Samsung argues for reversal of Apple's $930M patent infringement award

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 46

    I have to "agree" with Samsung: $930 million, ridiculous. It should have been $9.3 billion.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 46
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,465member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    With the supposedly lawyer designed SGS 3. That was the beginning of Samsung's fortunes. The phone that looked very much like a iPhone was the international version of the SGS 2, and its sales paled in comparison to its successor.

    Correlation is not causation. Samsung's fortunes changed as it increased its marketing budget. Its last good year was the same year that it spent some $10B plus in sales and marketing. Samsung hit its apogee last year and is on the downhill slide. Samsung might make a comeback excepting that they are stuck with touch wiz to differentiate themselves.

     

    How's that working out?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 46
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    tmay wrote: »
    Correlation is not causation. Samsung's fortunes changed as it increased its marketing budget. Its last good year was the same year that it spent some $10B plus in sales and marketing. Samsung hit its apogee last year and is on the downhill slide. Samsung might make a comeback excepting that they are stuck with touch wiz to differentiate themselves.

    How's that working out?

    Does it matter how it happened? The fact still remains that their fortunes changed with a device that wasn't an iPhone clone.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 46
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    tmay wrote: »
    Correlation is not causation. Samsung's fortunes changed as it increased its marketing budget. Its last good year was the same year that it spent some $10B plus in sales and marketing. Samsung hit its apogee last year and is on the downhill slide. Samsung might make a comeback excepting that they are stuck with touch wiz to differentiate themselves.

    How's that working out?

    Does it matter how it happened? The fact still remains that their fortunes changed with a device that wasn't an iPhone clone.

    I disagree.

    Samsung established themselves as an iPhone clone maker with the SG2. By the time they brought out the lawyer phones, the damage was done. All they had to do then was market themselves.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 46
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    I disagree.

    Samsung established themselves as an iPhone clone maker with the SG2. By the time they brought out the lawyer phones, the damage was done. All they had to do then was market themselves.

    Samsung was a well established manufacturer way before they decided to copy the iPhone. The SGS 2 iPhone clone was not sold in the US, it was split up into 4 very different variants, one for each major carrier which did not sell very well. With the SGS 3 they went with one design across all carriers, and it was much easier to market one single model over all the carriers, than separately.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 46

    Only had been Bob Make meals, I'd arrange for almost every building stocking majority Samsung items, as well as all of their items, besides devices, to become razed towards the floor. Apple company company casino chips excluded, clearly.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.