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.
Indeed. Survival never looked so good. Apple, I hear, is also doing well in the survival game.
The same thing or worse was also said about the cell phone business.
Apple TV sets would be IP based unlike today's tv sets.
The question is - what does this mean to the customer? The benefits of a smartphone are obvious - we can surf the web and use it essentially like a very small computer. Likewise for a tablet. For a TV? What do you gain that cannot be had from an external box? How well did TVs with integrated DVD players sell? Slapping the Apple logo on something does not automatically make it better. To repeat, what does a so-called smart TV do that cannot be done on a standard TV with an Apple TV on the side?
Verizon will take back the intervene if were allowed to put logo on iPhone.
That's only the tip of the iceberg. Apple is the only phone manufacturer that controls its own products - branding, timing, contents, pricing and distribution. The logo is only the tip of what carriers see as a larger problem.
Verizon is walking a really beautiful fine line in this brief. They are arguing on behalf of one of their suppliers, with whom they hope to maintain good relations, from a purely business perspective all the while planting the seeds for cross examination by Apple's lawyers. They make no argument that is in any way relevant to the IP infringement case. It's really quite skillfully done.
Verizon is walking a really beautiful fine line in this brief. They are arguing on behalf of one of their suppliers, with whom they hope to maintain good relations, from a purely business perspective all the while planting the seeds for cross examination by Apple's lawyers. They make no argument that is in any way relevant to the IP infringement case. It's really quite skillfully done.
So you think Samsung put them up to this? Don't think so. They definitely have vested interest to act on their own volition. The Galaxy line is their second best-selling phone. They do not want to see it banned.
So you think Samsung put them up to this? Don't think so. They definitely have vested interest to act on their own volition. The Galaxy line is their second best-selling phone. They do not want to see it banned.
After the heat from the iPhone 5 release subsides I can see Samsung becoming Verizon's #1 selling phone manufacturer since Samsung is also offering LTE phones... and that is where Verizon wants to go.
After the heat from the iPhone 5 release subsides I can see Samsung becoming Verizon's #1 selling phone manufacturer since Samsung is also offering LTE phones... and that is where Verizon wants to go.
Strange timing though.
This same rationale may be behind Apple's all out effort against Samsung. After all, their initial legal action was against HTC (I believe?), when HTC was the leading Android vendor. Now that Samsung is the clear winner amongst Android handsets, Apple is trying to stifle them.
The question is - what does this mean to the customer? The benefits of a smartphone are obvious - we can surf the web and use it essentially like a very small computer. Likewise for a tablet. For a TV? What do you gain that cannot be had from an external box? How well did TVs with integrated DVD players sell? Slapping the Apple logo on something does not automatically make it better. To repeat, what does a so-called smart TV do that cannot be done on a standard TV with an Apple TV on the side?
A remote control system that just works.
A content discovery system that is engaging.
Pushing two-way communication into the forefront at a living room scale.
There wasn't much time left if they wanted their points considered. The next hearing is October 13th.
As expected Florian Mueller considers anything not supporting Apple as an attack, leaving little doubt IMHO that Apple is one his clients. He's certainly in over-the-top bulldog mode.
"This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple's enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market."
This same rationale may be behind Apple's all out effort against Samsung. After all, their initial legal action was against HTC (I believe?), when HTC was the leading Android vendor. Now that Samsung is the clear winner amongst Android handsets, Apple is trying to stifle them.
I've never believed that Apple is trying to stifle Samsung from fear of competition... I've always believed that Samsung betrayed Apple's trust at some point (ie. used prior knowledge for their own products etc.) but Apple has no direct proof to take to court so they are going after Samsung in any way possible.
I realize that Apple is going after others as well but it seems that Samsung is always being hit the hardest.
I'm sure, though, that Apple is fully aware that you can't keep going after every vendor all of the time because it just becomes a big game of whack-a-mole and you'll never win forever... so that's what makes me think there is more to this than meets the eye.
Time will tell. In the mean time they are both doing well.
Comments
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.
Indeed. Survival never looked so good. Apple, I hear, is also doing well in the survival game.
And in related news Apple announces iPhone no longer available on Verizon...
Yeah right. Apple is not that foolish.
Either way, Samsung financial reporting for 2012 will show a loss from 2011 of approx 8 billion dollars.
i'm sure all those people who want SSD's won't want the ones with the samsung flash from that new high tech factory they just built
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.
The same thing or worse was also said about the cell phone business.
Apple TV sets would be IP based unlike today's tv sets.
The same thing or worse was also said about the cell phone business.
Apple TV sets would be IP based unlike today's tv sets.
The question is - what does this mean to the customer? The benefits of a smartphone are obvious - we can surf the web and use it essentially like a very small computer. Likewise for a tablet. For a TV? What do you gain that cannot be had from an external box? How well did TVs with integrated DVD players sell? Slapping the Apple logo on something does not automatically make it better. To repeat, what does a so-called smart TV do that cannot be done on a standard TV with an Apple TV on the side?
Verizon will take back the intervene if were allowed to put logo on iPhone.
That's only the tip of the iceberg. Apple is the only phone manufacturer that controls its own products - branding, timing, contents, pricing and distribution. The logo is only the tip of what carriers see as a larger problem.
Verizon is walking a really beautiful fine line in this brief. They are arguing on behalf of one of their suppliers, with whom they hope to maintain good relations, from a purely business perspective all the while planting the seeds for cross examination by Apple's lawyers. They make no argument that is in any way relevant to the IP infringement case. It's really quite skillfully done.
So you think Samsung put them up to this? Don't think so. They definitely have vested interest to act on their own volition. The Galaxy line is their second best-selling phone. They do not want to see it banned.
To repeat, what does a so-called smart TV do that cannot be done on a standard TV with an Apple TV on the side?
A similar question could be asked about standard cellphones with an iTouch on the side.
So you think Samsung put them up to this? Don't think so. They definitely have vested interest to act on their own volition. The Galaxy line is their second best-selling phone. They do not want to see it banned.
After the heat from the iPhone 5 release subsides I can see Samsung becoming Verizon's #1 selling phone manufacturer since Samsung is also offering LTE phones... and that is where Verizon wants to go.
Strange timing though.
A similar question could be asked about standard cellphones with an iTouch on the side.
Surely you jest?
After the heat from the iPhone 5 release subsides I can see Samsung becoming Verizon's #1 selling phone manufacturer since Samsung is also offering LTE phones... and that is where Verizon wants to go.
Strange timing though.
This same rationale may be behind Apple's all out effort against Samsung. After all, their initial legal action was against HTC (I believe?), when HTC was the leading Android vendor. Now that Samsung is the clear winner amongst Android handsets, Apple is trying to stifle them.
@verizon: Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Such easy words to spew. Yet they do more to diminish the utterer's credibility than that of the target.
A similar question could be asked about standard cellphones with an iTouch on the side.
I'd much rather do that than ever pay $4,000 for a television.
The question is - what does this mean to the customer? The benefits of a smartphone are obvious - we can surf the web and use it essentially like a very small computer. Likewise for a tablet. For a TV? What do you gain that cannot be had from an external box? How well did TVs with integrated DVD players sell? Slapping the Apple logo on something does not automatically make it better. To repeat, what does a so-called smart TV do that cannot be done on a standard TV with an Apple TV on the side?
A remote control system that just works.
A content discovery system that is engaging.
Pushing two-way communication into the forefront at a living room scale.
Strange timing though.
There wasn't much time left if they wanted their points considered. The next hearing is October 13th.
As expected Florian Mueller considers anything not supporting Apple as an attack, leaving little doubt IMHO that Apple is one his clients. He's certainly in over-the-top bulldog mode.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...r-verizon.html
"This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple's enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market."
This same rationale may be behind Apple's all out effort against Samsung. After all, their initial legal action was against HTC (I believe?), when HTC was the leading Android vendor. Now that Samsung is the clear winner amongst Android handsets, Apple is trying to stifle them.
I've never believed that Apple is trying to stifle Samsung from fear of competition... I've always believed that Samsung betrayed Apple's trust at some point (ie. used prior knowledge for their own products etc.) but Apple has no direct proof to take to court so they are going after Samsung in any way possible.
I realize that Apple is going after others as well but it seems that Samsung is always being hit the hardest.
I'm sure, though, that Apple is fully aware that you can't keep going after every vendor all of the time because it just becomes a big game of whack-a-mole and you'll never win forever... so that's what makes me think there is more to this than meets the eye.
Time will tell. In the mean time they are both doing well.