Samsung profits drop as mobile arm suffers 37.6% crash in Q2

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 151
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    sog35 wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    All phones are hackable in one way or another.

    And all planets will die eventually.

    That does not mean you leave the earth to live on Mars.

    C'mon, everyone knows we're moving to Elysium.:lol:
  • Reply 82 of 151
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    Going to Windows or Blackberry or even Android, You are in fact in a WALLED Garden!!!  Do those Android Apps you now own run on anything else?  Do those Windows Apps run on Android?  See what I mean, seems Kind of walled to me.   Android is far from OPEN.  That myth really needs to die.  Google has control and is grabbing more and more control over the OS.   There's many limits any company can do with the OS and you have to put Google front and center on your phone.  I'm pretty much impossible to have your own services as everyone wants to use Google's services.  Samsung keeps trying, but it keeps failing.  

    Google could have had FULL control over software updates. They just refused to do it.   Look at Windows on the Desktop.  It can be installed on thousands of different hardware combinations.  Far, Far more then then the Android combinations possible.  There's was zero reason why Google couldn't control the OS updates themselves and the phone manufactures could have still thrown on their Skins as long as they were following Google's API's They each could update as they saw fit independently.  Google releases a Android Update and anyone could go and grab it and it would fully update the OS right then and there to get the new features.  Then Samsung and LG at a later date if they wanted, update the skin of the phone and features to take better advantage on their phones if they wanted.  

    This is ALL Google's fault!!!!  Google saw what Apple was doing with iOS before Android was released.  They could have done the same!!!!  Windows had been around for years as a Example of Updates on millions of different computers which is what a Smartphone is, a Mini Computer.  All Google cares about is Android on as many phones as possible as to sell Ad's!!!   They don't give a crap who sells them or if they even make a profit.  They can go out of business and someone else will move in.  All that matters is Ad's and the more Info they can get from you the better and more you're worth.

    The article's author opines the very same argument.

    I don't want to get into the "he stole/she stole" argument or patent/copyright obfuscation... but Google saw a small window of opportunity in the exclusivity of the Apple/AT&T contract to get on Verizon first and have at least a say in the mobile ad space.

    Give them credit for understanding what they witnessed with the iPhone launch... or despise them for having a mole on the inside at Apple. Either way, they stretched business ethics like taffy to get out there, with a cavalier disregard for the consequences of unleashing the free-for-all insecure software known as Android onto the world of tech-illiterate users.

    I still believe that SJ was aiming his Thermonuclear missile of disgust mainly at Google rather than Samsung, which was only meant to be a stepping stone to get them into court to explain their uncouth and irresponsible greedy reasoning to the world.

    Amazingly, they're better than Teflon Don at not burning themselves or getting the accusations to stick.... until... now perhaps. This is getting into serious class-action territory of dangerous consumer products.

    They just might be forced into security-warning labeling or devising a self-destruct button... imagine that?!! :p
  • Reply 83 of 151
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    I know I'm squeezing this thread to add the following juice to the topic.... but [S]bear[/S] bare with me here.

    The principle difference still to this day that I hopefully still guides Apple for decades to come, is the one that SJ spelled out in this 5 minute answer to a heckler in 1997.

    To paraphrase: Apple creates products for it's customers vs. throwing tech in a box and trying to simply sell it. The Samsung's, Huwa-Doeys, LG's, whatevers of the modern mobile world are doing it ALL backwards. I would advise all of them to take a day to watch some of these great tech history lessons.



    [VIDEO]


    Note: I don't know what to expect from the new movie coming out about SJ, but in the above video he seems awfully humble and generous with his praise for the team at Apple that created the turn-around. Just sayin'...;)
  • Reply 84 of 151
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Sept 2014 - Tim Cook Interview with Charlie Rose

    Rose: Who is your competition?

    Rose: -- Samsung instantly, because of the products.  They make smartphones like this.  

    Cook: But Google supplies that to them.  And so, I think I would say --



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-full-interview-with-charlie-rose-with-transcript-2014-9#ixzz3hOghEI65



    Just days after the iPhone6 came out Tim Cook already knew Samsung was history.  That Samsung wasn't even a competitor.  At the same time the Wall Street clowns were proclaiming Samsung is eating Apple's lunch.

    Point is Cook foresaw Samsung's fall months before it happened.   Apple knows EXACTLY what they are doing and they will dominate even more in the months and years ahead.

    1) There is zero information in your quote to draw that conclusion.

    2) If you would have included Cook's next words where he clearly details what he means, you would've seen that it's not because Samsung was history" but because he correctly sees all these OEMs (whether they be Android on mobile or Windows on PCs) as being just a cog of the real competitor.

    Cook: Google is the top [competitor]. And then they enable many people in the hardware business -- like Samsung. And Samsung is the best of the hardware companies in the Android sphere.
  • Reply 85 of 151
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Sure you can, just as people have done with Windows and countless other technology since the industrial revolution. A HW vendor that has no SW chops that has no choice but to use Android as their OS certainly doesn't have the same advantage as Apple, but that doesn't mean it's not possible, and it talks to my larger point about longterm planning and creating a better brand, like Apple choose to do so long ago.

    Ironic that during the 1990s, the tech press and pundits and analysts were telling Apple to (1) license Mac OS and (2) divest its hardware business. They believed the cure-all for Apple's woes was to copy Microsoft's formula for success: it's all about the software. In fact, NeXT found success doing just that when they sold their hardware business to Canon and ported NeXTStep and WebObjects to other platforms.

    It seems that when Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he must have figured out the advantage of building the entire device from the chips up to the user interface. It was always something Apple just did; they just didn't do it well before Steve, "the product guy" returned. I mean, the Newton MessagePad, for example.
  • Reply 86 of 151
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    It seems that when Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he must have figured out the advantage of building the entire device from the chips up to the user interface. It was always something Apple just did; they just didn't do it well before Steve, "the product guy" returned. I mean, the Newton MessagePad, for example.

    I was going to suggest that if Apple hadn't sued NeXT to prevent them from operating in the same consumer space that NeXT might have been a major success, but I can't find any evidence of that happening. I can find that Apple sued NeXT for having inside information after Jobs and key people at Apple left for NeXT, but Wikipedia says that case was thrown out. I guess I've bene operating under false info for decades.

    sog35 wrote: »
    The point is Cook never saw Samsung as a threat.

    And he was right.  He knew the 6 would destroy Samsung days after it was released.

    You make me so sad that I can't even muster the strength to post a face palm pic so I'll just leave you with…

    :facepalm:
  • Reply 87 of 151
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Sept 2014 - Tim Cook Interview with Charlie Rose

    Rose: Who is your competition?

    Rose: -- Samsung instantly, because of the products.  They make smartphones like this.  

    Cook: But Google supplies that to them.  And so, I think I would say --



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-full-interview-with-charlie-rose-with-transcript-2014-9#ixzz3hOghEI65



    Just days after the iPhone6 came out Tim Cook already knew Samsung was history.  That Samsung wasn't even a competitor.  At the same time the Wall Street clowns were proclaiming Samsung is eating Apple's lunch.

    Point is Cook foresaw Samsung's fall months before it happened.   Apple knows EXACTLY what they are doing and they will dominate even more in the months and years ahead.

    The sore winner act is wearing thin. You're also contradictory. On some threads you go on and on about how Samsung was selling millions of devices and taking a big portion of mobile profits. Now because they're losing big time you want to discount them as a competitor. If Tim Cook didn't see them as a threat why did Apple then make 2 new iPhones to counter the SGS, and the Note?
  • Reply 88 of 151
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    C'mon, everyone knows we're moving to Elysium.:lol:

    Free healthcare beds for all.
  • Reply 89 of 151
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    If Tim Cook didn't see them as a threat why did Apple then make 2 new iPhones to counter the SGS, and the Note?

    Sog/s logical fallacies aside, I'd argue there is more evidence to suggest exactly what Cook said in the interview about being able to make a larger iPhone years earlier but wanted it to be more than just a larger iPhone. Your argument that "they must have been threatened by the SGS(?) and Note because the iPhone 6 series came out when those were out" has no evidence that they were scared of any particular model, OEM or anything else. With that reasoning you might as well say that Apple released the iPad because it was threatened by the [insert shitty device that was technically a tablet in 2010].

    Apple released a larger iPhone because culture had changed to a point — because of the modern mobile OS and App Store directly because of Apple's iPhone, as well many great advancements in HW components for mobile digital computing — that allowed that to be the right direction for the company.
  • Reply 90 of 151
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    sog35 wrote: »
    [ I believe] Cook [was confident the iPhone 6 series was going to hinder Samsung's sales dramatically]. ( And I [was confident] to[sic].

    Now THAT would be a reasonable statement. What you wrote is merely your unsubstantiated wet dream.
  • Reply 91 of 151
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    sog35 wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    The sore winner act is wearing thin. You're also contradictory. On some threads you go on and on about how Samsung was selling millions of devices and taking a big portion of mobile profits. Now because they're losing big time you want to discount them as a competitor. If Tim Cook didn't see them as a threat why did Apple then make 2 new iPhones to counter the SGS, and the Note?

    Samsung was selling tons of high end phones from mid2012 to mid 2014.  Those are the facts.  Look at Samsungs mobile profits in those quarters.  They were raking in massive profit.

    Wall Street from 2012-2014 was parading Samsung as the Apple killer and the next big thing. 

    But Cook knew better. ( And I did to.  On this site and said Cook had to be fired if they didn't release a larger phone in 2014)  He knew all Apple had to do was release a large phone and Samsung would be toast.  And he said they were toast DAYS AFTER RELEASING the iPhone6 by not even acknowleging SAmsung as a rival.  He already knew Samsung was toast even before the 6 was 1 month old.

    Why did they have a larger phone? All sales indicated that the 4" form factor was the most popular size in high end smartphones. Nobody of any intelligence is going to copy what a competitor is doing, and then turn around and dismiss that competitor immediately after doing it. At best Tim was being coy.
  • Reply 92 of 151
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    sog35 wrote: »
    trust me.  Cook would have been fired if they did not bring out a phone larger in than 4 inches last September.

    Your inability to separate your speculative desires from fact makes it very difficult to trust you.
  • Reply 93 of 151
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    If Tim Cook didn't see them as a threat why did Apple then make 2 new iPhones to counter the SGS, and the Note?

    Sog/s logical fallacies aside, I'd argue there is more evidence to suggest exactly what Cook said in the interview about being able to make a larger iPhone years earlier but wanted it to be more than just a larger iPhone. Your argument that "they must have been threatened by the SGS(?) and Note because the iPhone 6 series came out when those were out" has no evidence that they were scared of any particular model, OEM or anything else. With that reasoning you might as well say that Apple released the iPad because it was threatened by the [insert shitty device that was technically a tablet in 2010].

    Apple released a larger iPhone because culture had changed to a point — because of the modern mobile OS and App Store directly because of Apple's iPhone, as well many great advancements in HW components for mobile digital computing — that allowed that to be the right direction for the company.

    SGS is the acronym for Samsung Galaxy S, and is used to identify that model almost universally except for here, and other Apple sites.

    I'd buy your argument if Apple had only gone one size bigger, but when they went 2 different sizes then it clearly showed that the move was reactionary. I distinctly remember you doubting that Apple would go to 2 different sizes when the rumors first surfaced, but as more and more proof came out it was evident that Apple was indeed coming out with 2 new sizes.
  • Reply 94 of 151
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,755member
    sog35 wrote: »

    So Samsung's profit growth rate began dropping dramatically over a year and a half before Apple released the iPhone 6, with profits beginning to actually shrink half a year before the iPhone 6. That was revealed three weeks before the end of Q3 2014, and shipped at least ten million (probably around 15 million) by the end of the quarter.

    The iPhone 6 defnitely gave them an extra kick in the nuts, but it just strengthened a trend that was already ongoing for Samsung.
  • Reply 95 of 151
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    SGS is the acronym for Samsung Galaxy S, and is used to identify that model almost universally except for here, and other Apple sites.

    I'd buy your argument if Apple had only gone one size bigger, but when they went 2 different sizes then it clearly showed that the move was reactionary. I distinctly remember you doubting that Apple would go to 2 different sizes when the rumors first surfaced, but as more and more proof came out it was evident that Apple was indeed coming out with 2 new sizes.

    You may be correct, and I accept the second paragraph above as a possibility as well ass your fervent belief, but you're making a classic post hoc... error by saying it's the absolute truth with only "after this, therefore resulting from it" as your evidence.
  • Reply 96 of 151
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    SGS is the acronym for Samsung Galaxy S, and is used to identify that model almost universally except for here, and other Apple sites.

    I'd buy your argument if Apple had only gone one size bigger, but when they went 2 different sizes then it clearly showed that the move was reactionary. I distinctly remember you doubting that Apple would go to 2 different sizes when the rumors first surfaced, but as more and more proof came out it was evident that Apple was indeed coming out with 2 new sizes.

    You may be correct, and I accept the second paragraph above as a possibility as well ass your fervent belief, but you're making a classic post hoc... error by saying it's the absolute truth with only "after this, therefore resulting from it" as your evidence.

    How am I any different from just about every other poster here? Because you don't agree with it?
  • Reply 97 of 151
    Apple leads the entire mobile industry. Quality matters. Not the copy craps nor Microsoft with its crazy product strategy.
  • Reply 98 of 151
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    How am I any different from just about every other poster here? Because you don't agree with it?

    You're not different than some, hence the stated issue I've taken with statement, which I thought was made very clear to both you and Sog. In fact, let's take Sog's comment since it's relevant to this and mirrors everything I find wrong with your comment, but with an opposing "this is a fact because I want it to be so" argument/


    Sog wrote: Wall Street from 2012-2014 was parading Samsung as the Apple killer and the next big thing. But Cook knew better. ( And I did to.)

    I suggested a factual statement would be more along the lines of: Wall Street from 2012-2014 was parading Samsung as the Apple killer and the next big thing. I believe Cook was confident the iPhone 6 series was going to hinder Samsung's sales dramatically. (And I was confident, too.)
  • Reply 99 of 151
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,160member
    jm6032 wrote: »


    I think you're missing something. The mobile market may be 40 years old, but the smartphone market is really only slightly older than the first iPhone. 

    Do you remember the WAP browser? Quite frankly, in my opinion, the iPhone picked the low hanging fruit, it addressed the elephant in the room. This was no secret or surprise. Everyone of us that had a smartphone, in the brief time before the iPhone, cursed mightily at the access to the Internet these phones provided. Why was Steve Jobs the one to see it? I don't know, but it was NO secret. When Steve introduced the iPhone, and the entire Internet in your hand, the sun set on a different world. Really, every existing smartphone vendor at that time had to be doing a face-palm.

    Yes, the browser mattered, but nowhere near as much as you think.

    I think what differentiated was touch, implemented flawlessly and brilliantly.
  • Reply 100 of 151
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,160member
    dasanman69 wrote: »

    All phones are hackable in one way or another.

    What a vacuous post.

    In the long run, we're all dead. So what? You'd like to crawl into your grave now?
Sign In or Register to comment.