guess is they also don't speak for the majority of readers here.
That would be because the most fervent of Apple fanboys can be found here as well so the two love to poke at each other (this site is often mentioned on fandroid sites as the place to go to find the Apple zealots). This site is proudly pro-apple and does not hide their bias in both what they choose to publish (and not publish) and in their style of writing. The comments section is equally the same. More me, I find it humourous to read both sides of it because it's like watching Honey-booboo fight with the cast from Duck Dynasty. It's trashy and uneducated but for some reason I cannot avert my gaze. If you have to really think about which side is which, then you are not on the outside looking in. You are the show.
Coming here is definitely a guilty pleasure. No offence to anyone here, but some of the comments I read here definitely do help reinforce the whole "Blind Apple fanboy" stereotype I keep hearing about elsewhere. However, it does feel good to feel like you are part of the "winning team" for a while, and a real welcome respite from websites like Cnet where Android fanboys use every opportunity to bash Apple users. Which is why I still come back ever so often.
Side note: in the Philly area, our major supermarket chain is Acme Markets. So whenever I see the WB cartoons, I search and can't seem to find those products there.
Side note: in the Philly area, our major supermarket chain is Acme Markets. So whenever I see the WB cartoons, I search and can't seem to find those products there.
What, no dynamite? Talk about false advertisement.
The trajectory of the profits graph must look ominous for Samsung: losses next quarter. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">So much for the only other maker making money from phones; at this rate </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">they might have to scrap their phone division. Ain't karma a bitch! </span>
And these are only the numbers they "cooked" to not cause investor panic and investigation by the already-bought government. These are also preliminary numbers.
"Preliminary" is Korean for "Let's see if they buy this shit before dumping the whole bad news on them'
Indeed.
Samsung's relationship with the truth is akin to Google's with its motto, 'Don't be evil'—to be taken with a pinch of salt, preferably thrown over your left shoulder.
i might be wrong, but i never recall reading details like this about a microsoft, google, nokia, motorola, htc, lg, sony, or any other companies quarterly earnings.
thanks for the info, but we all know how this site feels about samsung. you have beat this dead horse long enough. apple does have other competitors.
I'm fairly certain that if I were to compare notes with any other "Apple zealot" that I'd be near the top of any attempted ranking of such. Perhaps DED would be on that list, too. But at the same time, count me out of any silly ". . .we all know how this site feels about. . ." consensus about anything.
Personally, I detest the apparent fact that Samsung seems to be getting away with not paying for its transgressions against Apple in the explicitly monetary sense of not paying the court-assigned penalties.
However, I believe that individuals, as well as companies made up of individuals, tend to reap their own justice, aside from the presence or absence of any official punitive actions which may have taken place. And in the case of Samsung, they do in fact seem to be reaping what they've sown—in the broader context of the financial health of the entire company.
I think news of such is entirely appropriate for AI to be reporting, and who better to do such than DED? I respect his journalistic reputation and de facto credentials, as well as his particular style. And I believe that he continues to put the lion's share of attention on factual content compared with any possible bias or agenda he may have against the unit-Apple horde.
What cracks me up is all the Wall Street clowns who thought Samsung's dominance was sustainable and thus Apple was forever doomed. Anybody could see how easy it would be to disrupt Samsung. They don't control the whole stack. They don't really have an ecosystem. And not much brand loyalty either. Why buy Samsung when you can get Xiaomi or Huawei or One Plus One that's just as good? And outside China there are very good Android alternatives from LG, HTC and Motorola. And of course Apple now has larger screen phones. I'll be a lot of people went Samsung just because of the bigger screen. That advantage no longer exists.
Indeed.
Much as I haven't always expressed the most radiant delight at the large size of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, I do appreciate that they have probably attracted a large number of Android users who can't afford an iPad, and so make do with a phablet.
just wait till iOS moves away from Google as the default search on Safari. That will instantly cut Google revenue by 30%
Since Giggle stole from Apple and lost all respect maybe it's time for Apple to create a kickass search engine.
Because right now honestly Yahoo and Bing are crap. Duckduckgo is okay but that name is horrible and it's still just an average search engine.
I also would like to see a better video site than YouTube. I've heard many complaints since the addition of G+ and all that crap.
I know YouTube isn't too profitable but I wanna avoid Giggle as much as possible.
Two great suggestions there.
An Apple search engine would be so much better than Google; no ads. And I can't stand the junk that is YouTube. Vimeo has a better interface, but they have no money and the app is crap.
And why doesn't Apple create a photo-sharing app/website? Seeing as the iPhone is the camera of the day, it seems like a no-brainer. Ideally, they would incorporate photos and videos into one site.
An Apple search engine would be so much better than Google; no ads.
The new Spotlight is almost a step in that direction. When you think about it, a search box should be more integral to an OS and it should abstract a search engine because you might want to find a video on Vimeo, Youtube, metacafe but the search engine controls the ranking rather than each individual site. What a search box would do is that when you type in a search for a video, it would submit a search to the most popular video sites and choose the best results from each and present them in the easiest format to view. It wouldn't even necessarily have to load the whole page although that might violate their terms for showing ads. It could quicklook the video portion of the page. These searches could be sent through an Apple server for privacy.
Apple uses Bing for Spotlight suggestions.
It would really have to have an online mode so that it didn't search the local drive every time you wanted to do a web search. It would have other functionality too like maps where it can load directions either using local maps, Google Maps or Bing Maps with the same info to get the best results. Search by image or audio would be easier as you'd just drop a local image or iTunes track into the box and it would similarly go round multiple sources to find the best info.
And why doesn't Apple create a photo-sharing app/website? Seeing as the iPhone is the camera of the day, it seems like a no-brainer. Ideally, they would incorporate photos and videos into one site.
I think they should let users monetize their images too with iAds. There are comic artists that can put up daily comics and share them this way and people can link into their public feeds on their iOS devices or Mac and these feeds would get updated with optional notifications. You'd wake up in the morning, pick up the iPad, head to the bathroom and all the new daily content would be there and you'd be able to share the content with others.
Pagerank has been replaced with another patent or two issued a couple years ago, and like the original Pagerank patents aren't owned by Google anyway. BTW the original PageRank patents were opened to anyone to license back in 2012. Google has no exclusive to them. I think I've mentioned that to you before.
I can understand why Google is using patents they don't own. By having exclusive licenses to the patents, they don't have to get their hands dirty if someone infringe on those patents. The owners of the patents will do Google's dirty work of suing the infringer.
What I don't understand is why Google would actually own patent on a search algorithm. They might as well just post that search algorithm on an open forum for everyone to use. It's not as though they're going sue anybody for patent infringement ........... right? Or will they also be moving away from their motto ....... "Do No Evil". Maybe they're going to sign off that patent to Stanford but retain an exclusive license to use it. So it'll be business as usual.
I can understand why Google is using patents they don't own. By having exclusive licenses to the patents, they don't have to get their hands dirty if someone infringe on those patents. The owners of the patents will do Google's dirty work of suing the infringer..
Google does not have an exclusive on the original Pagerank patents as you should have noted if you had actually read my post. In fact anyone has been able to license the patent for over three years now. Heck Google themselves noted it 5 years ago in their 2009 10-K filing.
"The first version of the PageRank technology was created while Larry and Sergey attended Stanford University, which owns a patent to PageRank. The PageRank patent expires in 2017. We hold a perpetual license to this patent. In October 2003, we extended our exclusivity period to this patent through 2011, at which point our license will become non-exclusive."
Additionally there is no record I can find of the patent owner, Stanford University, suing anyone over PageRank. You've created an imaginary issue.
What I don't understand is why Google would actually own patent on a search algorithm. They might as well just post that search algorithm on an open forum for everyone to use. It's not as though they're going sue anybody for patent infringement ........... right?
That's correct. Zero history of Google suing anyone over search patents, tho they have a whole lotta IP in that area obviously.
Google does not have an exclusive on the original Pagerank patents as you should have noted if you had actually read my post. In fact anyone has been able to license the patent for over three years now. Heck Google themselves noted it 5 years ago in their 2009 10-K filing.
"The first version of the PageRank technology was created while Larry and Sergey attended Stanford University, which owns a patent to PageRank. The PageRank patent expires in 2017. We hold a perpetual license to this patent. In October 2003, we extended our exclusivity period to this patent through 2011, at which point our license will become non-exclusive."
Additionally there is no record I can find of the patent owner, Stanford University, suing anyone over PageRank. You've created an imaginary issue.
That's correct. Zero history of Google suing anyone over search patents, tho they have a whole lotta IP in that area obviously.
But Google had an exclusive license to PageRank when it was first developed and was the best search algorithm on the internet. As you noted, Google has since then improved on it or developed something better than PageRank and thus released Stanford from their exclusive license deal so they can now license their old technology to others. Not the new or improved version. Don't believe for a second that it was Stanford that decided to end their excusive licensing of PageRank. If Google had not developed something better than PageRank, they would still have the exclusive license to it. And Stanford will be the one suing for any patent infringement.
I never said that Stanford had sued anyone over PageRank. I mearly said that Stanford will sue anyone for infringing on any of their patents, including PageRank. (They have sued for patent infringement before.) Maybe they haven't ever sued anybody over PageRank because nobody has ever infringed on it. That doesn't mean that they won't sue, if someone does infringe. Or do you think Stanford is like Google when it comes to suing for patent infringement?
And as many IP in search as Google must obviously have, it was not enough to prevent them from having to finally stop infringing upon the Nortel search patents and to start paying a license fee to use them. ( A reasonable fee at that.) And I'm willing to bet that Google has way more IP that don't pertain to search than IP that does. They got over 15,000 patents from Motorola alone. And many of the companies (along with their patents) they been acquiring, don't have anything to do with search.
Comments
And curious enough LG is using WebOS on its watches, and TVs.
When those companies had mindshare there were plenty of articles about their successes and failures.
i have never seen articles about there quarterly earnings details like this ever. just how some companies stocks floundered or climbed.
yes, samsung copied, sometimes blatantly. so did google- remember the pre-iphone and post-iphone? google might be based off of oracle and microsoft took tonnes from apple. google, who has been supplying the software android device makers need, is not seeing the same treatment. or that everything apple does google plans to do minutes after even the rumour of it comes up (cleaner os, homekit, watch, phone, etc.).
if you think google has no mindshare then i guess you are right.
I've been saying that Samsung needs to move to Tizen sooner rather then later. In mean come on. All they are doing is making phones, most are cheaper ones running a OS you have zero control over!!!. Not only that, but can't have your own app store to make money after the sale. They've tried, but no one wants to use it!. The people want to use Google's services. So where does that leave sanding and these other company's relying on Android. No one really making money from it. It was a race to the bottom price rise. How do you really stand out at this point?. Android is Android. Screens really can't get much bigger. Camera megapixels are pretty high where if you need better get a DSLR. All they have left is gimmicks. That crap can only take you so far. Where's that 64-bit phone?. Is it going to be 2 years or more until you get one out?. The finger print scanner sucks the big one. Jay as crappy as it was on my old HP iPAQ Windows mobile 5 PDA.
You can't go anywhere with Android. The only company that makes out is Google!. They don't give a crap who's making the phones. Just that they and sell ads and make money from all the services.
If you troll hard enough about honey booboo and DED's bias, it'll reverse Samsung's financial performance.
Please don't let any whiny, self-obsessed idiots influence your choice of topics. They need not read past the headline to determine whether the topic interests them or not - and they sure as hell don't speak for me! My guess is they also don't speak for the majority of readers here.
Keep up the good work!
Its current watches are Android Wear. Supposedly they're releasing a WebOS watch in 2016.
That would be because the most fervent of Apple fanboys can be found here as well so the two love to poke at each other (this site is often mentioned on fandroid sites as the place to go to find the Apple zealots). This site is proudly pro-apple and does not hide their bias in both what they choose to publish (and not publish) and in their style of writing. The comments section is equally the same. More me, I find it humourous to read both sides of it because it's like watching Honey-booboo fight with the cast from Duck Dynasty. It's trashy and uneducated but for some reason I cannot avert my gaze. If you have to really think about which side is which, then you are not on the outside looking in. You are the show.
Coming here is definitely a guilty pleasure. No offence to anyone here, but some of the comments I read here definitely do help reinforce the whole "Blind Apple fanboy" stereotype I keep hearing about elsewhere. However, it does feel good to feel like you are part of the "winning team" for a while, and a real welcome respite from websites like Cnet where Android fanboys use every opportunity to bash Apple users. Which is why I still come back ever so often.
Don't judge me.
Side note: in the Philly area, our major supermarket chain is Acme Markets. So whenever I see the WB cartoons, I search and can't seem to find those products there.
What, no dynamite? Talk about false advertisement.
I bet they have a green lizard all ready fired up and raring to go.. I'm just surprised they are not getting Samsung to front for them.
Indeed.
Samsung's relationship with the truth is akin to Google's with its motto, 'Don't be evil'—to be taken with a pinch of salt, preferably thrown over your left shoulder.
Well said.
Indeed.
Much as I haven't always expressed the most radiant delight at the large size of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, I do appreciate that they have probably attracted a large number of Android users who can't afford an iPad, and so make do with a phablet.
Two great suggestions there.
An Apple search engine would be so much better than Google; no ads. And I can't stand the junk that is YouTube. Vimeo has a better interface, but they have no money and the app is crap.
And why doesn't Apple create a photo-sharing app/website? Seeing as the iPhone is the camera of the day, it seems like a no-brainer. Ideally, they would incorporate photos and videos into one site.
The new Spotlight is almost a step in that direction. When you think about it, a search box should be more integral to an OS and it should abstract a search engine because you might want to find a video on Vimeo, Youtube, metacafe but the search engine controls the ranking rather than each individual site. What a search box would do is that when you type in a search for a video, it would submit a search to the most popular video sites and choose the best results from each and present them in the easiest format to view. It wouldn't even necessarily have to load the whole page although that might violate their terms for showing ads. It could quicklook the video portion of the page. These searches could be sent through an Apple server for privacy.
Apple uses Bing for Spotlight suggestions.
It would really have to have an online mode so that it didn't search the local drive every time you wanted to do a web search. It would have other functionality too like maps where it can load directions either using local maps, Google Maps or Bing Maps with the same info to get the best results. Search by image or audio would be easier as you'd just drop a local image or iTunes track into the box and it would similarly go round multiple sources to find the best info.
I think they should let users monetize their images too with iAds. There are comic artists that can put up daily comics and share them this way and people can link into their public feeds on their iOS devices or Mac and these feeds would get updated with optional notifications. You'd wake up in the morning, pick up the iPad, head to the bathroom and all the new daily content would be there and you'd be able to share the content with others.
Nope.
Pagerank has been replaced with another patent or two issued a couple years ago, and like the original Pagerank patents aren't owned by Google anyway. BTW the original PageRank patents were opened to anyone to license back in 2012. Google has no exclusive to them. I think I've mentioned that to you before.
http://www.seobythesea.com/2012/03/new-pagerank-same-as-old-pagerank/
Further Google themselves appear to be moving away from PageRank and may instead be using this patented search algorithm.
https://www.google.com/patents/US8843477
That one is actually owned by Google.
I can understand why Google is using patents they don't own. By having exclusive licenses to the patents, they don't have to get their hands dirty if someone infringe on those patents. The owners of the patents will do Google's dirty work of suing the infringer.
What I don't understand is why Google would actually own patent on a search algorithm. They might as well just post that search algorithm on an open forum for everyone to use. It's not as though they're going sue anybody for patent infringement ........... right? Or will they also be moving away from their motto ....... "Do No Evil". Maybe they're going to sign off that patent to Stanford but retain an exclusive license to use it. So it'll be business as usual.
"The first version of the PageRank technology was created while Larry and Sergey attended Stanford University, which owns a patent to PageRank. The PageRank patent expires in 2017. We hold a perpetual license to this patent. In October 2003, we extended our exclusivity period to this patent through 2011, at which point our license will become non-exclusive."
Additionally there is no record I can find of the patent owner, Stanford University, suing anyone over PageRank. You've created an imaginary issue.
That's correct. Zero history of Google suing anyone over search patents, tho they have a whole lotta IP in that area obviously.
Why were you not vocal about all the anti Apple articles spewed all over the gutter tech press and deride their authors as beating a dead horse
For example attennagate, bendgate, and all the other "gates" which turned out to be baseless. Ah but we know the answer already!
i was vocal about bendgate. ah, but you knew that already.
this site had a few articles about it, where as there is a plethora of exposés about samsung.
Google does not have an exclusive on the original Pagerank patents as you should have noted if you had actually read my post. In fact anyone has been able to license the patent for over three years now. Heck Google themselves noted it 5 years ago in their 2009 10-K filing.
"The first version of the PageRank technology was created while Larry and Sergey attended Stanford University, which owns a patent to PageRank. The PageRank patent expires in 2017. We hold a perpetual license to this patent. In October 2003, we extended our exclusivity period to this patent through 2011, at which point our license will become non-exclusive."
Additionally there is no record I can find of the patent owner, Stanford University, suing anyone over PageRank. You've created an imaginary issue.
That's correct. Zero history of Google suing anyone over search patents, tho they have a whole lotta IP in that area obviously.
But Google had an exclusive license to PageRank when it was first developed and was the best search algorithm on the internet. As you noted, Google has since then improved on it or developed something better than PageRank and thus released Stanford from their exclusive license deal so they can now license their old technology to others. Not the new or improved version. Don't believe for a second that it was Stanford that decided to end their excusive licensing of PageRank. If Google had not developed something better than PageRank, they would still have the exclusive license to it. And Stanford will be the one suing for any patent infringement.
I never said that Stanford had sued anyone over PageRank. I mearly said that Stanford will sue anyone for infringing on any of their patents, including PageRank. (They have sued for patent infringement before.) Maybe they haven't ever sued anybody over PageRank because nobody has ever infringed on it. That doesn't mean that they won't sue, if someone does infringe. Or do you think Stanford is like Google when it comes to suing for patent infringement?
And as many IP in search as Google must obviously have, it was not enough to prevent them from having to finally stop infringing upon the Nortel search patents and to start paying a license fee to use them. ( A reasonable fee at that.) And I'm willing to bet that Google has way more IP that don't pertain to search than IP that does. They got over 15,000 patents from Motorola alone. And many of the companies (along with their patents) they been acquiring, don't have anything to do with search.