I feel sorry for those good, honest hard working koreans that see their country being damaged because of samsung (it will happen sooner or later).
A company that is based on crime and corruption, with a corrupt CEO. A company that sells based on the stupidity and ignorance and hate for other companies, that's samsung, perhaps the most corrupt company in the world. It says a lot about their supporters, right wakefinance?
You just cannot compare one quarter's profit and say that samsung has 50% profit. Apple at least will tell us the revenue and number of iPhones sold. Apple sells only 2 or 3 iPhones which all sell from $450 - $800. Apple's profit's for the last 12 month's in the high end smartphone segment is $25 Billion and Samsung's total profit in the $450 + segment of the market is close to 8 billion dollars for the last 12 months.
Apple has not soiled itself with the commodity smartphone market, but has chosen to own the high end of the market and let Android vendors fight for the commodity business. Apple owns the high value customers, which is obvious if you look at spending after purchase of apps and services. Apple's strategy of growing their base of loyal high value customers is working.
One might think that, with Android gaining so much traction with consumers, Android device makers could extort similar premiums from carriers. That doesn’t seem to be the case. After all, if Samsung decides it wants $500 per device from carriers, those carriers can just turn to HTC or Motorola for a different (and some might argue, better) Android device… then play the makers against each other. In this sense, the diversity of the Android ecosystem actually works against device makers. It does create market forces that ought to help keep prices down for consumers, but which also mean manufacturers are operating on little or no margin.
As the sole provider of iOS devices, Apple does not face that pressure. Its profit margins are not being eroded by competitors offering the same platform. By the same token, Apple feels no pressure to lower its prices to consumers — especially since it seems to be able to sell almost everything it makes.
This was definitely the tipping point in showing how classy Samsung is. They steal designs and then bring out a campaign to mock those they stole from. It's like the bully at school that steals your lunch money, pushes you down and kicks dirt in your face.
Hopefully Apple will be the kid that jumps up and punches the bully in the throat or something along these lines:
To my mind, there's one important difference. The PC USER was never brought into the comparison in Apple's ads, only the machines (though anthromorphised by the two actors). Samsung's adds attempt to directly caricature and mock users of Apple's products.
You know Samsung's just a cheap carbon copy of the iPhone. They are only there because of the inefficiencies in the patent system internationally.
In another day and age with stronger patents and faster outputs, companies like Samsung wouldn't even exist. So Samsung's not a challenger, but a cheap skate copy cat.
And what do you know people buying Samsung phone's are actually liking them for all the stuff they copied from the iPhone.
I also can't understand this posts. Current products from samsung (most of them) have nothing to dowith the iPhone. Just cheap plastic crap with oversaturated pentile screens and lag. That is nothing like the iPhone, hardware or software.
Samsung was also market leader on the US before the iPhone. They't weren't market leaders behind nokia in some countries. In every sector, they were 1st or 2nd best sellers, as usual. Always based on corruption and dirty tactics. However, as of right now:
- They are not copying Apple like that.
But they still have to pay for what they did.
Samsung isn't selling because the s4 is similar to the iphone. They are selling because 100 % of galaxy S4 buyers are ignorant about tech. Simple as that.
The phone has build quality issues, worse screen than the iPhone 5 and htc one, worse camera or similar than the older iphone 5, bad UI performance, costs the same. It only sells to ignorant people and there's no possible way around that.
It is well known that there are better phones on every metric and aspect.
Samsung exists and thrives not because of the patent system, but because of stupid people. Period. Science says this is a fact.
Bull. Samsung is just trying to attribute their success to these ads so they can claim that people really do agree with them about Apple.
Samsung Galaxy is successful because they've spent billions in advertising around the world. Everywhere I go here in Vancouver I see Samsung Galaxy billboards, bus stop ads or banners at cell phone carriers. They're everywhere. I have never seen one of their attack ads on TV - I've only seen them online after reading an article about them on some tech blog.
To claim that those ads have had anywhere near the impact of the rest of their marketing blitz is asinine.
SInce Korean companies like Samsung is doing so well messing things up maybe it is time for Korea to start paying for the 60 years of military protection that we have been providing them.
All I see from them these days is copyright infringement and a total lack of respect for the treasure and blood we have provided to prop them up for generations.
I was speaking specifically about the Mac/Pc ads. I think the 80's Apple stuff was definitely more cut-throat between Mac and Windows. There was no clear winner in the PC space in 1985 when this ad was made.
I think the Samsung ads a very much a "speaking to the converted". I can't imagine too many people who are going to watch an ad where they're being called idiots for using their current product are going to go running to Samsung.
(Reuters) - Google's informal motto is "don't be evil," but outspoken Silicon Valley billionaire Larry Ellison has accused the Internet company's CEO, Larry Page, of acting "absolutely evil."
Ellison, the CEO and co-founder of software giant Oracle Corp, has long been famous for his zingers against business foes.
He targeted Page as the two companies square off in a U.S. appeals court over a bitter lawsuit involving Google's Android operating system.
"We just think they took our stuff, and that was wrong," Ellison said in an interview with Charlie Rose on "CBS This Morning," which was aired on Tuesday.
When asked if he thought Page was evil, Ellison replied: "I think what they did was absolutely evil." He fell short of vilifying the man himself as evil.
A Google spokeswoman declined to comment and an Oracle spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the Ellison interview.
The attack on Page stems from Oracle's acquisition of the Java programming platform, which it got with its 2010 purchase of Sun Microsystems. At the time Ellison said Java was the most valuable software asset he had ever acquired.
Oracle sued Google in 2010, claiming that the Internet giant's Android mobile operating system infringed Java patents. A federal judge last year ruled in favor of Google. Oracle is appealing.
Over the years, Ellison has targeted the heads of long-time rivals such IBM, Microsoft and SAP, along with executives of companies he sought to acquire in hostile takeover battles.
Last year, after Hasso Plattner, co-founder of the German software maker SAP announced plans to compete with Oracle in the database business, Ellison mocked the effort, saying: "Get me the name of that pharmacist, they must be on drugs."
In 2003 he quipped that he was tempted to shoot Craig Conway, the head of PeopleSoft who was fighting him in a high-profile hostile takeover battle that Ellison eventually won.
The changing landscape in Silicon Valley has given him new targets.
He lashed out at the entire board of long-time ally Hewlett-Packard Co, after directors replaced CEO Mark Hurd, a friend who he later hired as a president at Oracle.
In 2011, Ellison mocked the cloud computing platform of rival Marc Benioff's Salesforce.com Inc as a "roach motel" in a speech to thousands at an Oracle conference. "You can check in, but you can't check out."
Benioff was a former protégé and the two recently publicly said they have patched up their differences.
During the interview, which CBS said took place last week, Ellison also addressed controversy over the U.S. National Security Agency's electronic surveillance programs.
Ellison called the agency's data collection "absolutely essential" for ferreting out potential terrorists and said it would be alarming only if data was used for political targeting.
The U.S. government is one of the biggest customers of Oracle, which was founded more than 30 years ago and built a database for the CIA as one of its earliest projects.
He also addressed the future of Apple Inc without his "best friend," the late Steve Jobs at the helm, saying the maker of iPhones and Mac computers would not be nearly so successful.
"I like Tim Cook," he said about Jobs' successor. "There are a lot of talented people there, but Steve is irreplaceable."
(Reporting by Jim Finkle in Boston and Jennifer Saba in New York. Additional reporting by Alexei Oreskovic and Dan Levine; Editing by Tiffany Wu, Lisa Von Ahn and Claudia Parsons)
I was speaking specifically about the Mac/Pc ads. I think the 80's Apple stuff was definitely more cut-throat between Mac and Windows. There was no clear winner in the PC space in 1985 when this ad was made.
I think the Samsung ads a very much a "speaking to the converted". I can't imagine too many people who are going to watch an ad where they're being called idiots for using their current product are going to go running to Samsung.
I disagree, I don't think Samsung's ads speaks to the converted I think they're speaking to would be converts or those that aren't hardcore fans.
I disagree, I don't think Samsung's ads speaks to the converted I think they're speaking to would be converts or those that aren't hardcore fans.
Sorry. I don't get how ads that insult the user make me want to use their product. And I think ads like these fly right over the heads of people who aren't "techie enough" to be aligned with any particular platform.
Advertising is intended to compliment well-designed products that literally sell themselves. If you have to advertise "against" a competitor, you are doing something fundamentally wrong.
Comments
I feel sorry for those good, honest hard working koreans that see their country being damaged because of samsung (it will happen sooner or later).
A company that is based on crime and corruption, with a corrupt CEO. A company that sells based on the stupidity and ignorance and hate for other companies, that's samsung, perhaps the most corrupt company in the world. It says a lot about their supporters, right wakefinance?
You just cannot compare one quarter's profit and say that samsung has 50% profit. Apple at least will tell us the revenue and number of iPhones sold. Apple sells only 2 or 3 iPhones which all sell from $450 - $800. Apple's profit's for the last 12 month's in the high end smartphone segment is $25 Billion and Samsung's total profit in the $450 + segment of the market is close to 8 billion dollars for the last 12 months.
Apple has not soiled itself with the commodity smartphone market, but has chosen to own the high end of the market and let Android vendors fight for the commodity business. Apple owns the high value customers, which is obvious if you look at spending after purchase of apps and services. Apple's strategy of growing their base of loyal high value customers is working.
One might think that, with Android gaining so much traction with consumers, Android device makers could extort similar premiums from carriers. That doesn’t seem to be the case. After all, if Samsung decides it wants $500 per device from carriers, those carriers can just turn to HTC or Motorola for a different (and some might argue, better) Android device… then play the makers against each other. In this sense, the diversity of the Android ecosystem actually works against device makers. It does create market forces that ought to help keep prices down for consumers, but which also mean manufacturers are operating on little or no margin.
As the sole provider of iOS devices, Apple does not face that pressure. Its profit margins are not being eroded by competitors offering the same platform. By the same token, Apple feels no pressure to lower its prices to consumers — especially since it seems to be able to sell almost everything it makes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
And Apple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb_Q8WRL_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT3_tiQZwwA
Negative ads done badly damage your brand. If they're done well, with charm and humor, they can work.
And here is Apple's all-time best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2-UuIEOcss
Quote:
Originally Posted by architecton
I wonder how Apple is planning to deal with Samscum in the advertising field...
Apple only makes ads about a rival company it thinks is worthy a competitor.. Hence Microsoft with the "Im a Mac, Im a PC ads".
Putting Samsung in an Apple Ad, is as low as taking a swim in the d!
This was definitely the tipping point in showing how classy Samsung is. They steal designs and then bring out a campaign to mock those they stole from. It's like the bully at school that steals your lunch money, pushes you down and kicks dirt in your face.
Hopefully Apple will be the kid that jumps up and punches the bully in the throat or something along these lines:
Then you must have never seen this one.
[VIDEO]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok
You know Samsung's just a cheap carbon copy of the iPhone. They are only there because of the inefficiencies in the patent system internationally.
In another day and age with stronger patents and faster outputs, companies like Samsung wouldn't even exist. So Samsung's not a challenger, but a cheap skate copy cat.
And what do you know people buying Samsung phone's are actually liking them for all the stuff they copied from the iPhone.
I also can't understand this posts. Current products from samsung (most of them) have nothing to dowith the iPhone. Just cheap plastic crap with oversaturated pentile screens and lag. That is nothing like the iPhone, hardware or software.
Samsung was also market leader on the US before the iPhone. They't weren't market leaders behind nokia in some countries. In every sector, they were 1st or 2nd best sellers, as usual. Always based on corruption and dirty tactics. However, as of right now:
- They are not copying Apple like that.
But they still have to pay for what they did.
Samsung isn't selling because the s4 is similar to the iphone. They are selling because 100 % of galaxy S4 buyers are ignorant about tech. Simple as that.
The phone has build quality issues, worse screen than the iPhone 5 and htc one, worse camera or similar than the older iphone 5, bad UI performance, costs the same. It only sells to ignorant people and there's no possible way around that.
It is well known that there are better phones on every metric and aspect.
Samsung exists and thrives not because of the patent system, but because of stupid people. Period. Science says this is a fact.
Not sure they would not say ANYTHING
I remember Brandy. Cute girl.
As if anyone would believe statements made by Samsung in the first place.
Bull. Samsung is just trying to attribute their success to these ads so they can claim that people really do agree with them about Apple.
Samsung Galaxy is successful because they've spent billions in advertising around the world. Everywhere I go here in Vancouver I see Samsung Galaxy billboards, bus stop ads or banners at cell phone carriers. They're everywhere. I have never seen one of their attack ads on TV - I've only seen them online after reading an article about them on some tech blog.
To claim that those ads have had anywhere near the impact of the rest of their marketing blitz is asinine.
All I see from them these days is copyright infringement and a total lack of respect for the treasure and blood we have provided to prop them up for generations.
hode on zare we mak d bestest product in worl avwy one no dis
we dewelopin own OS so we don have pay gogle ani moor, i tink we pay gogle, dont normally pay anione anydink just steel it must chek dat
a frend
Yeah, too bad they ate her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Then you must have never seen this one.
I was speaking specifically about the Mac/Pc ads. I think the 80's Apple stuff was definitely more cut-throat between Mac and Windows. There was no clear winner in the PC space in 1985 when this ad was made.
I think the Samsung ads a very much a "speaking to the converted". I can't imagine too many people who are going to watch an ad where they're being called idiots for using their current product are going to go running to Samsung.
By Jim Finkle and Jennifer Saba
(Reuters) - Google's informal motto is "don't be evil," but outspoken Silicon Valley billionaire Larry Ellison has accused the Internet company's CEO, Larry Page, of acting "absolutely evil."
Ellison, the CEO and co-founder of software giant Oracle Corp, has long been famous for his zingers against business foes.
He targeted Page as the two companies square off in a U.S. appeals court over a bitter lawsuit involving Google's Android operating system.
"We just think they took our stuff, and that was wrong," Ellison said in an interview with Charlie Rose on "CBS This Morning," which was aired on Tuesday.
When asked if he thought Page was evil, Ellison replied: "I think what they did was absolutely evil." He fell short of vilifying the man himself as evil.
A Google spokeswoman declined to comment and an Oracle spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the Ellison interview.
The attack on Page stems from Oracle's acquisition of the Java programming platform, which it got with its 2010 purchase of Sun Microsystems. At the time Ellison said Java was the most valuable software asset he had ever acquired.
Oracle sued Google in 2010, claiming that the Internet giant's Android mobile operating system infringed Java patents. A federal judge last year ruled in favor of Google. Oracle is appealing.
Over the years, Ellison has targeted the heads of long-time rivals such IBM, Microsoft and SAP, along with executives of companies he sought to acquire in hostile takeover battles.
Last year, after Hasso Plattner, co-founder of the German software maker SAP announced plans to compete with Oracle in the database business, Ellison mocked the effort, saying: "Get me the name of that pharmacist, they must be on drugs."
In 2003 he quipped that he was tempted to shoot Craig Conway, the head of PeopleSoft who was fighting him in a high-profile hostile takeover battle that Ellison eventually won.
The changing landscape in Silicon Valley has given him new targets.
He lashed out at the entire board of long-time ally Hewlett-Packard Co, after directors replaced CEO Mark Hurd, a friend who he later hired as a president at Oracle.
In 2011, Ellison mocked the cloud computing platform of rival Marc Benioff's Salesforce.com Inc as a "roach motel" in a speech to thousands at an Oracle conference. "You can check in, but you can't check out."
Benioff was a former protégé and the two recently publicly said they have patched up their differences.
During the interview, which CBS said took place last week, Ellison also addressed controversy over the U.S. National Security Agency's electronic surveillance programs.
Ellison called the agency's data collection "absolutely essential" for ferreting out potential terrorists and said it would be alarming only if data was used for political targeting.
The U.S. government is one of the biggest customers of Oracle, which was founded more than 30 years ago and built a database for the CIA as one of its earliest projects.
He also addressed the future of Apple Inc without his "best friend," the late Steve Jobs at the helm, saying the maker of iPhones and Mac computers would not be nearly so successful.
"I like Tim Cook," he said about Jobs' successor. "There are a lot of talented people there, but Steve is irreplaceable."
(Reporting by Jim Finkle in Boston and Jennifer Saba in New York. Additional reporting by Alexei Oreskovic and Dan Levine; Editing by Tiffany Wu, Lisa Von Ahn and Claudia Parsons)
I disagree, I don't think Samsung's ads speaks to the converted I think they're speaking to would be converts or those that aren't hardcore fans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Then you must have never seen this one.
Aren't we talking modern Apple, i.e. post-iMac?
The issue was whether Apple's famous Mac vs PC ads are different that Samsung's current anti-Apple ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I disagree, I don't think Samsung's ads speaks to the converted I think they're speaking to would be converts or those that aren't hardcore fans.
Sorry. I don't get how ads that insult the user make me want to use their product. And I think ads like these fly right over the heads of people who aren't "techie enough" to be aligned with any particular platform.