Samsung has engaged in wholesale intellectual property theft, decimated the Japanese electronics industry, attempting to do the same with Apple, has had their offices raided by the Korean version of the FBI, etc.
Samsung makes nice products. While I wouldn't purchase their spyware Android OS based products, their hardware is top notch. Besides Samsung agreed to build the CPU for the original iPhone when Intel said no.
These days I don't really own many Samsung products. My media center is LG based and I own quite a few Apple products. But inside many of Apple's devices is a CPU built by Samsung. And memory also built by Samsung.
Samsung phones and tablets aren't bad because of the manufacturer, they are bad because of the spyware OS.
If Jobs was serious about going thermonuclear on Google, he should have licensed iOS to Samsung. Android would have been buried.
As far as the Japanese electronics industry, they got what they deserved. Besides it's LG that's set to dominate the television industry along with a host of low end Chinese manufacturers. And no one stopped Sony or Matsushita or Toshiba from buying an ARM license and manufacturing low power CPUs.
About photo quality between Apple and Samsung. While the average person might not be able to tell the difference. On the DxO benchmarks, the iPhone 6S camera only ranked about 10th while the Samsung S6 was in the top 5 with Sony's Z5 beating them both to first place with its high-density 21MP sensor! Apple's iPhone camera's technical performance is currently behind most of its latest competitors not ahead. But again most people wouldn't notice that in their photos unless they really scrutinized them.
That's a fracking static shot were you have time to set it. The samsung camera is still SLOW AS MELASSE, just like all the others.
You do know that you have to be able to take the god damn shot. time to focus, shot to shot time,
Yeah, if If you put the god damn phone on a tripod, I'm sure Samsung beats Apple.
BTW, in low light, they're basically the same (within margin of error).
It is in very good light that obviously the higher number of pixels has an advantage (and because of the light you don't get the disadvantage).
You are comparing Obama vetoing a IP ruling to the Korean president pardoning the Samsung CEO of bribery, tax evasion, and theft?
i am not comparing the incidents because they are not the same, just stating apple received help from the leader of their country and had a decision overturned.
and even apple's leader was not above dishonesty to get some extra money:
this is not a comparison, but pots do not get to call kettles black- apple is not this blameless, morally sincere company you think it is as you tip-toe around their faults while at the same time slamming their (far behind) rival--and i am still a very big fan of apple.
Thats like saying a minimum wage ditch digger should get credit for 'building' the empire state building. Samsung is a component maker. A worker bee. They get ZERO credit for building A-class chips.
Samsung have been the second most prolific patent generator in the world, year after year. Pretty clever and busy bees.
If you read the article, it notes that Samsung used its ISOCELL in Galaxy S5 before iPhone 6, and that Apple is using Sony sensors. FYI.
Article says that Samsung used PDAF in Galaxy S5. There is no mention about Galaxy S5 using ISOCELL (well, you could argue that there is indirect implication: "Samsung might also swap in its own ISOCELL camera sensors to save money").
So I don't see justification for the header: "Samsung wows investors with futuristic tech that Apple's iPhone is already delivering". Every tech DED mentioned was used by Samsung before Apple implemented them.
i think software is easier to steal/copy than hardware; when both are integrated, harder still.
I totally agree and that has been Apple's best defense. They learned from their past experiences with Gates for sure.
By the time Apple's competitors know about Apple's new innovations, Apple has been working on them for years. That's where the wheels came off of Uncle Fester's plan on being a fast-follower of Apple... best illustrated by the eight-year delay it took MS to make a viable answer to Apple's first iPhone. I never imagined the iPhone would evolve this much in so few years.
1. Samsung unveiled ISOCELL tech couple years ago. They have used it already in Galaxy S5 and in Note 4.
2. Therefore, Samsung used tech well before Apple (or actually Deep Trench is Sony's tech and so is Focus Pixels).
3. Why you did not mention BRITECELL (replacing green pixels with white ones), which was only new tech in Samsung's representation?
If you read the article, it notes that Samsung used its ISOCELL in Galaxy S5 before iPhone 6, and that Apple is using Sony sensors. FYI.
It just seems hard to believe Samsung doesn't gain knowledge from the work it does for Apple, it would not otherwise. Let us not forget Bill Gates having access to the first Mac OS when hired by Apple to develop Steve's concept, Office for Mac, before Windows existed or Office for the PC for that matter. Wholesale intellectual theft was the very basis of Microsoft why not Samsung's mobile strategy?
Samsung's operations are not that cut and dry. The divisions in these Asian conglomerates operate with considerable autonomy. Samsung's devices division does not automatically do business with its components division. You already see this with a lot of Samsung's smartphones using Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs rather than their own Exynos chips.
When Apple came out with the 64-bit A7, it was pretty clear that Samsung's mobile division got caught off-guard. But, even if Samsung's custom fabrication operation leaked the technical specs for the A7 to the division that made the Exynos chips and mobile devices, it's uncertain as to how much Samsung could have benefited from that insider knowledge.
Unlike Apple, Samsung's components division sells into commodity markets. Even with full layouts for the A-series chips, Samsung is still handcuffed by the peculiar demands of Android OEMs. Apple places great emphasis on single-core performance and battery life. Chinese OEMs have been very vocal in their demands for more cores and higher clock speeds. Even if Samsung could clone Apple's chips, the Android market would not want them, because the OEMs are focused on different specs.
Samsung is at a point right now where the profits from components are more important than those from the mobile devices. Apple makes up a huge share of the profit from components. If Samsung alienates their biggest customer in order to share secrets with the mobile division, the outcome would likely be a huge collapse in revenues and profits. Apple would cancel its chip fab contracts with Samsung, and have considerable grounds for breach of contract lawsuits (this would be an easier case to litigate than the various patent suits between the two companies). And what would the mobile division gain? IMO, not enough to risk losing its contracts with Apple.
Samsung's operations are not that cut and dry. The divisions in these Asian conglomerates operate with considerable autonomy. Samsung's devices division does not automatically do business with its components division. You already see this with a lot of Samsung's smartphones using Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs rather than their own Exynos chips.
When Apple came out with the 64-bit A7, it was pretty clear that Samsung's mobile division got caught off-guard. But, even if Samsung's custom fabrication operation leaked the technical specs for the A7 to the division that made the Exynos chips and mobile devices, it's uncertain as to how much Samsung could have benefited from that insider knowledge.
Unlike Apple, Samsung's components division sells into commodity markets. Even with full layouts for the A-series chips, Samsung is still handcuffed by the peculiar demands of Android OEMs. Apple places great emphasis on single-core performance and battery life. Chinese OEMs have been very vocal in their demands for more cores and higher clock speeds. Even if Samsung could clone Apple's chips, the Android market would not want them, because the OEMs are focused on different specs.
Samsung is at a point right now where the profits from components are more important than those from the mobile devices. Apple makes up a huge share of the profit from components. If Samsung alienates their biggest customer in order to share secrets with the mobile division, the outcome would likely be a huge collapse in revenues and profits. Apple would cancel its chip fab contracts with Samsung, and have considerable grounds for breach of contract lawsuits (this would be an easier case to litigate than the various patent suits between the two companies). And what would the mobile division gain? IMO, not enough to risk losing its contracts with Apple.
Comments
Like the Japanese are any better
http://ftp.monash.edu.au/pub/nihongo/matsushita.pbs
Samsung makes nice products. While I wouldn't purchase their spyware Android OS based products, their hardware is top notch. Besides Samsung agreed to build the CPU for the original iPhone when Intel said no.
These days I don't really own many Samsung products. My media center is LG based and I own quite a few Apple products. But inside many of Apple's devices is a CPU built by Samsung. And memory also built by Samsung.
Samsung phones and tablets aren't bad because of the manufacturer, they are bad because of the spyware OS.
If Jobs was serious about going thermonuclear on Google, he should have licensed iOS to Samsung. Android would have been buried.
As far as the Japanese electronics industry, they got what they deserved. Besides it's LG that's set to dominate the television industry along with a host of low end Chinese manufacturers. And no one stopped Sony or Matsushita or Toshiba from buying an ARM license and manufacturing low power CPUs.
that is a bit racist.
It’s hardly racist to have a lack of understanding of English grammar.
Stop being an idiot.
About photo quality between Apple and Samsung. While the average person might not be able to tell the difference. On the DxO benchmarks, the iPhone 6S camera only ranked about 10th while the Samsung S6 was in the top 5 with Sony's Z5 beating them both to first place with its high-density 21MP sensor! Apple's iPhone camera's technical performance is currently behind most of its latest competitors not ahead. But again most people wouldn't notice that in their photos unless they really scrutinized them.
That's a fracking static shot were you have time to set it. The samsung camera is still SLOW AS MELASSE, just like all the others.
You do know that you have to be able to take the god damn shot. time to focus, shot to shot time,
Yeah, if If you put the god damn phone on a tripod, I'm sure Samsung beats Apple.
BTW, in low light, they're basically the same (within margin of error).
It is in very good light that obviously the higher number of pixels has an advantage (and because of the light you don't get the disadvantage).
In low light, other cameras are even SLOWER.
ARE YOU KIDDING!!!!
You are comparing Obama vetoing a IP ruling to the Korean president pardoning the Samsung CEO of bribery, tax evasion, and theft?
i am not comparing the incidents because they are not the same, just stating apple received help from the leader of their country and had a decision overturned.
and even apple's leader was not above dishonesty to get some extra money:
"Randy, we have to hide the Porsches," Jobs reportedly told Adams. "Ross Perot is coming and thinking of investing in the company, and we don't want him to think we have a lot of money." (from http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/10/02/untold-stories-about-steve-jobs-include-rivalry-with-bill-gates-porsche-hiding)
this is not a comparison, but pots do not get to call kettles black- apple is not this blameless, morally sincere company you think it is as you tip-toe around their faults while at the same time slamming their (far behind) rival--and i am still a very big fan of apple.
the lack of grammar is not racist. the racist part is using the lack of grammar stereotype in a derogative way.
i know you cannot help being an idiot, you have written plenty of racist comments in the forums.
Learn what racism is.
Reported for libel.
You still don't understand the difference between a CRIMINAL crime vs a IP dispute?
Or using political power to throw whisteblowers into JAIL to Jobs hiding his car? Really?
I never said Apple is perfect. Never.
you also never say apple has ever done anything wrong- only the companies you dislike.
once again, i am not comparing. just making statements. i understand the difference.
Learn what racism is.
Reported for libel.
i know exactly what it is. keep reporting, and maybe reread some of your past comments.
You don’t have a clue what it is.
Post one, then.
FYI DED
1. Samsung unveiled ISOCELL tech couple years ago. They have used it already in Galaxy S5 and in Note 4.
2. Therefore, Samsung used tech well before Apple (or actually Deep Trench is Sony's tech and so is Focus Pixels).
3. Why you did not mention BRITECELL (replacing green pixels with white ones), which was only new tech in Samsung's representation?
If you read the article, it notes that Samsung used its ISOCELL in Galaxy S5 before iPhone 6, and that Apple is using Sony sensors. FYI.
LOL. Samsung building iPhone CPUs.
Thats like saying a minimum wage ditch digger should get credit for 'building' the empire state building. Samsung is a component maker. A worker bee. They get ZERO credit for building A-class chips.
Samsung have been the second most prolific patent generator in the world, year after year. Pretty clever and busy bees.
If you read the article, it notes that Samsung used its ISOCELL in Galaxy S5 before iPhone 6, and that Apple is using Sony sensors. FYI.
Article says that Samsung used PDAF in Galaxy S5. There is no mention about Galaxy S5 using ISOCELL (well, you could argue that there is indirect implication: "Samsung might also swap in its own ISOCELL camera sensors to save money").
So I don't see justification for the header: "Samsung wows investors with futuristic tech that Apple's iPhone is already delivering". Every tech DED mentioned was used by Samsung before Apple implemented them.
i know exactly what it is. keep reporting, and maybe reread some of your past comments.
So what race are people who post with bad grammar?
Grammarians! They live on the island of San Seriffe!
By the time Apple's competitors know about Apple's new innovations, Apple has been working on them for years. That's where the wheels came off of Uncle Fester's plan on being a fast-follower of Apple... best illustrated by the eight-year delay it took MS to make a viable answer to Apple's first iPhone. I never imagined the iPhone would evolve this much in so few years.
At Samsung—Where white is the new green!
It just seems hard to believe Samsung doesn't gain knowledge from the work it does for Apple, it would not otherwise. Let us not forget Bill Gates having access to the first Mac OS when hired by Apple to develop Steve's concept, Office for Mac, before Windows existed or Office for the PC for that matter. Wholesale intellectual theft was the very basis of Microsoft why not Samsung's mobile strategy?
Samsung's operations are not that cut and dry. The divisions in these Asian conglomerates operate with considerable autonomy. Samsung's devices division does not automatically do business with its components division. You already see this with a lot of Samsung's smartphones using Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs rather than their own Exynos chips.
When Apple came out with the 64-bit A7, it was pretty clear that Samsung's mobile division got caught off-guard. But, even if Samsung's custom fabrication operation leaked the technical specs for the A7 to the division that made the Exynos chips and mobile devices, it's uncertain as to how much Samsung could have benefited from that insider knowledge.
Unlike Apple, Samsung's components division sells into commodity markets. Even with full layouts for the A-series chips, Samsung is still handcuffed by the peculiar demands of Android OEMs. Apple places great emphasis on single-core performance and battery life. Chinese OEMs have been very vocal in their demands for more cores and higher clock speeds. Even if Samsung could clone Apple's chips, the Android market would not want them, because the OEMs are focused on different specs.
Samsung is at a point right now where the profits from components are more important than those from the mobile devices. Apple makes up a huge share of the profit from components. If Samsung alienates their biggest customer in order to share secrets with the mobile division, the outcome would likely be a huge collapse in revenues and profits. Apple would cancel its chip fab contracts with Samsung, and have considerable grounds for breach of contract lawsuits (this would be an easier case to litigate than the various patent suits between the two companies). And what would the mobile division gain? IMO, not enough to risk losing its contracts with Apple.
what on earth are you talking about? disgusting headline??
Thanks you. Excellent post.
Apple's iPhone camera's technical performance is currently behind most
As it was rightfully pointed out here in one of the threads, DX0 makes a camera module for iPhone.
So, there is no conflict of interest... none, I say.