Maybe Samsung will agree to transition away from Google Android. The recent licensing deal with Microsoft would put them in a position to make such a deal. This would hugely benefit both Apple and Samsung. It benefits Apple because it will be a huge blow to its biggest competitor and it benefits Samsung because they can sell their current tablets and start working on transitioning to Microsoft or their own Bada software, which is probably something they would want to do anyway. One issue that might be a problem is whether the deal is public or private. Apple obviously would want the deal to be public to hammer Google and its partners right now. Samsung will want to wait until they have transitioned out of Android before making the announcement to not reduce their sales.
I have no idea if that is what they are up to, but if I were Samsung, that is what I would offer.
I think Amazon is a threat to a many right now but Apple is likely the least who should be worried. I think all trying to sell low-end tablets have the most to lose, in the long run Google could be seriously crippled, and Apple picking up the rear with a threat with a low-end tablet that also has a multimedia ecosystem, though the Kindle Fire could also be a training wheel tablet before customers commit to the iPad.
Absolutely false. There are a number of flaws in your statement:
1. There is nothing illegal about divisions of a company sharing information. Even if they are separate legal entities, as long as they're fully owned, they can share confidential information (I had to deal with that in my previous multinational).
Actually this is very illegal, I do NDA and Contracts all the time with companies like Samsung who have different business units which most opperate under various legal enities and those there is language in those deals which clearly state they can not pass information shared with one business with another even is you do business with both.
Just so you know Samsung Operating each BU as separate legal enities and this is done for various reasons because they operate this way they have to maintain a Chinese Wall between those business, whether they really do or not is up for debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
2. Even if they decided NOT to share information between the divisions, it could be done at a higher level. The CEO of Samsung could order the components division to lower their prices for Apple without saying why.
You are right he could do this, but there are anti-competitive laws which would not allow this. If a company/BU offered a special deal like this they would have to back it up on what drove that deal, such as Apple gave them more business for a better price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
3. Even if THAT isn't acceptable, all the phone division would have to do is tell Apple "we'll pay you $2.00 for every GB of Flash memory you buy from our components division or $4 for every CPU you buy from our components division".
Yes, they could offer some sort of rebate, but again, there are strict rules how this is done. Apple would have to show why they got these rebate and what they were based on. The fact that Samsung has gotten in trouble in the past for price fix and does credit rebates in the memory space, and Apple got a big chunk of money because the the FTC actions brought against Samsung and Hynix at the time.
I deal with these kinds of deals all the time so I very familiar what a company can do legally or ethically. The problem is you are dealing with two companies on the ethics scale and I am pretty sure Apple is not going to compromise their ethics.
Actually this is very illegal, I do NDA and Contracts all the time with companies like Samsung who have different business units which most opperate under various legal enities and those there is language in those deals which clearly state they can not pass information shared with one business with another even is you do business with both.
This seems like an eminently sensible point of view. Despite having a "common ownership," such Chinese Walls are (were?) common in the financial services industry. Consulting and law firms often have to deal with issue too?
The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.
Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.
No deal - no story.
But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"
Take my advice: you're going to get hurt one day jumping to conclusions - as I did read the whole story.
That right there was so self indulgent and misapplied that even the baby sees the error of your ways.
It's not a deal because it's not accepted? You just created a new logic that singularly prevents the rest of humanities history from ever consummating a deal because you can't have one unless it's offered, but unless it was offered you can't have a deal, so if there's no deal theres no offer possible, so no deal is possible.
You crack us up. As we can see the baby ruled. You earn the facepalm!
I don't believe that's always true. Apple offered Nokia a deal rather than let a judge decide, but it's not proof that their hand was weak. Some things just become huge distractions, better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.
Apple offered Nokia the same deal they offered them before the lawsuits. Nokia accepted it. The Non-disclosure end of the deal allowed Nokia to save face.
In five years Nokia will either be completely revamped at the top or it will be out of the smartphone high end market.
History has shown the Apple's strategy has worked for them against cheaper competitors. Amazon strategy is nothing new. Apple will continue to grow and will accelerate further once the economic conditions improve. There is a very good market for people willing to pay for premium products. Regardless of market share. Its about profits. Amazon's business is low margin high volume. Their operating margin is 2%!!! Apple's is 33%. Apple sells every single unit.
Math question. How many Android Fire units do you have to sell for every one iPad to get the same profit? Even Apple with all its cash in the bank can not keep up with enough production for demand. If Amazon is going to compete with Apple on profit, just how are they going to manufacture that number of units computed above? What magic will Amazon use to manufacture several magnitude more units then Apple, when Apple can barely keep up with the demand now?
No.. the HW OEM that are in it from profit margins are a threat to Apple. Google proper is more of a threat to Amazon. Both of which make their money on content, not profit from HW margins. Amazon lacks any HW engineering experience and any tablet OS experience. The Fire design was contracted out. So was the Kindle.
I hope the Kindle Fire and Galaxy Tab 10.1 are here to stay. Any competition that might make Apple lower their price point or accelerate their innovation and addition of new features in next gen Ipads is a great thing for consumers as far as I'm concerned.
I hope the Kindle Fire and Galaxy Tab 10.1 are here to stay. Any competition that might make Apple lower their price point or accelerate their innovation and addition of new features in next gen Ipads is a great thing for consumers as far as I'm concerned.
definitely. Competition is good. Google with Galaxy Tab may push Apple on innovation (i.e. notification system). Microsoft may also as well with the Windows tablet for concepts which are NEW (i.e. split keyboard). Doubt Kindle Fire will push Apple on innovation or prices for the points I highlighted above.
As the old saying goes, "Don't throw stones in a glass house." Before you make claims of 'dumbing things down for everyone', you might want to ensure your grammar and spelling are up to par. In your case, it is a lovely run-on sentence at the beginning and a few missing comma's throughout. But hey, maybe you were just dumbing it down, right? Wink wink
Apple offered Nokia the same deal they offered them before the lawsuits. Nokia accepted it. The Non-disclosure end of the deal allowed Nokia to save face.
In five years Nokia will either be completely revamped at the top or it will be out of the smartphone high end market.
Five years is being kind.
I believe you're mistaken. I don't think Apple ever offered to license iPhone and other patents to Nokia at any time prior to the final offer. In the final agreement Nokia was offered a license to some Apple patents, including at least some "that make the iPhone unique".
From the official Apple media statement:"Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others' patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique. . ."
Which means they gave Nokia a licence to some of the essential iPhone patents. That doesn't sound like something Apple would do willingly does it?Obvious that Nokia was holding a pretty good hand in Apple's viewpoint, but not proof that Apple didn't have strong cards themselves. IMO they just weren't willing to roll the dice, doing whatever was needed to make it all go away rther than go to court.
Actually this is very illegal, I do NDA and Contracts all the time with companies like Samsung who have different business units which most opperate under various legal enities and those there is language in those deals which clearly state they can not pass information shared with one business with another even is you do business with both.
You know, if you do NDA and contracts all the time, you'd think that you'd understand the difference between "illegal" and "written into a contract". Heck, the fact that you have to write it into the contract proves that it's not illegal. If it were illegal, there'd be no need to put it into the contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Just so you know Samsung Operating each BU as separate legal enities and this is done for various reasons because they operate this way they have to maintain a Chinese Wall between those business, whether they really do or not is up for debate.
No, they don't. You just established that they only have to separate the BUs if they have a contractual obligation to do so. Without a contractual requirement, they don't have to. And it's not illegal even if they DO have a contractual requirement to keep BUs separate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
You are right he could do this, but there are anti-competitive laws which would not allow this. If a company/BU offered a special deal like this they would have to back it up on what drove that deal, such as Apple gave them more business for a better price.
Which "anti-competitive law" () would not allow it? The fact is that Samsung could offer all sorts of justifications for it. Ending a lawsuit that could potentially cost them many millions of dollars would be more than sufficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Yes, they could offer some sort of rebate, but again, there are strict rules how this is done. Apple would have to show why they got these rebate and what they were based on. The fact that Samsung has gotten in trouble in the past for price fix and does credit rebates in the memory space, and Apple got a big chunk of money because the the FTC actions brought against Samsung and Hynix at the time.
It has nothing to do with price fixing. It has to do with Samsung agreeing to give a discount on one product to settle litigation on another product.
But feel free to cite the specific law that makes that illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
I deal with these kinds of deals all the time so I very familiar what a company can do legally or ethically. The problem is you are dealing with two companies on the ethics scale and I am pretty sure Apple is not going to compromise their ethics.
Once again, you'd think that if you deal with this all the time that you'd understand the difference between something being illegal and being a negotiated contract point.
There would be absolutely nothing unethical for Apple to accept a discount on CPUs in exchange for dropping their phone litigation. Nothing at all.
I believe you're mistaken. I don't think Apple ever offered to license iPhone and other patents to Nokia at any time prior to the final offer. In the final agreement Nokia was offered a license to some Apple patents, including at least some "that make the iPhone unique".
From the official Apple media statement:"Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others' patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique. . ."
Which means they gave Nokia a licence to some of the essential iPhone patents. That doesn't sound like something Apple would do willingly does it?Obvious that Nokia was holding a pretty good hand in Apple's viewpoint, but not proof that Apple didn't have strong cards themselves. IMO they just weren't willing to roll the dice, doing whatever was needed to make it all go away rther than go to court.
Believe what you want. You deal realize or maybe you don't that 99% of Apple's Patent Portfolio on Software and Hardware across all avenues of the Computing Industry have nothing to do with the iPhone/iPad/iPod/iPod Touch, right? Apple has patents in CPUs, Memory Management, Bus Architectures, RF Technologies, I/O, Operating Systems up the wazzu, etc, right?
Sorry, but Apple didn't license essential iPhone Patents. It licensed patents inside the iPhone. Everything from circuit board design, to radio technologies, to basic power management would be the types of patents Apple is willing to cross-license exclusively to Nokia for standard FRAND licensing fees.
You added the term essential. Having worked for Steve twice at NeXT and Apple, language is paramount to him. If they were essential the word would be in the litigation.
Believe what you want. You deal realize or maybe you don't that 99% of Apple's Patent Portfolio on Software and Hardware across all avenues of the Computing Industry have nothing to do with the iPhone/iPad/iPod/iPod Touch, right? Apple has patents in CPUs, Memory Management, Bus Architectures, RF Technologies, I/O, Operating Systems up the wazzu, etc, right?
Sorry, but Apple didn't license essential iPhone Patents. It licensed patents inside the iPhone. Everything from circuit board design, to radio technologies, to basic power management would be the types of patents Apple is willing to cross-license exclusively to Nokia for standard FRAND licensing fees.
You added the term essential. Having worked for Steve twice at NeXT and Apple, language is paramount to him. If they were essential the word would be in the litigation.
Since it was Apple that referred to them as "innovations that make the iPhone unique", why would you then argue that they weren't essential to what makes the iPhone, well, the iPhone.
NO matter how you'd like to spin it, Apple licensed at least some patents to Nokia that make the iPhone unique, thus essential to the iPhone experience. Far from Nokia "saving face" as you'd would claim, if anyone it was Apple trying to minimize what they gave up in the Nokia settlement by their very careful choice of words.
Comments
I have no idea if that is what they are up to, but if I were Samsung, that is what I would offer.
With Amazon on their heels, they must be starting to panic. And the Christmas shopping season is looming.
Looks like a precursor to a settlement in the US too (note the recent one with Microsoft).
Amazon is a much bigger threat to Apple.
Amazon is a much bigger threat to Apple.
I think Amazon is a threat to a many right now but Apple is likely the least who should be worried. I think all trying to sell low-end tablets have the most to lose, in the long run Google could be seriously crippled, and Apple picking up the rear with a threat with a low-end tablet that also has a multimedia ecosystem, though the Kindle Fire could also be a training wheel tablet before customers commit to the iPad.
Absolutely false. There are a number of flaws in your statement:
1. There is nothing illegal about divisions of a company sharing information. Even if they are separate legal entities, as long as they're fully owned, they can share confidential information (I had to deal with that in my previous multinational).
Actually this is very illegal, I do NDA and Contracts all the time with companies like Samsung who have different business units which most opperate under various legal enities and those there is language in those deals which clearly state they can not pass information shared with one business with another even is you do business with both.
Just so you know Samsung Operating each BU as separate legal enities and this is done for various reasons because they operate this way they have to maintain a Chinese Wall between those business, whether they really do or not is up for debate.
2. Even if they decided NOT to share information between the divisions, it could be done at a higher level. The CEO of Samsung could order the components division to lower their prices for Apple without saying why.
You are right he could do this, but there are anti-competitive laws which would not allow this. If a company/BU offered a special deal like this they would have to back it up on what drove that deal, such as Apple gave them more business for a better price.
3. Even if THAT isn't acceptable, all the phone division would have to do is tell Apple "we'll pay you $2.00 for every GB of Flash memory you buy from our components division or $4 for every CPU you buy from our components division".
Yes, they could offer some sort of rebate, but again, there are strict rules how this is done. Apple would have to show why they got these rebate and what they were based on. The fact that Samsung has gotten in trouble in the past for price fix and does credit rebates in the memory space, and Apple got a big chunk of money because the the FTC actions brought against Samsung and Hynix at the time.
I deal with these kinds of deals all the time so I very familiar what a company can do legally or ethically. The problem is you are dealing with two companies on the ethics scale and I am pretty sure Apple is not going to compromise their ethics.
You're kidding, right? Right?
No?
Oh well.
The frakking deal is secret. It's right damn there, "mystery deal". You aren't a special person
Gee all that in the story, for everyone to see in plain monitor-light? Where's the intelligence in this world!?!
hostile.
really dude? go smoke a fat one then jump back on the computer.
Actually this is very illegal, I do NDA and Contracts all the time with companies like Samsung who have different business units which most opperate under various legal enities and those there is language in those deals which clearly state they can not pass information shared with one business with another even is you do business with both.
This seems like an eminently sensible point of view. Despite having a "common ownership," such Chinese Walls are (were?) common in the financial services industry. Consulting and law firms often have to deal with issue too?
The "story" posted by AI is not a story, it's an announcement, devoid of facts, except for one, the innocuous "Samsung has offered Apple a mystery deal" lead.
Even the headline "Samsung offers Apple a deal to allow Galaxy Tab 10.1 launch in Australia " is misleading, as there is NO DEAL.
No deal - no story.
But my question was not directed to the over-caffeinated, self-righteous posters seen here but rather to the AI staff itself. Perhaps I should of dumbed it down for everyone, as in. "Where's the beef?"
Take my advice: you're going to get hurt one day jumping to conclusions - as I did read the whole story.
That right there was so self indulgent and misapplied that even the baby sees the error of your ways.
You crack us up. As we can see the baby ruled. You earn the facepalm!
hostile.
really dude? go smoke a fat one then jump back on the computer.
Not hostile, truthful without dancing around trying to find a Stuart Smalley affirmation to soften the impact.
I don't believe that's always true. Apple offered Nokia a deal rather than let a judge decide, but it's not proof that their hand was weak. Some things just become huge distractions, better for both sides to settle rather than continuing down the same path.
Apple offered Nokia the same deal they offered them before the lawsuits. Nokia accepted it. The Non-disclosure end of the deal allowed Nokia to save face.
In five years Nokia will either be completely revamped at the top or it will be out of the smartphone high end market.
Five years is being kind.
Amazon is a much bigger threat to Apple.
History has shown the Apple's strategy has worked for them against cheaper competitors. Amazon strategy is nothing new. Apple will continue to grow and will accelerate further once the economic conditions improve. There is a very good market for people willing to pay for premium products. Regardless of market share. Its about profits. Amazon's business is low margin high volume. Their operating margin is 2%!!! Apple's is 33%. Apple sells every single unit.
Math question. How many Android Fire units do you have to sell for every one iPad to get the same profit? Even Apple with all its cash in the bank can not keep up with enough production for demand. If Amazon is going to compete with Apple on profit, just how are they going to manufacture that number of units computed above? What magic will Amazon use to manufacture several magnitude more units then Apple, when Apple can barely keep up with the demand now?
No.. the HW OEM that are in it from profit margins are a threat to Apple. Google proper is more of a threat to Amazon. Both of which make their money on content, not profit from HW margins. Amazon lacks any HW engineering experience and any tablet OS experience. The Fire design was contracted out. So was the Kindle.
"We will redirect our nuclear warheads away from Cupertino."
Those warheads probably won't even work, and it'll take Samsung 8 weeks to fix 'em
I hope the Kindle Fire and Galaxy Tab 10.1 are here to stay. Any competition that might make Apple lower their price point or accelerate their innovation and addition of new features in next gen Ipads is a great thing for consumers as far as I'm concerned.
definitely. Competition is good. Google with Galaxy Tab may push Apple on innovation (i.e. notification system). Microsoft may also as well with the Windows tablet for concepts which are NEW (i.e. split keyboard). Doubt Kindle Fire will push Apple on innovation or prices for the points I highlighted above.
As the old saying goes, "Don't throw stones in a glass house." Before you make claims of 'dumbing things down for everyone', you might want to ensure your grammar and spelling are up to par. In your case, it is a lovely run-on sentence at the beginning and a few missing comma's throughout. But hey, maybe you were just dumbing it down, right? Wink wink
Comma's what?
Apple offered Nokia the same deal they offered them before the lawsuits. Nokia accepted it. The Non-disclosure end of the deal allowed Nokia to save face.
In five years Nokia will either be completely revamped at the top or it will be out of the smartphone high end market.
Five years is being kind.
I believe you're mistaken. I don't think Apple ever offered to license iPhone and other patents to Nokia at any time prior to the final offer. In the final agreement Nokia was offered a license to some Apple patents, including at least some "that make the iPhone unique".
From the official Apple media statement:"Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others' patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique. . ."
Which means they gave Nokia a licence to some of the essential iPhone patents. That doesn't sound like something Apple would do willingly does it?Obvious that Nokia was holding a pretty good hand in Apple's viewpoint, but not proof that Apple didn't have strong cards themselves. IMO they just weren't willing to roll the dice, doing whatever was needed to make it all go away rther than go to court.
Actually this is very illegal, I do NDA and Contracts all the time with companies like Samsung who have different business units which most opperate under various legal enities and those there is language in those deals which clearly state they can not pass information shared with one business with another even is you do business with both.
You know, if you do NDA and contracts all the time, you'd think that you'd understand the difference between "illegal" and "written into a contract".
Just so you know Samsung Operating each BU as separate legal enities and this is done for various reasons because they operate this way they have to maintain a Chinese Wall between those business, whether they really do or not is up for debate.
No, they don't. You just established that they only have to separate the BUs if they have a contractual obligation to do so. Without a contractual requirement, they don't have to. And it's not illegal even if they DO have a contractual requirement to keep BUs separate.
You are right he could do this, but there are anti-competitive laws which would not allow this. If a company/BU offered a special deal like this they would have to back it up on what drove that deal, such as Apple gave them more business for a better price.
Which "anti-competitive law" (
Yes, they could offer some sort of rebate, but again, there are strict rules how this is done. Apple would have to show why they got these rebate and what they were based on. The fact that Samsung has gotten in trouble in the past for price fix and does credit rebates in the memory space, and Apple got a big chunk of money because the the FTC actions brought against Samsung and Hynix at the time.
It has nothing to do with price fixing. It has to do with Samsung agreeing to give a discount on one product to settle litigation on another product.
But feel free to cite the specific law that makes that illegal.
I deal with these kinds of deals all the time so I very familiar what a company can do legally or ethically. The problem is you are dealing with two companies on the ethics scale and I am pretty sure Apple is not going to compromise their ethics.
Once again, you'd think that if you deal with this all the time that you'd understand the difference between something being illegal and being a negotiated contract point.
There would be absolutely nothing unethical for Apple to accept a discount on CPUs in exchange for dropping their phone litigation. Nothing at all.
Comma's what?
I believe you're mistaken. I don't think Apple ever offered to license iPhone and other patents to Nokia at any time prior to the final offer. In the final agreement Nokia was offered a license to some Apple patents, including at least some "that make the iPhone unique".
From the official Apple media statement:"Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others' patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique. . ."
Which means they gave Nokia a licence to some of the essential iPhone patents. That doesn't sound like something Apple would do willingly does it?Obvious that Nokia was holding a pretty good hand in Apple's viewpoint, but not proof that Apple didn't have strong cards themselves. IMO they just weren't willing to roll the dice, doing whatever was needed to make it all go away rther than go to court.
Believe what you want. You deal realize or maybe you don't that 99% of Apple's Patent Portfolio on Software and Hardware across all avenues of the Computing Industry have nothing to do with the iPhone/iPad/iPod/iPod Touch, right? Apple has patents in CPUs, Memory Management, Bus Architectures, RF Technologies, I/O, Operating Systems up the wazzu, etc, right?
Sorry, but Apple didn't license essential iPhone Patents. It licensed patents inside the iPhone. Everything from circuit board design, to radio technologies, to basic power management would be the types of patents Apple is willing to cross-license exclusively to Nokia for standard FRAND licensing fees.
You added the term essential. Having worked for Steve twice at NeXT and Apple, language is paramount to him. If they were essential the word would be in the litigation.
Believe what you want. You deal realize or maybe you don't that 99% of Apple's Patent Portfolio on Software and Hardware across all avenues of the Computing Industry have nothing to do with the iPhone/iPad/iPod/iPod Touch, right? Apple has patents in CPUs, Memory Management, Bus Architectures, RF Technologies, I/O, Operating Systems up the wazzu, etc, right?
Sorry, but Apple didn't license essential iPhone Patents. It licensed patents inside the iPhone. Everything from circuit board design, to radio technologies, to basic power management would be the types of patents Apple is willing to cross-license exclusively to Nokia for standard FRAND licensing fees.
You added the term essential. Having worked for Steve twice at NeXT and Apple, language is paramount to him. If they were essential the word would be in the litigation.
Since it was Apple that referred to them as "innovations that make the iPhone unique", why would you then argue that they weren't essential to what makes the iPhone, well, the iPhone.
NO matter how you'd like to spin it, Apple licensed at least some patents to Nokia that make the iPhone unique, thus essential to the iPhone experience. Far from Nokia "saving face" as you'd would claim, if anyone it was Apple trying to minimize what they gave up in the Nokia settlement by their very careful choice of words.