Yup, pretty common knowledge who he is. Just have to let the newer members know the connection once in awhile.
Heh. I know, but I enjoy the effort he puts into referring to himself in the third person and all. It's either a ruse or a psychological disorder.
The dead giveaway was Corrections referring to what DED writes as legitimate "journalism." Even people who enjoy his pro-Apple polemics wouldn't call them "journalism." Journalists have access to sources; DED has access to the Internets.
One person said "Android buyers are cheap" and another person said "Samsung makes phones that cost as much as an iPhone or more"
And I said "Samsung also sells phones that cost a lot less" and it spiraled from there.
Ah, my bad. I usually don't go back to the source of a conversation in every thread. There are just too many so if a post is suppose to be a segmented continuation of a previous comment I am very likely not to catch that.
The average income in India is $1219, in China it's $2,100. The idea that Samsung is garnering the lions share of it's very substantial profits by selling $100 phones into these markets is ludicrous. Then there are the sales figures:
So that's 40 million in six months. If you want to consider that low sales , fine, but I wouldn't agree with you. There have been other sales figures announced which do indicate Samsung sells a lot of high end phones.
They sold a further 10 million Note 3s on top of those 40 million S4s
And since the argument is about the percentage of their profits coming from high end devices - don't jump up and down claiming these are channel sales, because it just doesn't matter to Samsung if the retailers dump them in the sea, so long as they are paid for them they make a profit. But somehow I doubt all those retailers world-wide are really ordering product they don't think there is a demand for and which they think won't sell.
I think a lot of companies would like to fail at selling high end phones the way Samsung obviously does.
This litle tid-bit is interesting:
Since that article is about Samsung revising downward their expectations for sales of the S5, one could reasonably infer that previously, high end phones made up more than 35% of their sales.
That sounds about right. Thanks for figuring that out.
The big takeaway from these discussions is that it's rather difficult to compare Apple and Samsung. They are two vastly different smartphone manufacturers.
Samsung sells low-end, mid-range and high-end phones. They are a full-line manufacturer.
On the other hand... Apple's phones start at $450... but most of their sales are actually their $650+ models. Apple has a much narrower market.
Apple has ZERO percent of the low-end market... but that's not exactly a negative. They've just never chosen to play in the low-end market.
Samsung does play in the low-end market... but that's not a bad thing either. Just different.
Samsung is the largest smartphone manufacturer by volume. They got there by selling a lot of phones. As it turns out... 35% of their phones are high-end... and the other 65% is mid-range and low-end models.
As I've said before... that's not a bad thing. It's just funny that Samsung is always touting the sales of their Galaxy S line... when the bulk of their sales are NOT those phones.
I guess it's not sexy to talk about your low-end sales.
The topic was raised earlier that Samsung sells phones that cost more than the iPhone... and I pointed out that Samsung also sells phones that cost much less than the iPhone.
And it's looking like most of Samsung's sales are actually their cheaper, non-flagship phones.
Samsung got caught, convicted and fined promoting their "steaming piles" on HTC's Taiwanese forums.
The biggest "steaming piles" are paid for by Samsung out of their $14 Billion marketing budget.
Without whining like yours, these forums would be so much better.
Go back to the "winners".
I'm sure there are biased Android editorials. I would be inclined to call them crap as well, and would lose respect for any publication/site that printed them. Not sure where you're headed with that.
This kind of dumbassery (your comment) is the reason some people hate Apple.
No, he’s correct. Would you be happier if he had narrowed the scope?
Originally Posted by Jwumacisme
It's a common, sammy fined for faking online comments and reviews.
All Samsung-owned or -operated IP addresses need to be blocked from editing any sort of encyclopedic reference to their (or their competitors’) products.
As you found, you cannot fix wikipedia. Even correctly cited factual data does not hold up to the political ideology of the wikipedia editors, which as someone else pointed out, are a bunch of biased jerks who will simply revert corrections.
This is why, anyone who claims something based on wikipedia as a source, is a fool.
Wikipedia is a joke, for anything even mildly controversial, and the editors are jerks.
I can't blame the regular contributors to Wikipedia (I am not one, but I have to advise my students on how to use it -- not because I recommend it, but because they will use it even if I tell them not to) for losing patience with people who refuse to understand the editing norms that they've developed. Look at any of the scads of Wikipedia policy pages. When people parachute in based on a DED editorial and think they know what the hell they're doing, they're going to get reverted. It's not about the "bias" of the editors; it's about knowing what you're contributing to and doing it right. Wikipedia's regular editors have lots of unfortunate experience with crowds of people piling in when somebody with an audience expresses outrage about an article. If you want to contribute, learn how to do so correctly.
No, he’s correct. Would you be happier if he had narrowed the scope?
Narrow the scope in what way? People rarely hate things they cannot afford; in fact they often aspire to own them, or admire them from a distance. Do people hate Ferrari or Porsche because they can't afford them? No... but they do hate the douche-bags who drive them, if they do so in a manner that is disrespectful and uncouth.
You're usually pretty rational, why are you agreeing with such an immature comment?
Shaming wikipedia over the outrageous garbage allowed just in one article is more effective than trying to "correct" (completely rewrite) this and every Wiki article that details fan site controversies and complaints targeting Apple. Perhaps there will be more efforts made to avoid hiding the truth and propagating Samsung’s talking points if these egregious examples of posting false information are brought to light.
Or you can just complain in the comments that you were forced to read something investigative and factual rather than another blog-blurb expressing a trivial opinion on some tech announcement.
There is no point trying to correct data on Wikipedia because it is a mob mentality. To put it bluntly, it's difficult to challenge robots and paid "reputation" companies that exist entirely to scrub negative perception of their brands with people who actually care about factually reported data.
Wikipedia is not a useful site, and hasn't been useful for more than 7 years. It is trying to be CNN when it's ultimately closer to 1000 monkeys writing Shakespeare.
Instead of saying “people”, to “some people”, of course.
People rarely hate things they cannot afford; in fact they often aspire to own them, or admire them from a distance.
You’re confusing now with 40 years ago. People* today see something they cannot afford and they demand it either become affordable or that it be taken from whomever owns it and given to them.
You're usually pretty rational, why are you agreeing with such an immature comment?
Because it isn’t? As a minority, there are plenty of people who hate Apple on the sole reason of price.
*Should I say ‘some’ or ‘most’ here? I’ve certainly not given up on all.
Instead of saying “people”, to “some people”, of course.
Oh, of course. That wasn't really obvious given the context, and anyway, it's a lousy qualifier given than you could apply any generalization to 'some people'.
I just noticed the talk page for the Wikipedia page in question. I've worked with a team that successfully updated a 'controversial' page on wikipedia and our method was VERY different then what I'm seeing here. 'Vigilantes' going in and 'attacking' the page will get your edits reverted very quickly. If a change is going to be made to shift the tone of the article it would be best to form a group in private and create a draft for the proposed changes. Peer review it amongst the group and make sure it's as unbiased as possible. Stick only to facts and provide citations for those facts. As it stands now I can't think of a single person on this forum that would be capable of being unbiased and sticking only to facts, but surely there are AI members who don't post regularly that would fit the bill. Our team found that the wikipedia regulars were quite welcoming when approached in that manner. Stick to the facts and inject no opinion. I'd also suggest giving it some time before approaching with any changes. As the page has recently been vandalized multiple times in the last few days there is currently a lock on the page and people will also be very weary of future changes after loooking at the revision history.
I can't think of a single person on this forum that would be capable of being unbiased and sticking only to facts, but surely there are AI members who don't post regularly that would fit the bill.
I disagree, while just about everyone here is biased there are quite a few that have the honor, and integrity to stick solely to the facts, and not interject their opinions.
I disagree, while just about everyone here is biased there are quite a few that have the honor, and integrity to stick solely to the facts, and not interject their opinions.
Noted.
(I'm certainly not going to get into a debate where individual names are named and their suitability gets discussed. Nothing good could come of that.)
I disagree, while just about everyone here is biased there are quite a few that have the honor, and integrity to stick solely to the facts, and not interject their opinions.
I would argue that the many honorable posters to which I think you refer do inject their opinions regularly, but attempt to do so in a way that makes it clear when they are stating an opinion and, most importantly, attempt to be as unbiased as possible so that by the end of the conversation there might be something learned.
I would argue that the many honorable posters to which I think you refer do inject their opinions regularly, but attempt to do so in a way that makes it clear when they are stating an opinion and, most importantly, attempt to be as unbiased as possible so that by the end of the conversation there might be something learned.
I should have made myself clear. While those posters do interject their opinions on here, and rightly so, I think they'd be able to leave them out given the task to write a unbiased, and unopinionated piece based solely on verifiable facts.
I do agree that many here present their opinions with facts as to why. From them I've learned quite a bit. It's so much more productive than the 'I don't like Pepsi because I like Coke' types.
Whether or not any regular posters are capable of working in an unbiased and facts only nature is arguably the least important part of my initial post. Strange how that's what gets focused on...
The point is that the current strategy for getting the Wikipedia page changed is a very bad one. Don't go in and make changes like removing content and replacing it with "Samsung, go suck a duck" under an anonymous IP address or make changes just so you can screenshot it and see how long it takes to get reverted. That's considered vandalism and it hurts your cause. There is a much better alternative approach if you're serious about wanting the page to be improved.
I should have made myself clear. While those posters do interject their opinions on here, and rightly so, I think they'd be able to leave them out given the task to write a unbiased, and unopinionated piece based solely on verifiable facts.
Ah, I agree (mostly). I'd say they would consciously attempt not be as impartial as possible… but now I'm just splitting hairs.
Whether or not any regular posters are capable of working in an unbiased and facts only nature is arguably the least important part of my initial post. Strange how that's what gets focused on...
Comments
Heh. I know, but I enjoy the effort he puts into referring to himself in the third person and all. It's either a ruse or a psychological disorder.
The dead giveaway was Corrections referring to what DED writes as legitimate "journalism." Even people who enjoy his pro-Apple polemics wouldn't call them "journalism." Journalists have access to sources; DED has access to the Internets.
Ah, my bad. I usually don't go back to the source of a conversation in every thread. There are just too many so if a post is suppose to be a segmented continuation of a previous comment I am very likely not to catch that.
That sounds about right. Thanks for figuring that out.
The big takeaway from these discussions is that it's rather difficult to compare Apple and Samsung. They are two vastly different smartphone manufacturers.
Samsung sells low-end, mid-range and high-end phones. They are a full-line manufacturer.
On the other hand... Apple's phones start at $450... but most of their sales are actually their $650+ models. Apple has a much narrower market.
Apple has ZERO percent of the low-end market... but that's not exactly a negative. They've just never chosen to play in the low-end market.
Samsung does play in the low-end market... but that's not a bad thing either. Just different.
Samsung is the largest smartphone manufacturer by volume. They got there by selling a lot of phones. As it turns out... 35% of their phones are high-end... and the other 65% is mid-range and low-end models.
As I've said before... that's not a bad thing. It's just funny that Samsung is always touting the sales of their Galaxy S line... when the bulk of their sales are NOT those phones.
I guess it's not sexy to talk about your low-end sales.
The topic was raised earlier that Samsung sells phones that cost more than the iPhone... and I pointed out that Samsung also sells phones that cost much less than the iPhone.
And it's looking like most of Samsung's sales are actually their cheaper, non-flagship phones.
I'm sure there are biased Android editorials. I would be inclined to call them crap as well, and would lose respect for any publication/site that printed them. Not sure where you're headed with that.
This kind of dumbassery (your comment) is the reason some people hate Apple.
No, he’s correct. Would you be happier if he had narrowed the scope?
All Samsung-owned or -operated IP addresses need to be blocked from editing any sort of encyclopedic reference to their (or their competitors’) products.
Yeah I know. The time spent creating this article could have been spent correcting the Wikipedia page, assuming it's of any importance at all.
Correcting the Wiki page doesn't sell ads on AI.
As you found, you cannot fix wikipedia. Even correctly cited factual data does not hold up to the political ideology of the wikipedia editors, which as someone else pointed out, are a bunch of biased jerks who will simply revert corrections.
This is why, anyone who claims something based on wikipedia as a source, is a fool.
Wikipedia is a joke, for anything even mildly controversial, and the editors are jerks.
I can't blame the regular contributors to Wikipedia (I am not one, but I have to advise my students on how to use it -- not because I recommend it, but because they will use it even if I tell them not to) for losing patience with people who refuse to understand the editing norms that they've developed. Look at any of the scads of Wikipedia policy pages. When people parachute in based on a DED editorial and think they know what the hell they're doing, they're going to get reverted. It's not about the "bias" of the editors; it's about knowing what you're contributing to and doing it right. Wikipedia's regular editors have lots of unfortunate experience with crowds of people piling in when somebody with an audience expresses outrage about an article. If you want to contribute, learn how to do so correctly.
No, he’s correct. Would you be happier if he had narrowed the scope?
Narrow the scope in what way? People rarely hate things they cannot afford; in fact they often aspire to own them, or admire them from a distance. Do people hate Ferrari or Porsche because they can't afford them? No... but they do hate the douche-bags who drive them, if they do so in a manner that is disrespectful and uncouth.
You're usually pretty rational, why are you agreeing with such an immature comment?
There is no point trying to correct data on Wikipedia because it is a mob mentality. To put it bluntly, it's difficult to challenge robots and paid "reputation" companies that exist entirely to scrub negative perception of their brands with people who actually care about factually reported data.
Wikipedia is not a useful site, and hasn't been useful for more than 7 years. It is trying to be CNN when it's ultimately closer to 1000 monkeys writing Shakespeare.
Instead of saying “people”, to “some people”, of course.
You’re confusing now with 40 years ago. People* today see something they cannot afford and they demand it either become affordable or that it be taken from whomever owns it and given to them.
You're usually pretty rational, why are you agreeing with such an immature comment?
Because it isn’t? As a minority, there are plenty of people who hate Apple on the sole reason of price.
*Should I say ‘some’ or ‘most’ here? I’ve certainly not given up on all.
Instead of saying “people”, to “some people”, of course.
Oh, of course. That wasn't really obvious given the context, and anyway, it's a lousy qualifier given than you could apply any generalization to 'some people'.
I just noticed the talk page for the Wikipedia page in question. I've worked with a team that successfully updated a 'controversial' page on wikipedia and our method was VERY different then what I'm seeing here. 'Vigilantes' going in and 'attacking' the page will get your edits reverted very quickly. If a change is going to be made to shift the tone of the article it would be best to form a group in private and create a draft for the proposed changes. Peer review it amongst the group and make sure it's as unbiased as possible. Stick only to facts and provide citations for those facts. As it stands now I can't think of a single person on this forum that would be capable of being unbiased and sticking only to facts, but surely there are AI members who don't post regularly that would fit the bill. Our team found that the wikipedia regulars were quite welcoming when approached in that manner. Stick to the facts and inject no opinion. I'd also suggest giving it some time before approaching with any changes. As the page has recently been vandalized multiple times in the last few days there is currently a lock on the page and people will also be very weary of future changes after loooking at the revision history.
I disagree, while just about everyone here is biased there are quite a few that have the honor, and integrity to stick solely to the facts, and not interject their opinions.
I disagree, while just about everyone here is biased there are quite a few that have the honor, and integrity to stick solely to the facts, and not interject their opinions.
Noted.
(I'm certainly not going to get into a debate where individual names are named and their suitability gets discussed. Nothing good could come of that.)
I would argue that the many honorable posters to which I think you refer do inject their opinions regularly, but attempt to do so in a way that makes it clear when they are stating an opinion and, most importantly, attempt to be as unbiased as possible so that by the end of the conversation there might be something learned.
I should have made myself clear. While those posters do interject their opinions on here, and rightly so, I think they'd be able to leave them out given the task to write a unbiased, and unopinionated piece based solely on verifiable facts.
I do agree that many here present their opinions with facts as to why. From them I've learned quite a bit. It's so much more productive than the 'I don't like Pepsi because I like Coke' types.
Whether or not any regular posters are capable of working in an unbiased and facts only nature is arguably the least important part of my initial post. Strange how that's what gets focused on...
The point is that the current strategy for getting the Wikipedia page changed is a very bad one. Don't go in and make changes like removing content and replacing it with "Samsung, go suck a duck" under an anonymous IP address or make changes just so you can screenshot it and see how long it takes to get reverted. That's considered vandalism and it hurts your cause. There is a much better alternative approach if you're serious about wanting the page to be improved.
Ah, I agree (mostly). I'd say they would consciously attempt not be as impartial as possible… but now I'm just splitting hairs.
I didn't have a issue with the rest of your post.