Verizon comes to Samsung's defense in Apple patent lawsuit

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post


    Apple maintains its margains by using OS X. They have a product that only they can obtain. They can charge a premium for it. However an Apple branded Television could not compete with their margins on price unless they where to offer something no one else can. So far they could in thoery just place an Apple tv inside it but in reality their are already so many T.V.s on the market that already have many of the basic functions as a T.V. with apple TV built into it. No one would want to pay 300$ more to have a TV with that built in when the set top box is only 100$. When they could buy a comparable product for 300$ less.



    Rubbish. First of all Apple can charge a premium for being Apple(if they wanted, but my guess is they would not need to because..). Second, they could susidise the TV with App, movie and music sales.It won't be about the TV, it will be about the services.
  • Reply 22 of 115
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    Rubbish. First of all Apple can charge a premium for being Apple(if they wanted, but my guess is they would not need to because..). Second, they could susidise the TV with App, movie and music sales.It won't be about the TV, it will be about the services.



    I can tell you one thing, if Apple does start making TV's then I know who WON'T be making the screens for them.



    Pricing, dump the useless 3D bullish*t and Apple will undercut almost any manufacturer on the market.
  • Reply 23 of 115
    Apple does not sell at a loss. Also they don't make much from the content.



    If Apple is getting into the TV market, then be sure they've done their homework and think they can add value.
  • Reply 24 of 115
    [QUOTE=Trust me unless apple would like to bleed profits they should never get in the TV business. Margins are to low and the competition is too cutthroat.[/QUOTE]



    ...like the phone business?
  • Reply 25 of 115
    Stronger anti-piracy laws counter the public interest, but we're still implementing those.
  • Reply 26 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eye View Post


    ...like the phone business?



    Who said that the phone makers had low margins on their smart phones?

    The carriers didn't and don't generally make money on the phones but make the bucks from expensive contracts. The conceit was that p.c. guys couldn't make a good phone and would get stomped by the established handset makers. And even if they did somehow make a good phone no carrier would put up with Apple and cede any control of the user experience to Apple.
  • Reply 27 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kriskkalu View Post


    Stronger anti-piracy laws counter the public interest, but we're still implementing those.



    Say what?
  • Reply 28 of 115
    Verizon wants control of handsets that they sell. Samsung allows carriers complete control of their handsets. Apple doesn't. So the reason is obvious. Verizon (and other carriers) are afraid of Apple. Apple started the concept that cellphones' features and software are not to be controlled by carriers, but by the maker (Apple). This scarred the US carriers. Luckily for them, Android came and brought control back to the carriers. So in this situation, it's in the best interest of Verizon to support Samsung as Samsung continue to allow Verizon to molest and rape their phones, while Apple don't.
  • Reply 29 of 115
    Damn you guys get flustered quickly. Did any of you bother to understand what amicus curiae means (intention and implication-wise, not definition) before you spewed all the Verizon hate? Their intention for filing an amicus curiae brief is likely entirely self-serving. If it happens to aid Samsung, so be it, but their intention is not to directly support Samsung's interests.



    Even if you didn't take a moment to understand what was going on legally, why would you think Verizon would partner up with Samsung against Apple? Verizon is in the business of making money; I doubt any of you will argue against that, despite your contrariness. If Verizon wants to make the most money possible, then they won't favor one hardware manufacturer at the expense of another. It's in their best interest to offer devices representing the widest possible swath of the market.



    Everything that isn't expressly pro-Apple isn't anti-Apple. I promise.
  • Reply 30 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


    Damn you guys get flustered quickly. Did any of you bother to understand what amicus curiae means (intention and implication-wise, not definition) before you spewed all the Verizon hate? Their intention for filing an amicus curiae brief is likely entirely self-serving. If it happens to aid Samsung, so be it, but their intention is not to directly support Samsung's interests.



    Even if you didn't take a moment to understand what was going on legally, why would you think Verizon would partner up with Samsung against Apple? Verizon is in the business of making money; I doubt any of you will argue against that, despite your contrariness. If Verizon wants to make the most money possible, then they won't favor one hardware manufacturer at the expense of another. It's in their best interest to offer devices representing the widest possible swath of the market.



    Everything that isn't expressly pro-Apple isn't anti-Apple. I promise.



    There is one huge problem with this statement. Verizon requesting the right to insert a brief of any kind into this suit means they have to take one side or the other. This is a case of Apple vs Samsung, so they have to be on one side or the other, unless they were considered a hostile witness. In this case, they desire to input their 2 cents. So it is against Apple! Simple.
  • Reply 31 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    And in related news Apple announces iPhone no longer available on Verizon...



    What would be the point in that? It would only harm Apple even more and open the door to other device makers.



    Apple should just extract a royalty from Samsung and move on.
  • Reply 32 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post


    Apple maintains its margains by using OS X. They have a product that only they can obtain. They can charge a premium for it. However an Apple branded Television could not compete with their margins on price unless they where to offer something no one else can. So far they could in thoery just place an Apple tv inside it but in reality their are already so many T.V.s on the market that already have many of the basic functions as a T.V. with apple TV built into it. No one would want to pay 300$ more to have a TV with that built in when the set top box is only 100$. When they could buy a comparable product for 300$ less.







    Apple has the software and eco-system that no other manufacture can come close to. It's not about the TV, it's about content and style. No one can touch Apple in either of those departments!
  • Reply 33 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post


    Their Television department sucks and needs to be removed.



    Samsung Reported as Top TV Brand in North America 1st Half of 2011



    http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-rep...2011-09178580/
  • Reply 34 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post


    Ahhhh... Apple does not have nearly enough money to purchase Samsung, And if they did no way the south Korean Government would allow. Believe it or not Samsung really does help that country.





    Edit: With more then 250 thousand koreans employed... They are the biggest Company in Korea. Being purchased by an american Company known to outsource jobs is not something the korean government will allow.



    Indeed!



    I start to think that sooner or later, Asian companies will buy major USA companies.

    All of them, Google, Microsoft and even Apple.



    With back door government backing chinese companies will buy USA ones, they have the money.

    What USA companies makes money out of android or Windows?

    Looks like only Asian companies makes money both out of Windows and Android.



    USA will be like UK, irrelevant technology wise.
  • Reply 35 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post


    Their Television department sucks and needs to be removed. But Samsung mobility shows record profits.



    Trust me unless apple would like to bleed profits they should never get in the TV business. Margins are to low and the competition is too cutthroat.



    He's talking about the approx. 7.8 billion worth of business Apple has with Samsung for components --- not Apple getting into TVs and competing with Samsung head to head (which it couldn't do within the year).



    No, Apple could very well be in a position to take all its Samsung business to Japanese partners with whom they have already talked. Certainly, Samsung is going to be losing some business from Apple over this, you can count on it.



    It's not just that Samsung are shamelessly copying the iPhone as close as they can -- it may very well turn out that they have done so by using inside knowledge from the divisions that are producing components for Apple. This is a big no, no, and they ought to lose business from all their clients as a result.
  • Reply 36 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkalu View Post


    Verizon is fighting for survival. Pity.



    given that their stock is up about 50% in less than 2 years, they seem to be doing better than that. Looks like they are thriving, rather than fighting for survival.
  • Reply 37 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,178member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Verizon is in the service provider business, and its job is to maximize profits in that business. They would be stupid to do otherwise.



    Apple understands that, because it's in business for similar reasons.



    They're both adults and will come to an understanding based on what's in their respective self-interest. It's nothing personal, and shouldn't be.



    As the old saying goes, there are no friendships in business, only alliances of convenience and zones of mutual interest.



    +1 and well-said.
  • Reply 38 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,178member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


    Damn you guys get flustered quickly. Did any of you bother to understand what amicus curiae means (intention and implication-wise, not definition) before you spewed all the Verizon hate? Their intention for filing an amicus curiae brief is likely entirely self-serving. If it happens to aid Samsung, so be it, but their intention is not to directly support Samsung's interests.



    Even if you didn't take a moment to understand what was going on legally, why would you think Verizon would partner up with Samsung against Apple? Verizon is in the business of making money; I doubt any of you will argue against that, despite your contrariness. If Verizon wants to make the most money possible, then they won't favor one hardware manufacturer at the expense of another. It's in their best interest to offer devices representing the widest possible swath of the market.



    Everything that isn't expressly pro-Apple isn't anti-Apple. I promise.



    Impressive! TWO logical and cool-headed responses on the same page where Apple and Samsung mentions appear.



    Good post with a good explanation WakeFinance.
  • Reply 39 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    Rubbish. First of all Apple can charge a premium for being Apple(if they wanted, but my guess is they would not need to because..). Second, they could susidise the TV with App, movie and music sales.It won't be about the TV, it will be about the services.



    You missed the memo from Tim Cook about Apple just breaking even with sales of music and videos. Likely the same story with apps. Apple profits are mostly about devices, a bit on software and virtually none on what you call *services*.
  • Reply 40 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


    Damn you guys get flustered quickly. Did any of you bother to understand what amicus curiae means (intention and implication-wise, not definition) before you spewed all the Verizon hate? Their intention for filing an amicus curiae brief is likely entirely self-serving. If it happens to aid Samsung, so be it, but their intention is not to directly support Samsung's interests.



    Even if you didn't take a moment to understand what was going on legally, why would you think Verizon would partner up with Samsung against Apple? Verizon is in the business of making money; I doubt any of you will argue against that, despite your contrariness. If Verizon wants to make the most money possible, then they won't favor one hardware manufacturer at the expense of another. It's in their best interest to offer devices representing the widest possible swath of the market.



    Everything that isn't expressly pro-Apple isn't anti-Apple. I promise.



    Appears reasonable (but for the sake of condescension) but wrong (and thus making the whole argument foolish).
Sign In or Register to comment.