maybe, being a US made video and being shown to US citizens, they wanted to predominantly use American products** in the video they made themselves , for themselves.
I happen to agree with that stance, if it was me, I would have had someone shot if they made the video with foreign products, but then again, I do have evil-dictator tendencies !! ;-)
** i did not check every other product in the video to see their origin, but Edison was American
I doubt anyone knows what he believes. He has been getting a very bad rap for being consistent in his "paid bias".
I think the Foss guy has likely financially milked his past for all its worth and knows he needs to tame his bias.
1. Because Android is the only competitor to Apple in smartphones and tablets.
2. Because Samsung is CURRENTLY the only Android vendor with a large market share.
3. Because Apple fans wrongly use 1+2 to use faulty "if p then q, then if q then p" fallacy to conclude that had Samsung not copied Apple devices two generations of Samsung products ago, then Apple would enjoy the same total dominance of the smart phone and tablet market share that they enjoyed in the MP3 market share with the I-Pod.
Why is "if p then q, then if q then p" thing false? Because the reason why Android is viable is not Samsung's copyright infrigement. Instead, the copyright infringement is merely a reason - possibly the main reason - why Samsung is the most successful Android device line. These folks ignore that had Samsung not copied Apple, another Android vendor (or some combination of vendors) would have simply taken its place. Why? Because the main reason for the success of Samsung (and Android) is not the copying of Apple (at least not copying them beyond such things as having touch screens and app stores, things which cannot be copyrighted, which we learned from Apple's failed lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows) but because Apple devices cost more than a significant portion of the market A) can afford or is willing to pay.
So, instead of comparing everything to the I-Pod, the one market that Apple was able to totally dominate, they ignore the more relevant comparisons, which includes PCs (for which Apple has plenty of competition) and set top boxes (ditto).
You can get a good Windows PC/laptop for half the cost of an Apple computer, so that market is never going to go away. It was reduced significantly, granted, but by (Apple and Android) tablets, NOT by significantly more expensive Apple computers. Streamers? Ditto. Roku enjoys basically the same market share as Apple TV because 3 of the 4 Roku set top boxes (as well as both streaming stick options) cost considerably less than Apple TV. People usually buy one of the cheaper boxes, learn to like it, and THEN upgrade to the only Roku that costs comparable to the Apple TV.
And why did Apple dominate the MP3 player market? Because that was the only one where Apple was willing to come out with a low-end device, the I-Pod shuffle. The latest iterations of the Shuffle costs $50 and can be had for as little as $35. The Shuffle made it impossible for competitors to make cheaper but still capable and quality MP3 players to introduce users to a low-end alternative brand that would keep them hooked as they introduced better and higher-end devices. In other words, there was no reason to buy anything other than the best device, especially after Apple made I-Tunes available on cheaper Windows machines.
Whether Samsung infringed or not, there was still going to be a reason to buy an Android tablet or phone: cost. So if Samsung had not succeeded, Motorola or another Android vendor would have. Except that the other Android vendors did not so blatantly copy Apple devices, which means that Apple would not have had a legal tree to bark up and air their grievances against.
Samsung gives Apple partisans a reason to pretend that people who could not afford an Apple tablet or smartphone would have chosen to go without such devices entirely instead of simply choosing a device that looked "merely" 80% like an Apple product instead of 90% like Samsung's did. Which, of course, presumes that the vast majority of the American - and global - population has some "Apple or nothing!" mentality. Which is insane, because even if such a mentality is not their preference, adhering to it even if it means not having a device at all is not in their interests. It is in Apple's interests, of course, but it is not in the interests of the consumer. And consumers are always going to look out for themselves whenever they can.
And since consumers obviously benefit from having devices that they can actually afford as opposed to nothing at all, that is why Apple is never going to win a total, clear victory against Samsung or any other Android vendor. No country is going to leave a significant portion of their consumers unable to buy devices that they want. It is bad for the consumers (read voters in a democracy) and also bad for the economy (i.e. vendors who want to make money selling devices that their consumers want/need and can afford). And it is difficult to claim that Apple is somehow harmed by other companies serving market segments that Apple doesn't even want (other than maybe to sell them I-Pods).
Instead, the Android alternative has "encouraged" (forced) Apple to at least try to come up with somewhat cheaper devices for emerging markets. That move is good for the consumers and developing economies in those regions, and in the long term - as more consumers in those areas enter the middle and upper classes - good for Apple.
Probably one of the silliest things I've ever read. You call Samsung's business practices shameful, but as long as you have 2 degrees of separation you're okay with it? Just fyi, indirectly giving Samsung business is the same as directly giving them business.
Judge Koh must be sick and tired of dealing with these two squabbling firms, yet ironically they each still do business with one another, I do not get it!
Sick and tired? If I were the judge, I would be relishing the chance to put the world to rights.
Well, I'll tell you this when it comes to Samsung: I have a Samsung HDTV and a Samsung Blu-Ray player. I've been pretty happy with both, for the most part. But it's time to replace my HDTV, as it's old, there are better models out there now, and it has a dead pixel (though to be fair, when sitting on the couch, you can't see it; I only notice it when I'm standing a few feet away).
I will NOT be replacing it with another Samsung, though. The days of them getting any of my money for any of their products are officially over. Sure, I'll still have random Samsung components in a new iPhone or whatever. That can't be helped. But where I can help it, I will avoid them at all costs.
Yes, that Shuffle is an iTunes stifled low tech option yet still sold well. If anyone else brought it out it would have been laughable.
In a similar way Apple does similar with the base iPads. They are limited in Apples inimitable way and stay popular. The iPhone by 'staying as it was' has gone the same way.
It really shows consumers simply do not want to have to choose, a very good thing for Apple.
maybe, being a US made video and being shown to US citizens, they wanted to predominantly use American products** in the video they made themselves , for themselves.
What is "American product"?
Apple is an American company but the products are made in China from non-US parts.
I like the display on my iPhone 5 as well, but my Samsung LED TV 2013 UNF8000) is the best looking TV I've yet owned. Similar to our iPhones, excellent color clarity. It's just a whole lot larger.
It's all about the screen quality! That's the only thing that matters in a TV!
Nope.
Like with automobiles, there are enough models from enough companies that are pretty much top level that other considerations also play a role.
For instance, I've been looking for a new (non-Samsung) HDTV, as I said. And when I got my Samsung, I liked the way it looked. Now, compared to some of the models from other companies I've been looking at, it looks bulky and just outdated. I'd like to get a new model that not only is technically sound, but also sound from a design standpoint.
For me, there are a number of concerns:
-- Picture quality
-- Design
-- Price
-- Number and kind of ports
-- Whether or not it is 3D (I don't want 3D, so don't want to pay for it, if possible)
Comments
@ ;ClemyNX
maybe, being a US made video and being shown to US citizens, they wanted to predominantly use American products** in the video they made themselves , for themselves.
I happen to agree with that stance, if it was me, I would have had someone shot if they made the video with foreign products, but then again, I do have evil-dictator tendencies !! ;-)
** i did not check every other product in the video to see their origin, but Edison was American
With rounded corners.
They should do it like tennis: three appeals and that's y'lot.
Don't you mean 'plaid bias'?
Men may move you, but your post doesn't me.
Exactly the same, apart from it's not.
Sick and tired? If I were the judge, I would be relishing the chance to put the world to rights.
Good for you.
Waaah! waah! Not fairrrr!
Go impregnate a goat, ya constipated middle-class rush lover.
Only joking. Just dying to use that insult on someone. Will retract if asked.
If anyone else brought it out it would have been laughable.
In a similar way Apple does similar with the base iPads. They are limited in Apples inimitable way and stay popular.
The iPhone by 'staying as it was' has gone the same way.
It really shows consumers simply do not want to have to choose, a very good thing for Apple.
@ ;ClemyNX
maybe, being a US made video and being shown to US citizens, they wanted to predominantly use American products** in the video they made themselves , for themselves.
What is "American product"?
Apple is an American company but the products are made in China from non-US parts.
What is "American product"?
Apple is an American company but the products are made in China from non-US parts.
oh , brilliant, you really caught me out there with your nit-picking and petty-ness. Amazing!!
go beat up a kitten or something.
It's all about the screen quality! That's the only thing that matters in a TV!
I like the display on my iPhone 5 as well, but my Samsung LED TV 2013 UNF8000) is the best looking TV I've yet owned. Similar to our iPhones, excellent color clarity. It's just a whole lot larger.
Waaah! waah! Not fairrrr!
Go impregnate a goat, ya constipated middle-class rush lover.
Only joking. Just dying to use that insult on someone. Will retract if asked.
Uhm... ok....
It's all about the screen quality! That's the only thing that matters in a TV!
Almost. If the stand and bezels are ugly I won't buy it, even if it's the best screen there is.
Panasonic TVs look nice.
It's all about the screen quality! That's the only thing that matters in a TV!
Nope.
Like with automobiles, there are enough models from enough companies that are pretty much top level that other considerations also play a role.
For instance, I've been looking for a new (non-Samsung) HDTV, as I said. And when I got my Samsung, I liked the way it looked. Now, compared to some of the models from other companies I've been looking at, it looks bulky and just outdated. I'd like to get a new model that not only is technically sound, but also sound from a design standpoint.
For me, there are a number of concerns:
-- Picture quality
-- Design
-- Price
-- Number and kind of ports
-- Whether or not it is 3D (I don't want 3D, so don't want to pay for it, if possible)
-- That it's not a Samsung
Etc.
So, for me, there are concerns beyond PQ.
Then everyone would have a plasma.