I don't understand this. As per the mob here on AI, Samsung didn't sell any device. They were just shipped. Oh, and anyway, nobody wants a Samsung. I very much doubt that any Samsung has been sold at all.
Many of which are also in every other non-Samsung Android phone. So why aren't they enjoying a similar level of success? If any phone looks like a iPhone now it's the HTC One. So why aren't they achieving what Samsung has?
I don't understand this. As per the mob here on AI, Samsung didn't sell any device. They were just shipped. Oh, and anyway, nobody wants a Samsung. I very much doubt that any Samsung has been sold at all.
They sold lots and lots of cheaper, low to midrange phones, high end, not so much.
Which is why they have issued profit warnings to investors.
Stop already. Please show me where HTC, Motorola and all the others violated Apple's design patents the way Samsung did. Samsungs huge marketing budget PLUS making a phone that was a complete rip of the iPhone is what got the ball rolling for Samsung. And once rolling there was no turning back.
This case isn't about design patents, that was the previous case. Moto and HTC were in violation of the slide to unlock patent if Samsung was.
Btw this whole thing started with Corrections claim that marketing wasn't what led to Samsung's success, and he used Microsoft's own billion dollar marketing budget as proof..
We all saw and laughed at the dismal sales numbers of the SGS 2 which was the device the infringed the most patents both design wise, and in software features. So how was the SGS 3 able to get sales in exponential levels? I'm basing my logic on numbers, and numbers don't lie, and they most certainly aren't a apologist for anyone.
They sold lots and lots of cheaper, low to midrange phones, high end, not so much.
Which is why they have issued profit warnings to investors.
It looks like the party is over.
Time to pay the piper.
I wish that were the case, but I think its pretty clear that Samsung has sold a lot of their Galaxy S and Note flagship devices over the past 2-3 years. Unless you have information that states otherwise? As far as their profit warnings...Apple's profits have been flat for a while now too and Apple doesn't sell at the low end.
But if you look at the numbers Samsung's fortunes didn't really take off until the S3, which went away from a iPhone clone design. One could argue that it got it's cachet is because they're different from Apple, not because they're similar.
Could be Samsung's brand started turning heads or it could be that at this point the monstrous advertising spending (more than all the other players put together) started to make an impact. Samsung ads started to look like Apple ads, the boxing looked like Apple, the shops looked like Apple, the staff had similar uniforms........and so on
The HTC One came out in 2013, and the SGS 2 in 2011. I don't understand your branding question. All Samsung phones I've ever seen are branded including the SGS 2.
That's not what I meant. How many users said/knew they had a Sammy phone without looking at it prior to the clone? Of course people can read the brand name.
Could be Samsung's brand started turning heads or it could be that at this point the monstrous advertising spending (more than all the other players put together) started to make an impact. Samsung ads started to look like Apple ads, the boxing looked like Apple, the shops looked like Apple, the staff had similar uniforms........and so on
I think it's a combination of all that. You just can't put your finger on one thing and say "this is why".
That's not what I meant. How many users said/knew they had a Sammy phone without looking at it prior to the clone? Of course people can read the brand name.
So in other words people went to a store bought a Samsung phone but had to be reminded that they did by looking at it? Samsung's name was so insignificant that they forgot what brand of phone they owned?
Not sure it was a good idea to use the Branding as a reason for Samsung sales, I think the last time I check Apple had the #1 brand worldwide so for Apple to loose sales solely over branding does not hold water especially with Samsung down in the 60 range of the top 100 brands. Maybe he meant is was google brand helping sell more phones since they appear to be blaming google for all the coping.
So in other words people went to a store bought a Samsung phone but had to be reminded that they did by looking at it? Samsung's name was so insignificant that they forgot what brand of phone they owned?
And by copying so slavishly, down to the retail experience and packaging you devalue the original , such that the differences seem so insignificant to the uninitiated punter that they no longer care. Hell if the copy comes with free sweets as well, and is rammed in your face by the sales staff, it has got to be a no loose purchase??????
So in other words people went to a store bought a Samsung phone but had to be reminded that they did by looking at it? Samsung's name was so insignificant that they forgot what brand of phone they owned?
If you ask the avg consumer what phone they had before their current phone or even two phones ago, I bet you most will say iPhone or an Android or a flip/dumb phone.
That's not what I meant. How many users said/knew they had a Sammy phone without looking at it prior to the clone? Of course people can read the brand name.
To you point, most people had no clue what phone that had until the iPhone came out, since operators required their logo and name on the phones and most people would refer to their phone by the service providers name.
Only after the iphone was everywhere that companies like Samsung were able to put their name on the phone so that people knew who made the phone.
To you point, most people had no clue what phone that had until the iPhone came out, since operators required their logo and name on the phones and most people would refer to their phone by the service providers name.
Only after the iphone was everywhere that companies like Samsung were able to put their name on the phone so that people knew who made the phone.
I thought it was pretty well-known by consumers who made the Razr they bought. Maybe not.
To you point, most people had no clue what phone that had until the iPhone came out, since operators required their logo and name on the phones and most people would refer to their phone by the service providers name.
Only after the iphone was everywhere that companies like Samsung were able to put their name on the phone so that people knew who made the phone.
I had forgotten this, it's amazing how much power has been lost to the manufacturers by the service providers!! All my old phones were Orange phones, the printed logo said so, the start up screen said so. I think Steve Jobs' aggressive contracting with the suppliers over the orriginal iPhone, changed the industry.
I thought it was pretty well-known by consumers who made the Razr they bought. Maybe not.
Actually, I use to hear people say all the time my Verizon or AT&T phone does or does not... They would never reference the actually manufacture of the phone. Even when you started up the Razr it would say Verizon or AT&T on the start up screen. Again after the iphone Motorola would put their logo first on the start up screen followed by the Service provider, Even my Atrix HD form AT&T flashes the Motorola logo quickly but the AT&T logo is on there a lot longer and more prominent, you do not see any of this with Apple. Why, when branding you never put your brand with someone else's brand it dilutes your brand, this is marketing 101.
Also, if held up a razr and asked people who made the phone a few years after it released you would get all sort of answers even Samsung name would come up since they also copied they phone as well.
This is the exact point apple is making Samsung has diluted apple brand by making a look a like phone so people put no value on it.
To you point, most people had no clue what phone that had until the iPhone came out, since operators required their logo and name on the phones and most people would refer to their phone by the service providers name.
Only after the iphone was everywhere that companies like Samsung were able to put their name on the phone so that people knew who made the phone.
What are you talking about? Every phone I've ever owned displayed the manufacters name on it pretty prominently.
Actually, I use to hear people say all the time my Verizon or AT&T phone does or does not... They would never reference the actually manufacture of the phone. Even when you started up the Razr it would say Verizon or AT&T on the start up screen. Again after the iphone Motorola would put their logo first on the start up screen followed by the Service provider, Even my Atrix HD form AT&T flashes the Motorola logo quickly but the AT&T logo is on there a lot longer and more prominent, you do not see any of this with Apple. Why, when branding you never put your brand with someone else's brand it dilutes your brand, this is marketing 101.
Also, if held up a razr and asked people who made the phone a few years after it released you would get all sort of answers even Samsung name would come up since they also copied they phone as well.
This is the exact point apple is making Samsung has diluted apple brand by making a look a like phone so people put no value on it.
People would say "I have a RAZR", the same way they say "I have a iPhone". I've never heard anyone say "I have a Apple iPhone".
Do you seriously believe that Samsung has diluted Apple's brand? Apple is the number 2 brand in the world, and Samsung is number 4.
Comments
Because HTC agreed a lisensing deal with Apple.
I don't understand this. As per the mob here on AI, Samsung didn't sell any device. They were just shipped. Oh, and anyway, nobody wants a Samsung. I very much doubt that any Samsung has been sold at all.
They sold lots and lots of cheaper, low to midrange phones, high end, not so much.
Which is why they have issued profit warnings to investors.
It looks like the party is over.
Time to pay the piper.
This case isn't about design patents, that was the previous case. Moto and HTC were in violation of the slide to unlock patent if Samsung was.
Btw this whole thing started with Corrections claim that marketing wasn't what led to Samsung's success, and he used Microsoft's own billion dollar marketing budget as proof..
We all saw and laughed at the dismal sales numbers of the SGS 2 which was the device the infringed the most patents both design wise, and in software features. So how was the SGS 3 able to get sales in exponential levels? I'm basing my logic on numbers, and numbers don't lie, and they most certainly aren't a apologist for anyone.
That was only last year. How about all the previous devices that infringed?
And if Samsung's phones worked the same as iPhones then so did every other Android manufacturer.
That's not what I meant. How many users said/knew they had a Sammy phone without looking at it prior to the clone? Of course people can read the brand name.
I think it's a combination of all that. You just can't put your finger on one thing and say "this is why".
So in other words people went to a store bought a Samsung phone but had to be reminded that they did by looking at it? Samsung's name was so insignificant that they forgot what brand of phone they owned?
Not sure it was a good idea to use the Branding as a reason for Samsung sales, I think the last time I check Apple had the #1 brand worldwide so for Apple to loose sales solely over branding does not hold water especially with Samsung down in the 60 range of the top 100 brands. Maybe he meant is was google brand helping sell more phones since they appear to be blaming google for all the coping.
If you ask the avg consumer what phone they had before their current phone or even two phones ago, I bet you most will say iPhone or an Android or a flip/dumb phone.
That's not what I meant. How many users said/knew they had a Sammy phone without looking at it prior to the clone? Of course people can read the brand name.
To you point, most people had no clue what phone that had until the iPhone came out, since operators required their logo and name on the phones and most people would refer to their phone by the service providers name.
Only after the iphone was everywhere that companies like Samsung were able to put their name on the phone so that people knew who made the phone.
I thought it was pretty well-known by consumers who made the Razr they bought. Maybe not.
I thought it was pretty well-known by consumers who made the Razr they bought. Maybe not.
Actually, I use to hear people say all the time my Verizon or AT&T phone does or does not... They would never reference the actually manufacture of the phone. Even when you started up the Razr it would say Verizon or AT&T on the start up screen. Again after the iphone Motorola would put their logo first on the start up screen followed by the Service provider, Even my Atrix HD form AT&T flashes the Motorola logo quickly but the AT&T logo is on there a lot longer and more prominent, you do not see any of this with Apple. Why, when branding you never put your brand with someone else's brand it dilutes your brand, this is marketing 101.
Also, if held up a razr and asked people who made the phone a few years after it released you would get all sort of answers even Samsung name would come up since they also copied they phone as well.
This is the exact point apple is making Samsung has diluted apple brand by making a look a like phone so people put no value on it.
What are you talking about? Every phone I've ever owned displayed the manufacters name on it pretty prominently.
People would say "I have a RAZR", the same way they say "I have a iPhone". I've never heard anyone say "I have a Apple iPhone".
Do you seriously believe that Samsung has diluted Apple's brand? Apple is the number 2 brand in the world, and Samsung is number 4.
http://www.rankingthebrands.com/The-Brand-Rankings.aspx?rankingID=30