What's the big takeaway from all of this? No company was prepared for what Apple brought to the table. Even if these companies thought full-touchscreen smartphones were the future... none of them were ready to move in any sort of timely manner.
Great counter-point to the "natural evolution" rubbish spouted by some.
"What was intended to put Samsung in a positive light became fodder for Apple counsel William Lee, who noted the comparisons being made between the two companies' products."
I am a bit confused why Samsung introduced this email. Surely it is self defeating.
Does anyone know what they were hoping to achieve?
Samsung didn't introduce the email. In fact, they fought to keep it out - and were apparently successful until a Samsung executive referred to the email during his testimony. Once Samsung had referred to the email, Apple was able to have it brought into testimony.
That Samsung executive is undoubtedly kicking himself tonight - if there are any parts of his body that the attorneys have not already beaten to a pulp. His mention of the memo was a MAJOR mistake.
Do you deny that Samsung had a crisis of design when the iPhone shipped?? Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!!
Awesome comment.
A minor historical quibble - the (non-paraphrased) line was originated by Adlai Stevenson, US Ambassador to the UN, when he confronted the Soviet ambassador at a Security Council meeting in the midist of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Hollywood version was a recreation of the confrontation, not a fictionalized or "improved" dramatization.
Great counter-point to the "natural evolution" rubbish spouted by some.
Thanks!
I often hear things like "that wasn't innovation... all phones were heading in that direction..."
There were plenty of companies who could have announced a radical new phone in January 2007...
But they didn't... and these were companies who have been making phones for years.
And the fact that these companies didn't have anything close to comparable until over a year later means they were a little behind the curve. The sad thing for them is... Apple was the "new guy" in all of this.
So if Apple didn't do anything special... what was everyone else doing at the time? I've already shown that Palm announced yet another Treo in the same week Apple shocked the world with their new iPhone. Clearly Palm wasn't thinking too far ahead. They even had other new models to come out later that year... further proving that they hadn't been thinking about the next big thing.
Apple pretty much bet the farm on a brand new touchscreen-only phone with a brand new OS... while everyone else was still clinging to QWERTY keyboards and antiquated interfaces and software.
If Apple's first iPhone wasn't an innovation... I don't know what is.
A minor historical quibble - the (non-paraphrased) line was originated by Adlai Stevenson, US Ambassador to the UN, when he confronted the Soviet ambassador at a Security Council meeting in the midist of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Hollywood version was a recreation of the confrontation, not a fictionalized or "improved" dramatization.
Just a fan of Christopher Plummer's villain in that movie. Shakespeare-quoting Klingons! Who'da thunk it?
Samsung has been retaliating against Korean cell carrier KT for its success with the iPhone, the provider's chairman Lee Suk-chae said today. Following the popularity of Apple's phone at KT, Samsung has allegedly been diverting most of its best phones to SK Telecom and deliberately offering slack support for the few phones that do reach the number two carrier. Lee went so far as to accuse Samsung and other phone makers of collaborating on an anti-iPhone strategy that uses SK Telecom as its front.
The executive cited KT's version of the Omnia II as an example of active discrimination: Samsung banned KT from referring to its model as part of the Omnia II family and has been software updates for the Windows Mobile phone where SK Telecom has been kept up to date. The KT version, the Show Omnia, is an "illegitimate son" in Samsung's eyes, Lee said.
Much of the supposed hostility stems from Samsung's embarrassment at its relatively poor performance. KT is now believed to have sold 500,000 iPhones in Korea since its late November launch, or 30,000 more than the Omnia II despite launching later and on only one carrier. The damage to Samsung is believed bad enough that the copmany may have actually lost money on phone sales in its home market, where it and LG have had a virtual stranglehold until last year.
Samsung's fight to get credibility in smartphones has been attributed in part to its near-exclusive dependence on Windows Mobile until last year. It began getting traction with the launch of its first Android phones in the second half of 2009 and, in 2010, is now avoiding Windows Mobile on its flagship phones. The Galaxy S and Wave run Android and Bada respectively, and Samsung's only major Microsoft-based phone known so far won't arrive until Windows Phone 7 is ready in the fall.
A number of objections from Samsung were overruled as presiding Judge Lucy Koh said Denison's reference to the email in earlier testimony "opened the door" to Apple's questioning.
Lee asked if Denison could provide a similar document regarding a "crisis in design compared to Nokia," to which the Samsung exec said, "No, I can't."
So, the Judge is basically saying that if a new player (or a competitor) comes and changes the rules of the game with a new product, you're not allowed to take that crisis into account and evolve your strategy?
Either AppleInsider fails at "reporting", either the Judge is biased. Or possibly, every industry in the United States will have to become a monopoly, but for _some reason_ I doubt this will happen...
So, the Judge is basically saying that if a new player (or a competitor) comes and changes the rules of the game with a new product, you're not allowed to take that crisis into account and evolve your strategy?
You're more than welcome to modify your strategy.
You just can't 'copy and paste' your competitor's who own patents.
This is amazing! Every day it just looks worse and worse for Samsung.
At this point, no matter how much you love your Samsung kit or hate Apple's business philosphies if you can't see that Samsung is in the wrong you are a bigoted anti-Appleite.
I often hear things like "that wasn't innovation... all phones were heading in that direction..."
There were plenty of companies who could have announced a radical new phone in January 2007...
But they didn't... and these were companies who have been making phones for years.
You're absolutely right. For anyone who actually consciously lived during that period and bought phones cannot say that there was a natural progression towards a design that resembled an iPhone. If there was a natural progression it was towards a Blackberry inspired design or the slider keyboards HTC used to design its phones around. In 2007 I had an i780 Samsung phone and it was all keyboard and didn't resemble an iPhone design at all. If Samsung would've announced an iPhone look alike in 2007 or early 2008 I would've bought it! In my neck of the woods (Netherlands) you couldn't buy an iPhone in those days. So if there would've been an iPhone look alike I surely would've bought it. But there wasn't. The only type of smartphones one could buy were Nokia/HTC or Blackberry inspired phones.
Remember Samsung had the first iphone blocked in Korea for well over 2 years so they can catch up to Apple. When the iphone finally got approved by their FCC, Samsung punished the carrier that carried the iphone.
Thanks for the link in your follow up post. I finally found some other information as well.
The approval issue was not targeting the iPhone directly. Korea had a required standard for all phones (WIPI) that most foreign handset makers chose not to support. In April 2009 that requirement was dropped and the iPhone was approved a few months later. Some people describe the WIPI requirement as a trade barrier, but it is a stretch to say the iPhone specifically was blocked for two years.
As for Samsung punishing the carrier KT, that was a description supplied by the head of KT. Again, it sounds plausible but is not exactly a smoking gun.
So, the Judge is basically saying that if a new player (or a competitor) comes and changes the rules of the game with a new product, you're not allowed to take that crisis into account and evolve your strategy?
Either AppleInsider fails at "reporting", either the Judge is biased. Or possibly, every industry in the United States will have to become a monopoly, but for _some reason_ I doubt this will happen...
I'd say you've concluded what you believe, and tried to stitch together reasons that don't support your conclusions.
How is the judge saying that? Where did the judge say that? What were her exact words? The problem with your argument is that the judge made no such statement. You started from the conclusion that she is biased, and made up (imagined) the "what she is basically saying" part.
Secondly, you're missing the point by claiming "you're not allowed to take crisis into account." Suppose you are a student and the instructor says there's a pop quiz, and you haven't been studying. Crisis!! Do you justify COPYING the answers from the smart student by saying "am I not allowed to take crisis into account for my actions?"
And, yet, even with the Galaxy SIII, there are multiple different variants.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that Samsung mentioned in their 'crisis of design' memo that they were releasing 350 different phones in one six month period. You can't blame that on the carriers.
Yes, multiple variants do exist, but not in the same mannner, and not for the same reason. Multiple variants exist for the same reason why the verizon iPhone 4 differed from the AT&T one. Three models exist:
1. the i747 which is the North American variant which supports North American LTE. Samsung's Exynos 4212 processor does not support North American LTE, which is why within North American markets the Galaxy S3 uses the Snapdragon S4. Its a dual core instead of a quad core chip, but using a newer fabrication process and doubles up the RAM to 2 GB to make it feel closer in terms of performance to the international version.
2. the i9300 is the version used outside of North America, for exactly the reasons described above.
3. the SC-06D was released only within Japan on the NTT Docomo carrier which had both the increase in RAM as well as the Exynos chip. I guess they struck a deal to get special treatment much like AT&T and Apple did.
The point, however, is that unlike the Galaxy SII, carriers weren't allowed to take the platform and bastardize it to their specifications. All three of these variants are absolutely indistinguishable from one another and unless you are running benchmarks to get numbers, they feel alike to one another in terms of smoothness.
Insofar as releasing 350 phones in a 6 month period, its a combination of Samsung's doing and the carriers. Apple's business model revolves around a very small set of products that appeal to the largest possible audience. It works very well, but it doesn't mean that other business models can't be successful as well. Samsung obviously makes a number of different phones on a number of different platforms (Windows Phone, Android, Dumbphone, etc.), and numerous phones are only sold in certain countries. Furthermore, as I said above, carriers then took the phones and decided they wanted to differentiate their Galaxy SII model from other carriers. And voila, a cluster **** of phones are released.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
What's the big takeaway from all of this? No company was prepared for what Apple brought to the table. Even if these companies thought full-touchscreen smartphones were the future... none of them were ready to move in any sort of timely manner.
Great counter-point to the "natural evolution" rubbish spouted by some.
Samsung didn't introduce the email. In fact, they fought to keep it out - and were apparently successful until a Samsung executive referred to the email during his testimony. Once Samsung had referred to the email, Apple was able to have it brought into testimony.
That Samsung executive is undoubtedly kicking himself tonight - if there are any parts of his body that the attorneys have not already beaten to a pulp. His mention of the memo was a MAJOR mistake.
Quote:
Do you deny that Samsung had a crisis of design when the iPhone shipped?? Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!!
Awesome comment.
A minor historical quibble - the (non-paraphrased) line was originated by Adlai Stevenson, US Ambassador to the UN, when he confronted the Soviet ambassador at a Security Council meeting in the midist of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Hollywood version was a recreation of the confrontation, not a fictionalized or "improved" dramatization.
Thanks!
I often hear things like "that wasn't innovation... all phones were heading in that direction..."
There were plenty of companies who could have announced a radical new phone in January 2007...
But they didn't... and these were companies who have been making phones for years.
And the fact that these companies didn't have anything close to comparable until over a year later means they were a little behind the curve. The sad thing for them is... Apple was the "new guy" in all of this.
So if Apple didn't do anything special... what was everyone else doing at the time? I've already shown that Palm announced yet another Treo in the same week Apple shocked the world with their new iPhone. Clearly Palm wasn't thinking too far ahead. They even had other new models to come out later that year... further proving that they hadn't been thinking about the next big thing.
Apple pretty much bet the farm on a brand new touchscreen-only phone with a brand new OS... while everyone else was still clinging to QWERTY keyboards and antiquated interfaces and software.
If Apple's first iPhone wasn't an innovation... I don't know what is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tullius
Awesome comment.
A minor historical quibble - the (non-paraphrased) line was originated by Adlai Stevenson, US Ambassador to the UN, when he confronted the Soviet ambassador at a Security Council meeting in the midist of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Hollywood version was a recreation of the confrontation, not a fictionalized or "improved" dramatization.
Just a fan of Christopher Plummer's villain in that movie. Shakespeare-quoting Klingons! Who'da thunk it?
Gruber's take: "Not sure what they were worried about. It’s just black rectangles."
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/08/07/samsung-crisis
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/04/26/samsung.denying.kt.phones.due.to.iphone/
Monday, Apr 26, 2010 12:35pm
Samsung 'punishing' KT for carrying iPhone
The executive cited KT's version of the Omnia II as an example of active discrimination: Samsung banned KT from referring to its model as part of the Omnia II family and has been software updates for the Windows Mobile phone where SK Telecom has been kept up to date. The KT version, the Show Omnia, is an "illegitimate son" in Samsung's eyes, Lee said.
Much of the supposed hostility stems from Samsung's embarrassment at its relatively poor performance. KT is now believed to have sold 500,000 iPhones in Korea since its late November launch, or 30,000 more than the Omnia II despite launching later and on only one carrier. The damage to Samsung is believed bad enough that the copmany may have actually lost money on phone sales in its home market, where it and LG have had a virtual stranglehold until last year.
Samsung's fight to get credibility in smartphones has been attributed in part to its near-exclusive dependence on Windows Mobile until last year. It began getting traction with the launch of its first Android phones in the second half of 2009 and, in 2010, is now avoiding Windows Mobile on its flagship phones. The Galaxy S and Wave run Android and Bada respectively, and Samsung's only major Microsoft-based phone known so far won't arrive until Windows Phone 7 is ready in the fall.
Now imagine the emails that were actually destroyed..
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
At the risk of sounding "racist," does anyone disagree, that Asian companies find it easier to "copy" than "innovate?" There, I said it.
Actually, yes I do disagree to a certain extent.
You asked for it.
It's a German car company with an "Asian" idea.
Yes this is real.
Magnetism is our future...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
A number of objections from Samsung were overruled as presiding Judge Lucy Koh said Denison's reference to the email in earlier testimony "opened the door" to Apple's questioning.
Lee asked if Denison could provide a similar document regarding a "crisis in design compared to Nokia," to which the Samsung exec said, "No, I can't."
So, the Judge is basically saying that if a new player (or a competitor) comes and changes the rules of the game with a new product, you're not allowed to take that crisis into account and evolve your strategy?
Either AppleInsider fails at "reporting", either the Judge is biased. Or possibly, every industry in the United States will have to become a monopoly, but for _some reason_ I doubt this will happen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
So, the Judge is basically saying that if a new player (or a competitor) comes and changes the rules of the game with a new product, you're not allowed to take that crisis into account and evolve your strategy?
You're more than welcome to modify your strategy.
You just can't 'copy and paste' your competitor's who own patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This is amazing! Every day it just looks worse and worse for Samsung.
At this point, no matter how much you love your Samsung kit or hate Apple's business philosphies if you can't see that Samsung is in the wrong you are a bigoted anti-Appleite.
Well said Sir! Couldn't agree more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santoanderson
Translation: "Crap! We've been spending all of our time copying Nokia when we should've been copying Apple!" Stay classy Samsung.
It's funny cos it's true. Samesung spent the first half of the previous decade making Nokia knock-offs. Slavish imitation is in their corporate DNA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Thanks!
I often hear things like "that wasn't innovation... all phones were heading in that direction..."
There were plenty of companies who could have announced a radical new phone in January 2007...
But they didn't... and these were companies who have been making phones for years.
You're absolutely right. For anyone who actually consciously lived during that period and bought phones cannot say that there was a natural progression towards a design that resembled an iPhone. If there was a natural progression it was towards a Blackberry inspired design or the slider keyboards HTC used to design its phones around. In 2007 I had an i780 Samsung phone and it was all keyboard and didn't resemble an iPhone design at all. If Samsung would've announced an iPhone look alike in 2007 or early 2008 I would've bought it! In my neck of the woods (Netherlands) you couldn't buy an iPhone in those days. So if there would've been an iPhone look alike I surely would've bought it. But there wasn't. The only type of smartphones one could buy were Nokia/HTC or Blackberry inspired phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Constance
Remember Samsung had the first iphone blocked in Korea for well over 2 years so they can catch up to Apple. When the iphone finally got approved by their FCC, Samsung punished the carrier that carried the iphone.
Thanks for the link in your follow up post. I finally found some other information as well.
The approval issue was not targeting the iPhone directly. Korea had a required standard for all phones (WIPI) that most foreign handset makers chose not to support. In April 2009 that requirement was dropped and the iPhone was approved a few months later. Some people describe the WIPI requirement as a trade barrier, but it is a stretch to say the iPhone specifically was blocked for two years.
As for Samsung punishing the carrier KT, that was a description supplied by the head of KT. Again, it sounds plausible but is not exactly a smoking gun.
I'd say you've concluded what you believe, and tried to stitch together reasons that don't support your conclusions.
How is the judge saying that? Where did the judge say that? What were her exact words? The problem with your argument is that the judge made no such statement. You started from the conclusion that she is biased, and made up (imagined) the "what she is basically saying" part.
Secondly, you're missing the point by claiming "you're not allowed to take crisis into account." Suppose you are a student and the instructor says there's a pop quiz, and you haven't been studying. Crisis!! Do you justify COPYING the answers from the smart student by saying "am I not allowed to take crisis into account for my actions?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, yet, even with the Galaxy SIII, there are multiple different variants.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that Samsung mentioned in their 'crisis of design' memo that they were releasing 350 different phones in one six month period. You can't blame that on the carriers.
Yes, multiple variants do exist, but not in the same mannner, and not for the same reason. Multiple variants exist for the same reason why the verizon iPhone 4 differed from the AT&T one. Three models exist:
1. the i747 which is the North American variant which supports North American LTE. Samsung's Exynos 4212 processor does not support North American LTE, which is why within North American markets the Galaxy S3 uses the Snapdragon S4. Its a dual core instead of a quad core chip, but using a newer fabrication process and doubles up the RAM to 2 GB to make it feel closer in terms of performance to the international version.
2. the i9300 is the version used outside of North America, for exactly the reasons described above.
3. the SC-06D was released only within Japan on the NTT Docomo carrier which had both the increase in RAM as well as the Exynos chip. I guess they struck a deal to get special treatment much like AT&T and Apple did.
The point, however, is that unlike the Galaxy SII, carriers weren't allowed to take the platform and bastardize it to their specifications. All three of these variants are absolutely indistinguishable from one another and unless you are running benchmarks to get numbers, they feel alike to one another in terms of smoothness.
Insofar as releasing 350 phones in a 6 month period, its a combination of Samsung's doing and the carriers. Apple's business model revolves around a very small set of products that appeal to the largest possible audience. It works very well, but it doesn't mean that other business models can't be successful as well. Samsung obviously makes a number of different phones on a number of different platforms (Windows Phone, Android, Dumbphone, etc.), and numerous phones are only sold in certain countries. Furthermore, as I said above, carriers then took the phones and decided they wanted to differentiate their Galaxy SII model from other carriers. And voila, a cluster **** of phones are released.