Interesting how this article has to be on Appleinsider. The author tries to find some relevancy to Apple and tries so hard to make some but it is only tangential.
Anyhow HTC is just whining about it. Unless they can prove they offered better terms to Samsung than Apple or Nokia or Samsung's mobile division, they will just lose.
It is just how market runs.
If you don't understand the relevance to Apple as a Samsung customer, perhaps you could find a child to explain it to you.
Not really. Bias just means you are predisposed to think a certain way. If that predisposition happens to coincide with the facts, then one's "biased" viewpoint and the facts are the same. Concluding that someone is wrong because they are biased is just as wrong as concluding that they are right because they are unbiased. (Well, no one is really entirely unbiased.) Bias has nothing to do with the truth or facts.
Samsung has always been ruthless and focussed on a singular goal, absolute domination of any market they enter to the benefit of the extended family group that largely owns them.
Samsung are not riding in as some sort of noble white knight to save us from the "evil" Apple as some, possibly paid by Samsung, would have us believe.
Pre iPhone they copied Nokia dual sliders, Motorola Razrs and Blackberry QWERTY candybars.
Treating their customers and competitors in this way is nothing new, they've been doing it for over a decade.
Apple is almost the only company making enough money to withstand their onslaught and they continuously get torn down for doing so.
That's just the way things are, the nature of the capitalist beast.
Not really. Bias just means you are predisposed to think a certain way. If that predisposition happens to coincide with the facts, then one's "biased" viewpoint and the facts are the same. Concluding that someone is wrong because they are biased is just as wrong as concluding that they are right because they are unbiased. (Well, no one is really entirely unbiased.) Bias has nothing to do with the truth or facts.
Yes and no.
There's a context behind that phrase you quoted. If your predisposition toward a particular approach or leaning is causing you to reach unsupported conclusions based on insufficient facts, then yes, there's an issue. It is completely possible to have bias and to still have a well-researched argument. But on the flipside, it's also possible to be biased to the point of leaning stubbornly toward one point of view without objectively taking a moment to consider the facts. The other poster who has having an issue with me pointing this out was equating the author's claim about the Galaxy being "counterfeit" and the "blowback" to being "facts."
So really, your post should have been addressed to him, not to me. Again--facts aren't just details that you want to hear. Facts have truth value.
Those aren't facts, those are just baseless assertions arising from the author's own bias. But as I also noted earlier, it could independently be a manifestation of his desire to cater to a particular audience. It could be he doesn't actually believe much of what he wrote, which I really have no personal problem with. I was just surprised at first that the author didn't even seem to be trying to hide his bias.
Those aren't facts, those are just baseless assertions arising from the author's own bias. But as I also noted earlier, it could independently be a manifestation of his desire to cater to a particular audience. It could be he doesn't actually believe much of what he wrote, which I really have no personal problem with. I was just surprised at first that the author didn't even seem to be trying to hide his bias.
Biases are fact-based. It's simply a systematic skewing of facts, perhaps to support a particular worldview. AI is biased. It is a pro-Apple website, and spins facts in a way that is favorable to Apple. That's a fact.
Corporations have more or less "soul" depending on many factors. Apple has a pretty tight product focus, and was until recently mostly the creature of a single man. Samsung is much more diversified and multinational, and is the creature of a rotating roundtable of anonymous bureaucrats. As such, their corporate soul (conscience) is much less evident. Apple isn't perfect, but on a sliding scale I would rather live in their world than Samsung's.
Biases are fact-based. It's simply a systematic skewing of facts, perhaps to support a particular worldview. AI is biased. It is a pro-Apple website, and spins facts in a way that is favorable to Apple. That's a fact.
If you don't like it, you're welcome to leave.
To me at least a biased opinion can have components that are not true. You call that illusions myths or baseless assertions.
There's a context behind that phrase you quoted. If your predisposition toward a particular approach or leaning is causing you to reach unsupported conclusions based on insufficient facts, then yes, there's an issue. It is completely possible to have bias and to still have a well-researched argument. But on the flipside, it's also possible to be biased to the point of leaning stubbornly toward one point of view without objectively taking a moment to consider the facts. ...
No.
Whether you reach a conclusion objectively or by a whim, you may be right or wrong in either case. Even an unsupported conclusion based on insufficient facts may be the correct conclusion. Even if an argument is wholly fallacious, it's conclusion may be true. No matter how stubbornly biased you are, it doesn't make you necessarily wrong.
The bias or lack thereof is irrelevant to whether a statement is true, so, if you want to argue it's false, merely citing bias does not an argument make. You could be right (or wrong) in denying the assertions of the article, but any "bias" contained therein is not relevant to proving you are.
Unless you're dumb, blind or stupid, you would notice the striking resemblance between Apple and Samsung's hardware/software, most especially a few years ago. The point is, Samsung who was supposed to be Apple's manufacturing partner, stole Apple's designs and confidential IP, copied Apple's products and benefited from them tremendously at a crucial time in the market. Those trolls that say "move on already" are ignoring a relevant and legitimate grievance on Apple's part. Theft is theft, whether it occurred years ago or worse, still occurring. This cockroach family that runs Samsung is corrupt and deserves nothing less than homeless bankruptcy. You can stick your "emotional attachments" theory where the Sun don't shine. Whether there's an emotional charge or not, the proof is in the pudding and that is why the jury decided so quickly against Samsung.
What's with all these concern trolls trying to derail the argument? Who cares about whether the writer is biased - the topic is whether or not Samsung plays games with supplying components.
The comment "strategically denied" is interesting. HTC would likely have had a contract with Samsung to buy panels, but that doesn't mean Samsung could deny them. For example, Samsung could claim yield issues and reduce panels shipped to HTC. How could HTC tell if they really had yield issues or were lying to screw up HTC's ability to make phones?
Apple has several engineers that actually work in Samsung factories (they even have their own office space). Obviously Samsung couldn't pull this with Apple as their engineers are working in the actual plants and would be very familiar with things like yield issues. But smaller companies (like HTC) likely don't get this kind of access so they couldn't verify any Samsung claims.
The writer is also correct about Samsung sharing information from one division (semiconductors) with another (mobile). Well, the writer doesn't have proof but only a complete fool would think there was no information sharing going on. A Samsung manager was even convicted for selling component order information from the original iPad to a hedge fund. And this is only the one that got caught. How many more sell Apple information? Even rumors of Apple products cause the stock to fluctuate - having inside information would be very tempting to a large number of Samsung employees.
Unless you're dumb, blind or stupid, you would notice the striking resemblance between Apple and Samsung's hardware/software, most especially a few years ago. The point is, Samsung who was supposed to be Apple's manufacturing partner, stole Apple's designs and confidential IP, copied Apple's products and benefited from them tremendously at a crucial time in the market. Those trolls that say "move on already" are ignoring a relevant and legitimate grievance on Apple's part. Theft is theft, whether it occurred years ago or worse, still occurring. This cockroach family that runs Samsung is corrupt and deserves nothing less than homeless bankruptcy. You can stick your "emotional attachments" theory where the Sun don't shine. Whether there's an emotional charge or not, the proof is in the pudding and that is why the jury decided so quickly against Samsung.
I am surprised how you reached all the legal conclusions in favor of Apple that the courts in the world seem to be in split.
If thats how you see the world thats fine. But you shouldnt call others dumb blind or stupid because you may be the one.
It seems like many of users here have a strange view of rights and obligations as well as antitrust concerns.
You guys are so right that Apple has no obligation to license out its patents to anyone and has all rights to deny others or selectively lincenses out, unless they are SEP.
Similarly Samsung is under no obligation to sell its componenets to anyone if they desire so. Now they sell a lot to Apple because Apple gives Samsung enough capital incentive to deal with them even when the two are competitors and even hostile to each other. HTC simply does not cut it.
If Samsung acquired already established market leading component makers in an attempt to secure an essential component for its own use or to "strategically deny" others, there may be an antitrust concern which is still relatively difficult to prove. Anyhow, that is not so. Just like Apple poured tons of money to develop its patent portfolio Samsung paid a ton to R&D its components. In other words, Samsung's component subsidiaries have grown organically.
Edit. One thing I would like to add is that unlike patents which you have no supply constraints and thus can license out to infinite licensees, you cannot do so for goods--making Samsung inevitably selective as to with whom they contract out. And I wonder what you guys would say if Apple was denied and HTC got the deal with Samsung...
Yes it does...but what can they only get from Samsung and not anyone else? It is the law of supply and demand. If Samsung has a product that the have to have then Samsung can dictate price. They are willing to pay a premium to have the Samsung product/parts. the same thing we do for Apple products. We pay a higher price for a better product by Apple. But in the end it is worth it.....
If Samsung negotiates a contract for products for HTC at a fixed price but then sells the same products at a different price to another company...well HTC is free to not buy the products. I am sure Apple has contracts with suppliers that other companies would die to have....
It seems like many of users here have a strange view of rights and obligations as well as antitrust concerns.
You guys are so right that Apple has no obligation to license out its patents to anyone and has all rights to deny others or selectively lincenses out, unless they are SEP.
Similarly Samsung is under no obligation to sell its componenets to anyone if they desire so. Now they sell a lot to Apple because Apple gives Samsung enough capital incentive to deal with them even when the two are competitors and even hostile to each other. HTC simply does not cut it.
If Samsung acquired already established market leading component makers in an attempt to secure an essential component for its own use or to "strategically deny" others, there may be an antitrust concern which is still relatively difficult to prove. Anyhow, that is not so. Just like Apple poured tons of money to develop its patent portfolio Samsung paid a ton to R&D its components. In other words, Samsung's component subsidiaries have grown organically.
Edit. One thing I would like to add is that unlike patents which you have no supply constraints and thus can license out to infinite licensees, you cannot do so for goods--making Samsung inevitably selective as to with whom they contract out. And I wonder what you guys would say if Apple was denied and HTC got the deal with Samsung...
I'm not sure if you really read the article. It states the following:
"Tong noted that after HTC had developed its Desire phone using an Samsung AMOLED screen in 2010, as soon as its sales began taking off Samsung "strategically declined" to fill orders for the critical component, forcing HTC to redesign its product."
This statement "implies" that there WAS a contract with Samsung to supply these components to HTC, as they were already being built and sold. Samsung then decided NOT to fulfill it's contractual obligation to supply the screens. While I say implied, I cannot see any reason why HTC would not have a signed contract with Samsung to deliver at least a certain number of components to them.
While Samsung is certainly allowed to only deal with companies that they wish to deal with, they are completely in the wrong to withhold or cancel shipments to a competitor that they have a signed contract with.
I'm not sure if you really read the article. It states the following:
"Tong noted that after HTC had developed its Desire phone using an Samsung AMOLED screen in 2010, as soon as its sales began taking off Samsung "strategically declined" to fill orders for the critical component, forcing HTC to redesign its product."
This statement "implies" that there WAS a contract with Samsung to supply these components to HTC, as they were already being built and sold. Samsung then decided NOT to fulfill it's contractual obligation to supply the screens. While I say implied, I cannot see any reason why HTC would not have a signed contract with Samsung to deliver at least a certain number of components to them.
While Samsung is certainly allowed to only deal with companies that they wish to deal with, they are completely in the wrong to withhold or cancel shipments to a competitor that they have a signed contract with.
Well, component shortage isn't quite unheard of in this industry. I'm not sure how you are extrapolating so much detail from Tong's vague statement, but what is his evidence that Samsung "strategically declined to provide it with crucial parts for years"?IIRC, back in 2010, Samsung was pretty much the only one making AMOLED displays in volume due to technical difficulties in manufacturing -- Samsung still has 95+% AMOLED marketshare in 2013.
And why did HTC wait "years" knowing that there is only one manufacturer able to produce it in volume or that the only supplier was also competing with HTC in the smartphone market? Didn't HTC go with SLCD display, also 50-50 owned by Samsung and Sony (now entirely owned by Samsung)?
While Samsung is certainly allowed to only deal with companies that they wish to deal with, they are completely in the wrong to withhold or cancel shipments to a competitor that they have a signed contract with.
Interesting. So you are saying HTC and Samsung, two sophisticated parties with a bunch of lawyers, went into a contractual relationship without any provision for breaching the contract? Or are you saying that HTC is so dumb not to raise that provision and ask for compensation? Or Samsung is so eager to kill HTC that they are willing to compensate HTC for violating a contract?
I am not sure but if in fact there was a contract b/w the two and Samsung unilaterally refused to deal with HTC, HTC better raises claims under contracts law cause that is much simpler.
The fact that they are raising issues with anticompetitive practices implies that either their contract was bad (i laugh at the whining) or Samsung had a legitimate reasons to terminate the contract, leaving no claims for HTC to raise. And ultimately that they are unable to secure enough components is probably because they do not give enough incentive to Samsung, which Samsung has every rights to decide, as I said above.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
Interesting how this article has to be on Appleinsider. The author tries to find some relevancy to Apple and tries so hard to make some but it is only tangential.
Anyhow HTC is just whining about it. Unless they can prove they offered better terms to Samsung than Apple or Nokia or Samsung's mobile division, they will just lose.
It is just how market runs.
If you don't understand the relevance to Apple as a Samsung customer, perhaps you could find a child to explain it to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99
... Bias=/=facts ...
Not really. Bias just means you are predisposed to think a certain way. If that predisposition happens to coincide with the facts, then one's "biased" viewpoint and the facts are the same. Concluding that someone is wrong because they are biased is just as wrong as concluding that they are right because they are unbiased. (Well, no one is really entirely unbiased.) Bias has nothing to do with the truth or facts.
Samsung has always been ruthless and focussed on a singular goal, absolute domination of any market they enter to the benefit of the extended family group that largely owns them.
Samsung are not riding in as some sort of noble white knight to save us from the "evil" Apple as some, possibly paid by Samsung, would have us believe.
Pre iPhone they copied Nokia dual sliders, Motorola Razrs and Blackberry QWERTY candybars.
Treating their customers and competitors in this way is nothing new, they've been doing it for over a decade.
Apple is almost the only company making enough money to withstand their onslaught and they continuously get torn down for doing so.
That's just the way things are, the nature of the capitalist beast.
Survival of the fittest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Not really. Bias just means you are predisposed to think a certain way. If that predisposition happens to coincide with the facts, then one's "biased" viewpoint and the facts are the same. Concluding that someone is wrong because they are biased is just as wrong as concluding that they are right because they are unbiased. (Well, no one is really entirely unbiased.) Bias has nothing to do with the truth or facts.
Yes and no.
There's a context behind that phrase you quoted. If your predisposition toward a particular approach or leaning is causing you to reach unsupported conclusions based on insufficient facts, then yes, there's an issue. It is completely possible to have bias and to still have a well-researched argument. But on the flipside, it's also possible to be biased to the point of leaning stubbornly toward one point of view without objectively taking a moment to consider the facts. The other poster who has having an issue with me pointing this out was equating the author's claim about the Galaxy being "counterfeit" and the "blowback" to being "facts."
So really, your post should have been addressed to him, not to me. Again--facts aren't just details that you want to hear. Facts have truth value.
Those aren't facts, those are just baseless assertions arising from the author's own bias. But as I also noted earlier, it could independently be a manifestation of his desire to cater to a particular audience. It could be he doesn't actually believe much of what he wrote, which I really have no personal problem with. I was just surprised at first that the author didn't even seem to be trying to hide his bias.
But it makes for a whole other set of problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99
Those aren't facts, those are just baseless assertions arising from the author's own bias. But as I also noted earlier, it could independently be a manifestation of his desire to cater to a particular audience. It could be he doesn't actually believe much of what he wrote, which I really have no personal problem with. I was just surprised at first that the author didn't even seem to be trying to hide his bias.
Biases are fact-based. It's simply a systematic skewing of facts, perhaps to support a particular worldview. AI is biased. It is a pro-Apple website, and spins facts in a way that is favorable to Apple. That's a fact.
If you don't like it, you're welcome to leave.
Unnecessary hostility. Stupidity at best.
To me at least a biased opinion can have components that are not true. You call that illusions myths or baseless assertions.
No.
Whether you reach a conclusion objectively or by a whim, you may be right or wrong in either case. Even an unsupported conclusion based on insufficient facts may be the correct conclusion. Even if an argument is wholly fallacious, it's conclusion may be true. No matter how stubbornly biased you are, it doesn't make you necessarily wrong.
The bias or lack thereof is irrelevant to whether a statement is true, so, if you want to argue it's false, merely citing bias does not an argument make. You could be right (or wrong) in denying the assertions of the article, but any "bias" contained therein is not relevant to proving you are.
What's with all these concern trolls trying to derail the argument? Who cares about whether the writer is biased - the topic is whether or not Samsung plays games with supplying components.
The comment "strategically denied" is interesting. HTC would likely have had a contract with Samsung to buy panels, but that doesn't mean Samsung could deny them. For example, Samsung could claim yield issues and reduce panels shipped to HTC. How could HTC tell if they really had yield issues or were lying to screw up HTC's ability to make phones?
Apple has several engineers that actually work in Samsung factories (they even have their own office space). Obviously Samsung couldn't pull this with Apple as their engineers are working in the actual plants and would be very familiar with things like yield issues. But smaller companies (like HTC) likely don't get this kind of access so they couldn't verify any Samsung claims.
The writer is also correct about Samsung sharing information from one division (semiconductors) with another (mobile). Well, the writer doesn't have proof but only a complete fool would think there was no information sharing going on. A Samsung manager was even convicted for selling component order information from the original iPad to a hedge fund. And this is only the one that got caught. How many more sell Apple information? Even rumors of Apple products cause the stock to fluctuate - having inside information would be very tempting to a large number of Samsung employees.
I am surprised how you reached all the legal conclusions in favor of Apple that the courts in the world seem to be in split.
If thats how you see the world thats fine. But you shouldnt call others dumb blind or stupid because you may be the one.
You guys are so right that Apple has no obligation to license out its patents to anyone and has all rights to deny others or selectively lincenses out, unless they are SEP.
Similarly Samsung is under no obligation to sell its componenets to anyone if they desire so. Now they sell a lot to Apple because Apple gives Samsung enough capital incentive to deal with them even when the two are competitors and even hostile to each other. HTC simply does not cut it.
If Samsung acquired already established market leading component makers in an attempt to secure an essential component for its own use or to "strategically deny" others, there may be an antitrust concern which is still relatively difficult to prove. Anyhow, that is not so. Just like Apple poured tons of money to develop its patent portfolio Samsung paid a ton to R&D its components. In other words, Samsung's component subsidiaries have grown organically.
Edit. One thing I would like to add is that unlike patents which you have no supply constraints and thus can license out to infinite licensees, you cannot do so for goods--making Samsung inevitably selective as to with whom they contract out. And I wonder what you guys would say if Apple was denied and HTC got the deal with Samsung...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
But it makes for a whole other set of problems.
Yes it does...but what can they only get from Samsung and not anyone else? It is the law of supply and demand. If Samsung has a product that the have to have then Samsung can dictate price. They are willing to pay a premium to have the Samsung product/parts. the same thing we do for Apple products. We pay a higher price for a better product by Apple. But in the end it is worth it.....
If Samsung negotiates a contract for products for HTC at a fixed price but then sells the same products at a different price to another company...well HTC is free to not buy the products. I am sure Apple has contracts with suppliers that other companies would die to have....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
It seems like many of users here have a strange view of rights and obligations as well as antitrust concerns.
You guys are so right that Apple has no obligation to license out its patents to anyone and has all rights to deny others or selectively lincenses out, unless they are SEP.
Similarly Samsung is under no obligation to sell its componenets to anyone if they desire so. Now they sell a lot to Apple because Apple gives Samsung enough capital incentive to deal with them even when the two are competitors and even hostile to each other. HTC simply does not cut it.
If Samsung acquired already established market leading component makers in an attempt to secure an essential component for its own use or to "strategically deny" others, there may be an antitrust concern which is still relatively difficult to prove. Anyhow, that is not so. Just like Apple poured tons of money to develop its patent portfolio Samsung paid a ton to R&D its components. In other words, Samsung's component subsidiaries have grown organically.
Edit. One thing I would like to add is that unlike patents which you have no supply constraints and thus can license out to infinite licensees, you cannot do so for goods--making Samsung inevitably selective as to with whom they contract out. And I wonder what you guys would say if Apple was denied and HTC got the deal with Samsung...
I'm not sure if you really read the article. It states the following:
"Tong noted that after HTC had developed its Desire phone using an Samsung AMOLED screen in 2010, as soon as its sales began taking off Samsung "strategically declined" to fill orders for the critical component, forcing HTC to redesign its product."
This statement "implies" that there WAS a contract with Samsung to supply these components to HTC, as they were already being built and sold. Samsung then decided NOT to fulfill it's contractual obligation to supply the screens. While I say implied, I cannot see any reason why HTC would not have a signed contract with Samsung to deliver at least a certain number of components to them.
While Samsung is certainly allowed to only deal with companies that they wish to deal with, they are completely in the wrong to withhold or cancel shipments to a competitor that they have a signed contract with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy1958
I'm not sure if you really read the article. It states the following:
"Tong noted that after HTC had developed its Desire phone using an Samsung AMOLED screen in 2010, as soon as its sales began taking off Samsung "strategically declined" to fill orders for the critical component, forcing HTC to redesign its product."
This statement "implies" that there WAS a contract with Samsung to supply these components to HTC, as they were already being built and sold. Samsung then decided NOT to fulfill it's contractual obligation to supply the screens. While I say implied, I cannot see any reason why HTC would not have a signed contract with Samsung to deliver at least a certain number of components to them.
While Samsung is certainly allowed to only deal with companies that they wish to deal with, they are completely in the wrong to withhold or cancel shipments to a competitor that they have a signed contract with.
Well, component shortage isn't quite unheard of in this industry. I'm not sure how you are extrapolating so much detail from Tong's vague statement, but what is his evidence that Samsung "strategically declined to provide it with crucial parts for years"? IIRC, back in 2010, Samsung was pretty much the only one making AMOLED displays in volume due to technical difficulties in manufacturing -- Samsung still has 95+% AMOLED marketshare in 2013.
And why did HTC wait "years" knowing that there is only one manufacturer able to produce it in volume or that the only supplier was also competing with HTC in the smartphone market? Didn't HTC go with SLCD display, also 50-50 owned by Samsung and Sony (now entirely owned by Samsung)?
Interesting. So you are saying HTC and Samsung, two sophisticated parties with a bunch of lawyers, went into a contractual relationship without any provision for breaching the contract? Or are you saying that HTC is so dumb not to raise that provision and ask for compensation? Or Samsung is so eager to kill HTC that they are willing to compensate HTC for violating a contract?
I am not sure but if in fact there was a contract b/w the two and Samsung unilaterally refused to deal with HTC, HTC better raises claims under contracts law cause that is much simpler.
The fact that they are raising issues with anticompetitive practices implies that either their contract was bad (i laugh at the whining) or Samsung had a legitimate reasons to terminate the contract, leaving no claims for HTC to raise. And ultimately that they are unable to secure enough components is probably because they do not give enough incentive to Samsung, which Samsung has every rights to decide, as I said above.