I am still waiting for your constructive counter arguments. Otherwise, you should take own advice and change your username to "nonsense poster"
He has no need to make a counter argument as no argument was made only rambling, senseless statements from a mind afflicted by Google's reality distortion field.
Even though I agree with facts in this article, I must say Tim Cook is responsible for AAPL stock performance. Many big institute investors lost confidence when Cook failed to defend the stock while it was falling like penny stock due to false rumors and perceptions. Cook said in the conference call that he doesn't feel like spending energy defending false rumors. Well, Mr. Cook, that's what your PR department is for. When you are running the largest company in the world, you can't have your PR department going on vacation while the stock was falling like penny stock. Cook can learn a lot from Elon Musk who goes online to defend every negative article or news. Perception matter. That's how you get high multiple PE. Financial institutes don't like their investments swing like penny stock. I don't think Jobs would allow that to happen. Can you blame the big investors to put low PE on Cook? Cook can't talk and articulate vision for Apple. And he doesn't know how to defend Apple stock, so the stock suffered. That's all there is.
There's always going to be negative stories and just because you can defend one stupid story doesn't mean 10 more won't pop up. Apple can and always answers Q's at qtr meetings.
How is Tim responsible for the stock? That's not what Apple is about; they create products they love to use and the world loves to use. There really is no reason for him or his PR department to 'defend false rumours.
Perception isn't 'all that matters'. The company marches on their own merits, innovations or implementations of tech done in a way that are useful, unlike previous attempts from the competition.
If you think a CEO is responsible for a high PE, what has Jeff or Larry ever done?
I am glad you brought up Jeff. In fact, I was going to bring up Amazon to illustrate my point.. this article talks about products and earning numbers as that's all matter. If this is the case, Amazon would be trading at less than $10. You see the stock price = earnings * PE. Amazon hardly make money throughout the history of the company. The only reason Amazon has insane valuation is due to insane PE. Why insane PE? Jeff has managed to articulate his vision to Wall Street to become a big ecommerce by selling stuff at little no profit. Even though I don't buy his vision, it is not up to me to decide. It is the big investors that put PE on the company based on future earnings and perceptions. If you don't understand this then you don't understand stock.
Fully agree that Amazon's PE is ridiculous, even though I do not have a good understanding of how the big investors can be responsible for the PE. I do know that I don't understand stock, but still think Tim can't be held responsible for it. And as a pure emotional act, I'd rather buy AAPL than AMZN.
Sorry for my earlier flame; that was uncalled for.
First I will teach you a little some about Stats, in the world there are three kinds of liars, there is your ordinary every day liar who just makes stuff up and everyone know he is lying, Then there is the Damn Liar, this person is so good that he'll be go to hell for this lies. Then there is statistician this guy hides his lies behind numbers which everyone take as gospel and never question and accept if on faith.
So unless you understand the number behind those % sign they are really meaningless and are just another marketing tool to convince people of something they want you to believe.
To your point, Android or the code behind in maybe placed on any number of devices, however, the question is the code being used as intended, the answer here is no, why because as it has been pointed on in a number of source android is being put on USB device you plug in to you TV to watch pirated connect in third world counties how it is being counted as cell phones with android on them. You other point google is not selling android so make no profit on it, also people are not buying most android phones they are getting a free device so service provider can over change them for a contract.
Well, I'm so glad you've taught me such a valuable lesson. Typically, when someone is "teaching", they offer things like "facts" to back them up. I have no problem at all with you choosing to not believe the numbers, but if you expect me to trust you, I would think you'd have some evidence of contradictory information that doesn't come from your own skeptical mind. You can't just cast a blanket of denial on numbers because you don't like them.
I would also love to see what evidence you have on the use of USB android devices to pad the numbers. Or for that matter, how you know that they're being used to watch pirated content in third world countries, because that's a pretty bold claim in itself.
Now let me teach YOU something. Selling a phone for free on contract doesn't change the price of the phone. If I go to Verizon and get a Galaxy S4 on contract for free, it's only free to ME. Verizon is still paying full retail price for that phone and choosing to offer it for free to the consumer in an effort to garner more sales and dump inventory in light of the impending Galaxy S5 launch. I could also go to T-Mobile RIGHT NOW and get a brand new iPhone 5S for $0 on contract, that doesn't mean Apple is "giving away" their phones. That means T-Mobile is (probably) taking a loss to get people in the door. That's the way retail works. Stores buy their inventory from the manufacturer or wholesale distributor (based on the type of product) and then sell them at either the "Recommended Retail Price" or they can choose to sell it lower or higher, based on their goals. It has nothing to do with what the manufacturers get for the phone, that stays the same unless they decide to start charging less. Any profits or losses at the store level is called "margin", which is how retail stores stay in business. Typically retail mobile stores make little margin on phones and the majority of their actual margin comes from warranties and accessories, which is why they do things like push for extra charging cables, cases, bluetooth, speakers, etc. They make WAY more money from a USB cable than they do from the actual phone percentage wise. I worked in a retail computer store that made maybe $100 on a $2400 laptop but they charged $49.99 on an adaptor that literally cost the store $0.81.
He has no need to make a counter argument as no argument was made only rambling, senseless statements from a mind afflicted by Google's reality distortion field.
Forgive me if I'm missing a joke or a reference here, but wasn't the 'reality distortion field' a positive comment about Steve Jobs? Seems weird to try and paint it as a negative part of a competitor.
"They’re idiots. Steve did the same thing. They should do their jobs. Apple will keep doing its.
Just like Steve Jobs."
Nope. What you don't understand about Steve Jobs is he does things secretly. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, Steve Jobs would reach out to bloggers secretly to write articles for Apple products. Ask Walt Mossberg! Steve Jobs would probably ask his PR or bloggers to address the negative news. He would not sit idly.
"Rather low than Amazon."
Amazon illustrates why earning and products aren't everything to stock. Stock price = earnings * PE. PE is based on future earnings and perceptions by Wall Street. Therefore, Perceptions matter if you are arguing about the stock price!
"So you know this… how, exactly?"
When Cook showed up to Goldman Sachs Investors Conference, the stock tanked. When Cook showed up on stage for products launch, the stock tanked. Whenever Elon Musk goes online to defend negative news you see Tesla stock jumped. Investors can't reasonate what Cook has to say.
Nope. What you don't understand about Steve Jobs is he does things secretly.
So…
I’m trying to figure out how this doesn’t apply to Tim Cook. You want him to do the opposite of what Steve did?
Steve Jobs would probably ask his PR or bloggers to address the negative news. He would not sit idly.
Except he outright stated that the stock can take care of itself.
Amazon illustrates why earning and products aren't everything to stock.
And Apple illustrates why stock isn’t everything.
When Cook showed up to Goldman Sachs Investors Conference, the stock tanked. When Cook showed up on stage for products launch, the stock tanked. Investors can't reasonate what Cook has to say.
[/quote] "I’m trying to figure out how this doesn’t apply to Tim Cook. You want him to do the opposite of what Steve did?"
What investors expect from Cook is what they expect from good CEO would do. That is, address the false rumors and negative news. Not only they effect the stock price, they effect business like negotiation with phone carriers.
"Except he outright stated that the stock can take care of itself."
Jobs said the right things publicly. That doesn't mean he doesn't do things privately. In fact, he does many things privately. That's the genius part of Jobs. He spent his entire life creating and nurturing the image of Apple. Both publicly and privately. Cook, on the other hand, thinks products and numbers are all that matter. A typical operation person mentality!
"And Apple illustrates why stock isn’t everything."
The author of this article talked about Apple products, earnings and complained about Apple's valuation. My point is Cook is doing a poor job of nurturing Apple image. Thus, suffered with low PE. Amazon stock illustrates PE is all about future earnings and perceptions!
He gave the reason why the market is gun shy about APple and lists it as a strength when it is a glaring weakness.
All of Apple's eggs are attached to mobile. Specifically mobile phones and tablets. That is it. That is all they have.
THe future is not mobile phones and mobile tablets. The future is device agnostic.
Google is built for that future. Apple is not.
Let's say there is a 'new' apple out there that will come with the next revolutionary device, be it a headset, bionic arm or whatever... And it grows like the mobile market.
WHo is that going to kill??
Google?! not at all.
Apple... rivers or tears will be shed.
Google is diversifying. They are making massive roads into enterprise with their Google Cloud Services, and Office offerings. They are developing Mobile, Laptop, Desktop, and "Cloud" OS's to ensure they are on every platform.
They are building a future where they are not reliant on any one platform
Apple and Microsoft cannot say the same. Take away their babies and they will wither up and die. Market knows this.
What investors expect from Cook is what they expect from good CEO would do. That is, address the false rumors and negative news. Not only they effect the stock price, they effect business like negotiation with phone carriers.
Wrong. CEO isn't suppose to babysit the media. In addition, what if a rumor is true? If Cook doesn't address it, then Apple has shown its cards. More so if the tech media plays 20 Q's. It's better to ignore the nonsense and do what Apple does best: produce amazing products.
Wrong. CEO isn't suppose to babysit the media. In addition, what if a rumor is true? If Cook doesn't address it, then Apple has shown its cards. More so if the tech media plays 20 Q's. It's better to ignore the nonsense and do what Apple does best: produce amazing products.
Ditto
We are talking about negative news. How can that be good for Apple? Wonder why Samsung, Google, Amazon and Microsoft spent millions on ads trashing apple products? To create negative image and alter consumers behaviors!
You want to hit the quote button, not the reply button.
What investors expect from Cook is what they expect from good CEO would do.
So… they didn’t expect that from Jobs? Because he wasn’t a good CEO? Because they didn’t expect him to be a CEO? Because they didn’t want to expect good CEO things?
That is, address the false rumors and negative news.
Which Steve didn’t do. And that was fine. But it’s not fine now? Why?
Not only they effect the stock price, they effect business like negotiation with phone carriers.
No, sorry, the telecoms couldn’t care less about what some idiot blogger or analyst says when they’re in actual negotiations with the actual company and the actual people therefrom presenting them actual information.
Jobs said the right things publicly.
So does Cook.
That doesn't mean he doesn't do things privately.
Nor Cook.
In fact, he does many things privately.
As does Cook.
Cook, on the other hand, thinks products and numbers are all that matter.
Okay, no, first, and second, thanks for pretending you know that.
My point is Cook is doing a poor job of nurturing Apple image. Thus, suffered with low PE.
Again, who cares? Not only is it better to have realistic P/E, I would say that it’s beyond unacceptable to even suggest that Amazon is doing the right thing.
Forgive me if I'm missing a joke or a reference here, but wasn't the 'reality distortion field' a positive comment about Steve Jobs? Seems weird to try and paint it as a negative part of a competitor.
On the contrary: Steve Jobs bewitched us as a force for good; the so-called reality distortion field was a description of the manner in which he blinded the cynical with his persuasion, his passion, to such a degree that they had to resort to a description for a world which they couldn't understand.
With Google, it simply refers to unfounded optimism.
We are talking about negative news. How can that be good for Apple? Wonder why Samsung, Google, Amazon and Microsoft spent millions on ads trashing apple products? To create negative image and alter consumers behaviors!
Take the high ground. Apple should spend $$$ on promoting its products and not responding to nonsense. Why give others ad space in your ads? Smart consumers would then state "why are they trashing these guys? Let me find out why."
Can you cite these please? I must have missed out on them. The numbers do seem pretty dubious but I find it hard to believe that Android based media players make much of an impact on them.
Here is one article and it was wildly debated here IA that anything and everything that has some semblance of android on it is being rolled up into the overall market share that Android is out preforming everything else. To my point those are the lies behind the 80%. If you going to measure IOS against Android you have to limit it to the same application which are cell phones. The problem is any company can grab android and basterize it to do what they want since they can down load the code for free. The real question is how many android devices are shipping in true smart phone, and not a dumb down versing of Android to make it look like a smart phone.
Oh it reference the article here as well, but others have pointed this fact out but wall street has ignore this piece of information and Google only publish Android activation, and no one has valid this since they are not selling it thus not subject to any financial audits.
Nothing that Google does seem to have any effect. From crap products like the Google Wave to partnering with HW manufacturers. Same can be said for their stock, though I see no relation to its price and what Google does.
Nota bene: Pagerank < Larry Page. Narcist.
Thanks for explaining the patent!
It's entirely possible that page rank wasn't named after Larry but named because it ranks Internet pages.
Even though I agree with facts in this article, I must say Tim Cook is responsible for AAPL stock performance. Many big institute investors lost confidence when Cook failed to defend the stock while it was falling like penny stock due to false rumors and perceptions. Cook said in the conference call that he doesn't feel like spending energy defending false rumors. Well, Mr. Cook, that's what your PR department is for. When you are running the largest company in the world, you can't have your PR department going on vacation while the stock was falling like penny stock. Cook can learn a lot from Elon Musk who goes online to defend every negative article or news. Perception matter. That's how you get high multiple PE. Financial institutes don't like their investments swing like penny stock. I don't think Jobs would allow that to happen. Can you blame the big investors to put low PE on Cook? Cook can't talk and articulate vision for Apple. And he doesn't know how to defend Apple stock, so the stock suffered. That's all there is.
I have to agree with that you said here. The only thing Cook did was to tell everyone not to pay attention of supply chain rumors, but it did not help. I believe cook is following a formula which was set down by Steve, but it works for Steve it does no work for others. Steve refuse to discuss rumors and such, he wanted to make everyone see things his way. Cook has to go on the defensive and attack the critics and show the market they have not clue what they are saying, show the lies behind the stats as I pointed out. But he has to do it with out doing what every other company does which is to talk about future products. In this day and age, the copy machines in china can turn out your idea fast then it take to talk about the idea to the press, you can not even hit at what you are doing otherwise Samsung will still the idea and make the cheap knockoff.
Comments
He has no need to make a counter argument as no argument was made only rambling, senseless statements from a mind afflicted by Google's reality distortion field.
There's always going to be negative stories and just because you can defend one stupid story doesn't mean 10 more won't pop up. Apple can and always answers Q's at qtr meetings.
I am glad you brought up Jeff. In fact, I was going to bring up Amazon to illustrate my point.. this article talks about products and earning numbers as that's all matter. If this is the case, Amazon would be trading at less than $10. You see the stock price = earnings * PE. Amazon hardly make money throughout the history of the company. The only reason Amazon has insane valuation is due to insane PE. Why insane PE? Jeff has managed to articulate his vision to Wall Street to become a big ecommerce by selling stuff at little no profit. Even though I don't buy his vision, it is not up to me to decide. It is the big investors that put PE on the company based on future earnings and perceptions. If you don't understand this then you don't understand stock.
Fully agree that Amazon's PE is ridiculous, even though I do not have a good understanding of how the big investors can be responsible for the PE. I do know that I don't understand stock, but still think Tim can't be held responsible for it. And as a pure emotional act, I'd rather buy AAPL than AMZN.
Sorry for my earlier flame; that was uncalled for.
First I will teach you a little some about Stats, in the world there are three kinds of liars, there is your ordinary every day liar who just makes stuff up and everyone know he is lying, Then there is the Damn Liar, this person is so good that he'll be go to hell for this lies. Then there is statistician this guy hides his lies behind numbers which everyone take as gospel and never question and accept if on faith.
So unless you understand the number behind those % sign they are really meaningless and are just another marketing tool to convince people of something they want you to believe.
To your point, Android or the code behind in maybe placed on any number of devices, however, the question is the code being used as intended, the answer here is no, why because as it has been pointed on in a number of source android is being put on USB device you plug in to you TV to watch pirated connect in third world counties how it is being counted as cell phones with android on them. You other point google is not selling android so make no profit on it, also people are not buying most android phones they are getting a free device so service provider can over change them for a contract.
Well, I'm so glad you've taught me such a valuable lesson. Typically, when someone is "teaching", they offer things like "facts" to back them up. I have no problem at all with you choosing to not believe the numbers, but if you expect me to trust you, I would think you'd have some evidence of contradictory information that doesn't come from your own skeptical mind. You can't just cast a blanket of denial on numbers because you don't like them.
I would also love to see what evidence you have on the use of USB android devices to pad the numbers. Or for that matter, how you know that they're being used to watch pirated content in third world countries, because that's a pretty bold claim in itself.
Now let me teach YOU something. Selling a phone for free on contract doesn't change the price of the phone. If I go to Verizon and get a Galaxy S4 on contract for free, it's only free to ME. Verizon is still paying full retail price for that phone and choosing to offer it for free to the consumer in an effort to garner more sales and dump inventory in light of the impending Galaxy S5 launch. I could also go to T-Mobile RIGHT NOW and get a brand new iPhone 5S for $0 on contract, that doesn't mean Apple is "giving away" their phones. That means T-Mobile is (probably) taking a loss to get people in the door. That's the way retail works. Stores buy their inventory from the manufacturer or wholesale distributor (based on the type of product) and then sell them at either the "Recommended Retail Price" or they can choose to sell it lower or higher, based on their goals. It has nothing to do with what the manufacturers get for the phone, that stays the same unless they decide to start charging less. Any profits or losses at the store level is called "margin", which is how retail stores stay in business. Typically retail mobile stores make little margin on phones and the majority of their actual margin comes from warranties and accessories, which is why they do things like push for extra charging cables, cases, bluetooth, speakers, etc. They make WAY more money from a USB cable than they do from the actual phone percentage wise. I worked in a retail computer store that made maybe $100 on a $2400 laptop but they charged $49.99 on an adaptor that literally cost the store $0.81.
He has no need to make a counter argument as no argument was made only rambling, senseless statements from a mind afflicted by Google's reality distortion field.
Forgive me if I'm missing a joke or a reference here, but wasn't the 'reality distortion field' a positive comment about Steve Jobs? Seems weird to try and paint it as a negative part of a competitor.
Just like Steve Jobs."
Nope. What you don't understand about Steve Jobs is he does things secretly. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, Steve Jobs would reach out to bloggers secretly to write articles for Apple products. Ask Walt Mossberg! Steve Jobs would probably ask his PR or bloggers to address the negative news. He would not sit idly.
"Rather low than Amazon."
Amazon illustrates why earning and products aren't everything to stock. Stock price = earnings * PE. PE is based on future earnings and perceptions by Wall Street. Therefore, Perceptions matter if you are arguing about the stock price!
"So you know this… how, exactly?"
When Cook showed up to Goldman Sachs Investors Conference, the stock tanked. When Cook showed up on stage for products launch, the stock tanked. Whenever Elon Musk goes online to defend negative news you see Tesla stock jumped. Investors can't reasonate what Cook has to say.
So…
I’m trying to figure out how this doesn’t apply to Tim Cook. You want him to do the opposite of what Steve did?
Except he outright stated that the stock can take care of itself.
And Apple illustrates why stock isn’t everything.
So that’s THEIR problem.
"I’m trying to figure out how this doesn’t apply to Tim Cook. You want him to do the opposite of what Steve did?"
What investors expect from Cook is what they expect from good CEO would do. That is, address the false rumors and negative news. Not only they effect the stock price, they effect business like negotiation with phone carriers.
"Except he outright stated that the stock can take care of itself."
Jobs said the right things publicly. That doesn't mean he doesn't do things privately. In fact, he does many things privately. That's the genius part of Jobs. He spent his entire life creating and nurturing the image of Apple. Both publicly and privately. Cook, on the other hand, thinks products and numbers are all that matter. A typical operation person mentality!
"And Apple illustrates why stock isn’t everything."
The author of this article talked about Apple products, earnings and complained about Apple's valuation. My point is Cook is doing a poor job of nurturing Apple image. Thus, suffered with low PE. Amazon stock illustrates PE is all about future earnings and perceptions!
He gave the reason why the market is gun shy about APple and lists it as a strength when it is a glaring weakness.
All of Apple's eggs are attached to mobile. Specifically mobile phones and tablets. That is it. That is all they have.
THe future is not mobile phones and mobile tablets. The future is device agnostic.
Google is built for that future. Apple is not.
Let's say there is a 'new' apple out there that will come with the next revolutionary device, be it a headset, bionic arm or whatever... And it grows like the mobile market.
WHo is that going to kill??
Google?! not at all.
Apple... rivers or tears will be shed.
Google is diversifying. They are making massive roads into enterprise with their Google Cloud Services, and Office offerings. They are developing Mobile, Laptop, Desktop, and "Cloud" OS's to ensure they are on every platform.
They are building a future where they are not reliant on any one platform
Apple and Microsoft cannot say the same. Take away their babies and they will wither up and die. Market knows this.
http://investorplace.com/2014/02/tsla-aapl-tesla-stock-shoots-apple-rumors/#.UwOs7PBdXEM
This is the type of news you iSheep should be praying for if you want Apple to get back to being a growth company.
They have to do something new.
So bland, so boring... sooooo un-google!
Wrong. CEO isn't suppose to babysit the media. In addition, what if a rumor is true? If Cook doesn't address it, then Apple has shown its cards. More so if the tech media plays 20 Q's. It's better to ignore the nonsense and do what Apple does best: produce amazing products.
Ditto
We are talking about negative news. How can that be good for Apple? Wonder why Samsung, Google, Amazon and Microsoft spent millions on ads trashing apple products? To create negative image and alter consumers behaviors!
You want to hit the quote button, not the reply button.
So… they didn’t expect that from Jobs? Because he wasn’t a good CEO? Because they didn’t expect him to be a CEO? Because they didn’t want to expect good CEO things?
Which Steve didn’t do. And that was fine. But it’s not fine now? Why?
No, sorry, the telecoms couldn’t care less about what some idiot blogger or analyst says when they’re in actual negotiations with the actual company and the actual people therefrom presenting them actual information.
So does Cook.
Nor Cook.
As does Cook.
Okay, no, first, and second, thanks for pretending you know that.
Again, who cares? Not only is it better to have realistic P/E, I would say that it’s beyond unacceptable to even suggest that Amazon is doing the right thing.
@hill60 Another time when google is helpful...
http://www.t3.com/news/samsung-beats-apple-to-become-top-trade-in-brand
Of the 86 million phones Samsung sold last quarter (note the article quotes 80 million for the YEAR) how many were S4's, SIII's and Note 3's.
It seems you have quoted an "idiot journalist" a fine example of what Dilger alluded to in this article.
Your link fails to answer my question.
Samsung's revenues AND claims of disappointment tend to show that these high end phones make up the minority of their sales.
Again...
numbers please
On the contrary: Steve Jobs bewitched us as a force for good; the so-called reality distortion field was a description of the manner in which he blinded the cynical with his persuasion, his passion, to such a degree that they had to resort to a description for a world which they couldn't understand.
With Google, it simply refers to unfounded optimism.
Take the high ground. Apple should spend $$$ on promoting its products and not responding to nonsense. Why give others ad space in your ads? Smart consumers would then state "why are they trashing these guys? Let me find out why."
Can you cite these please? I must have missed out on them. The numbers do seem pretty dubious but I find it hard to believe that Android based media players make much of an impact on them.
Here is one article and it was wildly debated here IA that anything and everything that has some semblance of android on it is being rolled up into the overall market share that Android is out preforming everything else. To my point those are the lies behind the 80%. If you going to measure IOS against Android you have to limit it to the same application which are cell phones. The problem is any company can grab android and basterize it to do what they want since they can down load the code for free. The real question is how many android devices are shipping in true smart phone, and not a dumb down versing of Android to make it look like a smart phone.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/18/apple-android-tv-stick/
Oh it reference the article here as well, but others have pointed this fact out but wall street has ignore this piece of information and Google only publish Android activation, and no one has valid this since they are not selling it thus not subject to any financial audits.
It's entirely possible that page rank wasn't named after Larry but named because it ranks Internet pages.
Even though I agree with facts in this article, I must say Tim Cook is responsible for AAPL stock performance. Many big institute investors lost confidence when Cook failed to defend the stock while it was falling like penny stock due to false rumors and perceptions. Cook said in the conference call that he doesn't feel like spending energy defending false rumors. Well, Mr. Cook, that's what your PR department is for. When you are running the largest company in the world, you can't have your PR department going on vacation while the stock was falling like penny stock. Cook can learn a lot from Elon Musk who goes online to defend every negative article or news. Perception matter. That's how you get high multiple PE. Financial institutes don't like their investments swing like penny stock. I don't think Jobs would allow that to happen. Can you blame the big investors to put low PE on Cook? Cook can't talk and articulate vision for Apple. And he doesn't know how to defend Apple stock, so the stock suffered. That's all there is.
I have to agree with that you said here. The only thing Cook did was to tell everyone not to pay attention of supply chain rumors, but it did not help. I believe cook is following a formula which was set down by Steve, but it works for Steve it does no work for others. Steve refuse to discuss rumors and such, he wanted to make everyone see things his way. Cook has to go on the defensive and attack the critics and show the market they have not clue what they are saying, show the lies behind the stats as I pointed out. But he has to do it with out doing what every other company does which is to talk about future products. In this day and age, the copy machines in china can turn out your idea fast then it take to talk about the idea to the press, you can not even hit at what you are doing otherwise Samsung will still the idea and make the cheap knockoff.