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.
I don't think it's all that important to understand what Samsung's feature does. For a lot of people that see the commercials they only remember that Samsung phones do some kind of cool stuff that iPhones don't. They just don't really remember exactly what that cool stuff was. That's my opinion anyway.
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.
Because the overwhelmingly majority of iPhone buyers don't wait in line so many of them wouldn't feel insulted.
"if you think about it, we're a Korean company starting to really mess with the order of things."
And if you think about it, all the US has to do is pull its troops off the peninsula and say, "have at 'er," to really mess with the order of things. I'm sure Samsung wouldn't mind communism; they already operate under the belief that no one owns anything.
Apple should hire a small ad agency to make a series of "unofficial" viral ads which really put Samsung in their place. These ads should not be officially connected to Apple, but should do what the Swiftboat ads did to John Kerry or the 47% thing did to Romney. Funny and raw viral films which make people think what side they want to be on.
Or maybe he's smart enough to realize that the Samsung components divisions do not have the history of blatant theft of Samsung's mobile division.
I am pretty sure that some of their floor sweepers do not have that history, so what is your point?. You still have Samsung components in iPhone and iPad. Please let us know where you will be trowing Apple products so we can go and pick it up.
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.
Of course, if the patent system worked like you wanted it to internationally, Apple would never have been able to get off the ground. I think Xerox would have stopped their initial work, then MS would have stopped them in the 90s with more patents, and then apple wouldn't be able to make a smart phone at all, because the patent minefield owned by the likes of nokia, samsung, motorolla, qualcomm, etc would have stopped them in their tracks. The system needs a balance between benefiting existing patent holders while at the same time not strangling up and coming companies from doing anything that builds upon systems that have already been built.
The entire tech industry has built off itself incredibly rapidly, this wouldn't have happened if companies could patent every basic idea that is obvious, and then block anyone else from using anything that remotely builds off the idea. Although there are countless patent trolls extorting money from everyone, for the most part, they can't block people from using their technology.
The majority of Apple's iphone patents are slowly being proven to be unenforceable (rubberbanding, pinch to zoom, etc), and rightfully so. At the bare minimum, the courts are not going to ban every other company from building products that also leverage these patents. Apple has made hundreds of billions of dollars by being the first company to come out with this technology. Their research has paid back tremendously. Of course, the apple zealots out here won't be happy until Apple is given a monopoly based solely on their initial achievements.
At the end of the day, you can't have it both ways. You should be happy that Apple has been so successful in the past by coming out with revolutionary products (while simultaneously building upon the work of countless other companies). They couldn't do that if a company was allowed to completely block competition with their patent portfolio, and the consumers of the world would be completely screwed by the power of the resulting corporations.
But, anything that doesn't make apple stronger must be eliminated...
I think marketing and ethics are related. Apple as far as I know has not mocked the customers of their competitors except indirectly in the 'I'm a PC and I'm a Mac' ads. That was very gentle.
The Samsung campaign is negative campaigning. Its Capitalism, but it's not the best ethics, and today the ethical basis of contemporary Capitalism is in question. I feel there is something nasty rooted in Samsung's corporate culture and it emerges in various different ways.
To achieve their relative success against Apple they have had to a) spend considerably more on marketing b) employ negative campaigning c) use astroturfing methods on web forums. In the case of the latter two elements I don't find this terribly ethical.
Apple uses a lot of Samsung parts in their iOS devices. Are you going to boycott Apple?
Edit: andrzejls beat me to it
different things.
samsung sells the best screens to apple, for example. They prefer to use worse screens on their own devices, like the s4. Nice strategy to fool ignorant people.
Heck, their new ativ book 9 plus won't even use the same fast SSDs the macbook air uses, not to mention weaker intel graphics. It's all about misinformation and fooling those retards. The screen itself is already outdated by the 2012 gen retina MBP, despite higher resolution, and Samsung sold at least a few of those screens.
But some "parts" of samsung are awesome. They can't design or engineer something by themselves without the brains from other companies (like Apple designing the chips) but they for sure can manufacture stuff. On the other hand, their lack of brains and honor is what kills industries. They have a whole country to support them and close their eyes when needed. I bet even Hwaei and ZTE are jealous.
Having said that, samsung is shitty and bad at engineering something new. It makes you think that even the s4 needs a snapdragon 600, already surpassed by the s800 used on other devices (but even spec whores don't care.. why? stupidity) and the s600 beats the sh*t out of the exynos octa on real world usage.
Besides the manufactoring, it's a sub-par company based on corruption lies and stupidity.
The issue was whether Apple's famous Mac vs PC ads are different that Samsung's current anti-Apple ads.
Well the OP said "The PC USER was never brought into the comparison in Apple's ads, only the machines" and I was pointing out that they indeed mocked the PC user.
Of course, if the patent system worked like you wanted it to internationally, Apple would never have been able to get off the ground. I think Xerox would have stopped their initial work, then MS would have stopped them in the 90s with more patents
No need to go beyond that point. Clearly, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Hint: Apple LICENSED what they got from Xerox. They didn't steal it.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmncl
Not only are they a criminal company they also bring shame to hard working, honest, Korean people.
I'll never buy anything sold by Samsung.
How is you iPhone and iPad doing?. You will have to trow them away, they have a lot of Samsung parts. But you just to stupid to know it.
I don't think it's all that important to understand what Samsung's feature does. For a lot of people that see the commercials they only remember that Samsung phones do some kind of cool stuff that iPhones don't. They just don't really remember exactly what that cool stuff was. That's my opinion anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmncl
I'll never buy anything sold by Samsung.
Apple uses a lot of Samsung parts in their iOS devices. Are you going to boycott Apple?
Edit: andrzejls beat me to it
Or maybe he's smart enough to realize that the Samsung components divisions do not have the history of blatant theft of Samsung's mobile division.
Because the overwhelmingly majority of iPhone buyers don't wait in line so many of them wouldn't feel insulted.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"if you think about it, we're a Korean company starting to really mess with the order of things."
And if you think about it, all the US has to do is pull its troops off the peninsula and say, "have at 'er," to really mess with the order of things. I'm sure Samsung wouldn't mind communism; they already operate under the belief that no one owns anything.
Apple should hire a small ad agency to make a series of "unofficial" viral ads which really put Samsung in their place. These ads should not be officially connected to Apple, but should do what the Swiftboat ads did to John Kerry or the 47% thing did to Romney. Funny and raw viral films which make people think what side they want to be on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or maybe he's smart enough to realize that the Samsung components divisions do not have the history of blatant theft of Samsung's mobile division.
I am pretty sure that some of their floor sweepers do not have that history, so what is your point?. You still have Samsung components in iPhone and iPad. Please let us know where you will be trowing Apple products so we can go and pick it up.
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.
Of course, if the patent system worked like you wanted it to internationally, Apple would never have been able to get off the ground. I think Xerox would have stopped their initial work, then MS would have stopped them in the 90s with more patents, and then apple wouldn't be able to make a smart phone at all, because the patent minefield owned by the likes of nokia, samsung, motorolla, qualcomm, etc would have stopped them in their tracks. The system needs a balance between benefiting existing patent holders while at the same time not strangling up and coming companies from doing anything that builds upon systems that have already been built.
The entire tech industry has built off itself incredibly rapidly, this wouldn't have happened if companies could patent every basic idea that is obvious, and then block anyone else from using anything that remotely builds off the idea. Although there are countless patent trolls extorting money from everyone, for the most part, they can't block people from using their technology.
The majority of Apple's iphone patents are slowly being proven to be unenforceable (rubberbanding, pinch to zoom, etc), and rightfully so. At the bare minimum, the courts are not going to ban every other company from building products that also leverage these patents. Apple has made hundreds of billions of dollars by being the first company to come out with this technology. Their research has paid back tremendously. Of course, the apple zealots out here won't be happy until Apple is given a monopoly based solely on their initial achievements.
At the end of the day, you can't have it both ways. You should be happy that Apple has been so successful in the past by coming out with revolutionary products (while simultaneously building upon the work of countless other companies). They couldn't do that if a company was allowed to completely block competition with their patent portfolio, and the consumers of the world would be completely screwed by the power of the resulting corporations.
But, anything that doesn't make apple stronger must be eliminated...
Phil
The Samsung campaign is negative campaigning. Its Capitalism, but it's not the best ethics, and today the ethical basis of contemporary Capitalism is in question. I feel there is something nasty rooted in Samsung's corporate culture and it emerges in various different ways.
To achieve their relative success against Apple they have had to a) spend considerably more on marketing b) employ negative campaigning c) use astroturfing methods on web forums. In the case of the latter two elements I don't find this terribly ethical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmncl
I'll never buy anything sold by Samsung.
Apple uses a lot of Samsung parts in their iOS devices. Are you going to boycott Apple?
Edit: andrzejls beat me to it
different things.
samsung sells the best screens to apple, for example. They prefer to use worse screens on their own devices, like the s4. Nice strategy to fool ignorant people.
Heck, their new ativ book 9 plus won't even use the same fast SSDs the macbook air uses, not to mention weaker intel graphics. It's all about misinformation and fooling those retards. The screen itself is already outdated by the 2012 gen retina MBP, despite higher resolution, and Samsung sold at least a few of those screens.
But some "parts" of samsung are awesome. They can't design or engineer something by themselves without the brains from other companies (like Apple designing the chips) but they for sure can manufacture stuff. On the other hand, their lack of brains and honor is what kills industries. They have a whole country to support them and close their eyes when needed. I bet even Hwaei and ZTE are jealous.
Having said that, samsung is shitty and bad at engineering something new. It makes you think that even the s4 needs a snapdragon 600, already surpassed by the s800 used on other devices (but even spec whores don't care.. why? stupidity) and the s600 beats the sh*t out of the exynos octa on real world usage.
Besides the manufactoring, it's a sub-par company based on corruption lies and stupidity.
jmncl is right.
Well the OP said "The PC USER was never brought into the comparison in Apple's ads, only the machines" and I was pointing out that they indeed mocked the PC user.
Not to mention all the work Apple has given to so many of the pacific rim countries but particularly to Samsung.
Those Samsung ads we're mean spirited, belittling, condescending , and misleading.
That works on a lot Americans.
MS is trying to do the same with ads poking fun @ Siri.
Apple threw the first rocks so they better throw some more or toughen up their elegant glass house.
>Apple did the exact same thing but more cleverly with I'm a Mac. I'm a PC.
No, they did not.
Apple attacked a PRODUCT in their ads, Samsung attacked USERS of products.
Apple says: PCs computers aren't good.
Samsung says: iPhone USERS aren't good.
Microsoft is doing what Apple did - just much less successfully.
Negative advertising is all they got. Nobody wants a Samsung.
No need to go beyond that point. Clearly, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Hint: Apple LICENSED what they got from Xerox. They didn't steal it.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/10/xerox-parc-the-apple-inc-macintosh-innovator-duplicator-litigator