The article and all these 75 comments miss possibly the single most important difference between the Samsung and the IPhone: No Samsung phone can access Apple's infrastructure, ecosystem. Nor is it likely that they will ever be able to duplicate it -- at least as long as they use Google's OS.
It is impossible to list all the myriad features of the ecosystem -- but things like its seamless switching between devices, always current OS, and the security and stability that it offers come to mind. Those are things that make an IPhone stand out and stand alone -- the real reasons why it "just works".
Meanwhile, Samsung will continue to roll out their latest and greatest hardware gadget -- and even Apple users will be dazzled by its shiny chrome bumpers and speculate if the next IPhone will have shiny chrome bumpers too.
And that's likely why Apple will always be in the minority position in the market. The minute Apple becomes the dominant player, all the others will call foul in much the same way other browser developers did in the 1990s about Microsoft's bundling practices. Android will demand access to Apple's ecosystem integration which otherwise shuts out the competition by virtue of its monopoly. Apple couldn't be happier serving its minority cult of adoring customers and earning the largest, and well deserved margins on its products over all other competition.
Whether this is deliberate strategy or not, I am sure that Apple has come to this realization over the years. Better to shoot for that top 20% of the market where almost all of the "profit" is, where the majority of influencers and purchases of services are, and leave the ~80% to the diverse other companies. Never can be considered a monopoly.
How did someone give this an 'informative' up vote? Did they think the phone might have been liquid?
In the context of a post that is 100% personal opinion, some are known to vote "informative" in a somewhat sarcastic sense (especially since the "Dislike" button was taken off the table a while back). Not saying I do that, just observing.
I do it - all the time. Although the person on the receiving end likely doesn't get it - they just think "wow, my opinion is so informative to the world..."
How did someone give this an 'informative' up vote? Did they think the phone might have been liquid?
In the context of a post that is 100% personal opinion, some are known to vote "informative" in a somewhat sarcastic sense (especially since the "Dislike" button was taken off the table a while back). Not saying I do that, just observing.
I do it - all the time. Although the person on the receiving end likely doesn't get it - they just think "wow, my opinion is so informative to the world..."
Then by your reasoning you're encouraging more of the same from that poster who thinks you're congratulating him/her for that post? Good thinking sir.
How did someone give this an 'informative' up vote? Did they think the phone might have been liquid?
In the context of a post that is 100% personal opinion, some are known to vote "informative" in a somewhat sarcastic sense (especially since the "Dislike" button was taken off the table a while back). Not saying I do that, just observing.
I do it - all the time. Although the person on the receiving end likely doesn't get it - they just think "wow, my opinion is so informative to the world..."
Then by your reasoning you're encouraging more of the same from that poster who thinks you're congratulating him/her for that post? Good thinking sir.
Oh well...
On another note, did you have any Google news to share with us today...?
How did someone give this an 'informative' up vote? Did they think the phone might have been liquid?
In the context of a post that is 100% personal opinion, some are known to vote "informative" in a somewhat sarcastic sense (especially since the "Dislike" button was taken off the table a while back). Not saying I do that, just observing.
I do it - all the time. Although the person on the receiving end likely doesn't get it - they just think "wow, my opinion is so informative to the world..."
Then by your reasoning you're encouraging more of the same from that poster who thinks you're congratulating him/her for that post? Good thinking sir.
Oh well...
On another note, did you have any Google news to share with us today...?
I NEVER initiate sharing Google news unless it's in a Google specific AI article. That would be unlike some others, such as yourself in this case, who bring them up in unrelated threads.
these clowns at Samsung even copied the marketing name from Apple -- the "Plus". really? is that the only possible nomenclature for a larger size? pathetic.
Another uninformed person who thinks only Apple manufactures phones and everyone else just copies "everything" including the naming of devices. Please read my earlier comment.
So you think Samsung "copied" the plus naming convention from Apple??? Samsung is using Plus in naming their devices for many years already. Samsung SII plus was released in 2013 - just to give an example. There are MANY more Samsung phones with plus naming convention, much before iPhone 6 plus came in late 2014. In fact, Samsung releases so many phones with so many names every year, it is very difficult to come up with a new name which does not have any resemblance to any of the existing Samsung phones. You can accuse ANY OEM of copying name from Samsung phones blindly and it would not be far off from the truth. To claim that Samsung is copying name from Apple is - pure ignorance and lack of knowledge.
Samsung never used PLUS on their flagships until after the iPhone 6 Plus.
What about S2 plus? It was launched in Feb-2013, solid 1.5 years before iPhone 6 plus. Of course, it was NOT flagship at that point in time (S3 was), but an ex-flagship with Plus added to its name. Again, how does that matter, when we are talking about "copying" the naming convention - flagship or not?
If anything, it was apple who copied the Plus naming convention from Samsung. Not that it matters even a bit (because it is damn difficult due to Samsung's stupidity of releasing thousands of phones with different names), but accusing a company of copying something while the truth was the other way around is just not fair.
Was the S2 "plus" used to designate a larger sized model, or an update to an older version?
Also, I can play this game as well -- Apple was using the Plus moniker in its product naming schemes decades before Samsung:
Those aren't phones though. Failure at playing the game.
Nor were the afore mentioned Samsung devices flagships, which is what we're comparing -- Samsung's continual, blatant copying of Apple for their flagships. The prior Samsung Plus models weren't even for "bigger edition" models if I recall correctly.
If you want to claim "Samsung did it first!" with regards to using Plus nomenclature, then fair's fair -- Apple did it first, 34 years ago. I'm sorry for your loss.
How did someone give this an 'informative' up vote? Did they think the phone might have been liquid?
In the context of a post that is 100% personal opinion, some are known to vote "informative" in a somewhat sarcastic sense (especially since the "Dislike" button was taken off the table a while back). Not saying I do that, just observing.
I do it - all the time. Although the person on the receiving end likely doesn't get it - they just think "wow, my opinion is so informative to the world..."
Then by your reasoning you're encouraging more of the same from that poster who thinks you're congratulating him/her for that post? Good thinking sir.
Oh well...
On another note, did you have any Google news to share with us today...?
I NEVER initiate sharing Google news unless it's in a Google specific AI article. That would be unlike some others, such as yourself in this case, who bring them up in unrelated threads.
Not so. I recall this recent one -- an article about Apple's accessibility initiatives, and somebody said something like "You don't see the copycats doing stuff like this", to which you took issue and said Google took chances on failed product moonshots, which seemed pretty dubious since moonshots are product and product is for profit, which wasn't the point being made (accessibility initiatives).
...re-reading it I see you have some links to accessibility awards, but I can't tell if those were added after my commentary in that thread about "failed moonshots" != accessibility initiatives.
Here's another gem to get the trolls, haters, and Samsung shills riled up -- the new flagship S8's facial recognition is easily spoofed with a simple photo from another device:
....wow, impressive technology there. Very innovative. Not at all another case of Samsung rushing to beat Apple to market but delivery a shit sandwich in the process. Again.
Here's another gem to get the trolls, haters, and Samsung shills riled up -- the new flagship S8's facial recognition is easily spoofed with a simple photo from another device:
....wow, impressive technology there. Very innovative. Not at all another case of Samsung rushing to beat Apple to market but delivery a shit sandwich in the process. Again.
I can't see any issue here with face detection. Samsung said from the get go that it wasn't as secure as other methods available on the phone.
Some people don't even activate any kind of screen lock. The face detection system sits between no and low security. Of course, it will improve over time.
How did someone give this an 'informative' up vote? Did they think the phone might have been liquid?
In the context of a post that is 100% personal opinion, some are known to vote "informative" in a somewhat sarcastic sense (especially since the "Dislike" button was taken off the table a while back). Not saying I do that, just observing.
I do it - all the time. Although the person on the receiving end likely doesn't get it - they just think "wow, my opinion is so informative to the world..."
Then by your reasoning you're encouraging more of the same from that poster who thinks you're congratulating him/her for that post? Good thinking sir.
Oh well...
On another note, did you have any Google news to share with us today...?
I NEVER initiate sharing Google news unless it's in a Google specific AI article. That would be unlike some others, such as yourself in this case, who bring them up in unrelated threads.
Not so. I recall this recent one -- an article about Apple's accessibility initiatives, and somebody said something like "You don't see the copycats doing stuff like this", to which you took issue and said Google took chances on failed product moonshots, which seemed pretty dubious since moonshots are product and product is for profit, which wasn't the point being made (accessibility initiatives).
...re-reading it I see you have some links to accessibility awards, but I can't tell if those were added after my commentary in that thread about "failed moonshots" != accessibility initiatives.
How did someone give this an 'informative' up vote? Did they think the phone might have been liquid?
In the context of a post that is 100% personal opinion, some are known to vote "informative" in a somewhat sarcastic sense (especially since the "Dislike" button was taken off the table a while back). Not saying I do that, just observing.
I do it - all the time. Although the person on the receiving end likely doesn't get it - they just think "wow, my opinion is so informative to the world..."
Then by your reasoning you're encouraging more of the same from that poster who thinks you're congratulating him/her for that post? Good thinking sir.
Oh well...
On another note, did you have any Google news to share with us today...?
I NEVER initiate sharing Google news unless it's in a Google specific AI article. That would be unlike some others, such as yourself in this case, who bring them up in unrelated threads.
Not so. I recall this recent one -- an article about Apple's accessibility initiatives, and somebody said something like "You don't see the copycats doing stuff like this", to which you took issue and said Google took chances on failed product moonshots, which seemed pretty dubious since moonshots are product and product is for profit, which wasn't the point being made (accessibility initiatives).
...re-reading it I see you have some links to accessibility awards, but I can't tell if those were added after my commentary in that thread about "failed moonshots" != accessibility initiatives.
Strictly interpreted you probably found the closest to a mention of Google from me without a specific introduction from someone else beforehand. But your framing of it is not at all true as you already knew from reading the post and the question posed in it that I actually responded to. It had zero to do with copycats or any vague comment about them but instead responding to a question about Apple competitors.
Comments
I do it - all the time. Although the person on the receiving end likely doesn't get it - they just think "wow, my opinion is so informative to the world..."
On another note, did you have any Google news to share with us today...?
If you want to claim "Samsung did it first!" with regards to using Plus nomenclature, then fair's fair -- Apple did it first, 34 years ago. I'm sorry for your loss.
Not so. I recall this recent one -- an article about Apple's accessibility initiatives, and somebody said something like "You don't see the copycats doing stuff like this", to which you took issue and said Google took chances on failed product moonshots, which seemed pretty dubious since moonshots are product and product is for profit, which wasn't the point being made (accessibility initiatives).
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/198422
...re-reading it I see you have some links to accessibility awards, but I can't tell if those were added after my commentary in that thread about "failed moonshots" != accessibility initiatives.
http://www.loopinsight.com/2017/03/31/galaxy-s8-facial-recognition-can-be-bypassed-with-a-photo/
....wow, impressive technology there. Very innovative. Not at all another case of Samsung rushing to beat Apple to market but delivery a shit sandwich in the process. Again.
Some people don't even activate any kind of screen lock. The face detection system sits between no and low security. Of course, it will improve over time.