dasanman69

StrangeDays said:

Soli said:

radarthekat said:

Soli said:y

SpamSandwich said:

tmay said:

Soli said:

tmay said:

Soli said:

Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.

He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.

Maybe his next venture will be a market success.

The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.

The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.

Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.

Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market? 

That's just hubris.

Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.

You think that creating a smartphone to try to carve out a premium part of the Android base is on par with 1) developing an entirely new mobile OS that's on par with Android and iOS, 2) finding a way to get that new mobile OS to get developers on board with enough quality apps that it's viable in the market? If that's what you really think then you have no idea why the market is the way it is. Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue. It's not even comparable. Now, maybe that was his longterm plan, but in order to do that he would have to have created a premium Android-based device FIRST that had a solid niche of the market before he could push that eventuality years down the road.

“... the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue.”

This characterization directly conflicts with your earlier response to me where you showed the Essential logic board claiming it’s a mighty feat to create a premium smartphone. Do you even realize you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting in one comment what you claim in another?  

Where's the conflict? HW isn't the same as designing an OS and en ecosystem—oh, that's right, because you hate Android, you believe no device that uses it can be considered good, regardless of how well the components are engineered. Well if Rubin wants to give creating an OS and developer ecosystem a go then he should, but don't try to claim that he should've done that first because it's the easier target as Spam did, or try to claim that any device that runs Android is therefore poorly designed HW because you fuckers can't get over your irrational hatred for Android. There is no us v them. Apple is just a company whose products you buy, not your identity. For once I'd love for one you techtards to come into a discussion without waving your pro-Apple or anti-Apple flags on this forum. What happened to being a fan of technology without making it a pathetic, partisan endeavour?

Jesus. Do you realize what a complete jackass you sound like? Are you on the spectrum?

Also, there are completely valid reasons to think android is a piece of shit other than an irrational hatred. Get fucking real.

dewme said:

dasanman69 said:

dewme said:

macxpress said:

sflocal said:

AppleInsider said:

Samsung lawyer John Quinn told Judge Judy Koh he had some issues with the verdict that would be addressed in post-trial motions.

Yeah... we all have issues with the verdict.  Samsung should have been forced to pay the original $1B verdict!

Either way, this is perfect.  Samsung once again got smacked in the face.  Now stop stalling and pay the damn judgement!

In the end, Samsung still laughed to the bank.  It made billions of dollars off the iKnockoffs over the years.  It's like robbing at bank, paying a fine with the stolen money, and getting to keep the rest of the stolen money.

To Samsung, this is just a business expense, a cost of doing business.

Yeah $500 Million is a lot, but in the end its still a bargain and the amount of time and money Apple's legal team spent on this is got to be in the millions of dollars alone. Samsung made out in the end. I still think they knew they were in the wrong and were purposely dragging the case on to make Apple lose as much money as possible on this. 

Yeah, Samsung made out like a bandit and so did all of the other cloners whose entire smartphone future was based on switching over to the iPhone as the design archetype for their own products. Sure, most of them tweaked their designs just enough to avoid the obvious plagerism that took place, but in the end every successful smartphone shipped since the iPhone can trace its lineage to the iPhone. Behind the thin veneer, the marketing smoke and mirrors, and self serving deceptive claims to the contrary, every single builder of smartphones and accompanying iOS clones like Android was very intentionally and purposefully copying the iPhone. They knew it and the market knew it all along. As Apple fans we can lament the lost opportunity for 100% total world domination in a product segment, but at least the cloners and me-too designers avoided what probably would have resulted in intervention from governments had Apple refused to license its IP to others.

I view the iPhone as the HMS Dreadnought of the mobile phone market. Once it appeared on the scene all older designs were instantly obsoleted and all future designs that deviated from the archetype that it represented would not be viable. The motivation to clone and copy is irresistible - patents be damned, fines are better than total obliteration. However, missing out on a breakthrough design does not preclude other vendors from trying to leapfrog the current archetype and attempt to develop a product that may represent the next generation or improvement on the current archetype. That's a very difficult and costly endeavor made even harder when the IP for the current archetype is defined in a broad enough sense to preclude derivative designs. But it can be done. Historically, and certainly in the case of Samsung, they took the patents-be-damned approach and hired a team of lawyers to fend off the onslaught. In the end, if all it cost them is a little over $500 million USD their macro strategy was a spectacular success. They should slither back to their camp and try to use this payback to brush some of the dirt off their already messy reputation. 

I don't believe you nor anyone would sign up for Apple owning 100% percent of a product category. 

I agree, but nobody really "signs up" for how history unfolds.

Using the battleship analogy again, while the HMS Dreadnought forever changed battleship design and rendered all earlier designs obsolete, the battleship category as a whole was obsoleted in a fairly short period of time by the aircraft carrier. So even if the other phone makers believed that they had no choice other than to copy the iPhone they could have conceivably come up with the successor to the iPhone that would blow the iPhone out of the water. But they didn't even try - and are still not trying.  

rossb2 said:

lkrupp said:

So the slow implosion begins with a single store closure. Since Steve died it’s only been a matter of time. Innovation is dead, vision is dead, the rotting corpse is uncovered. Doomsday approaches and no one will shed a tear. The king is dead, long live Samsung! 


Sincerely yours,

The Troll Army

This is not really a sign of implosion. Apple do well selling their products in store, given Apples own online platform and many other online options. Personally I buy my Apple products from U.K. online retailer “John Lewis”, as they offer their own 1 year extended warranty . 

JoeMurphyJr said:

Two words: Online gambling.

fallenjt said:

gatorguy said:

fallenjt said:

gatorguy said:

MacPro said:

And all possible thanks to Google ripping of iOS and calling it Android in the first place. /sigh

Android pre-dates even rumors of an iPhone. You probably mean the multi-touch interface.

Android pre-dated Apple with no multi-touch interface, but physical keyboard oriented OS like Blackberry. Bottom line: physical keyboard oriented OS was out of date and on the verge of death. Suddenly, there's a light in the end of tunnel that helped to revive the (copy) life of Physical Keyboard Oriented OS: iOS (it wasn't called iOS back then btw).

There were actually at least three different initial prototypes for the first Android developer phone, and one of those used a rudimentary touch interface. The one everyone here seems to be familiar with was just one of the three, the HTC-built and very Blackerry-ish Sooner. That's the one that some early developer published pics of a few years ago leading to the claims that Google started out copying Blackberry.

Google didn't create any of the prototypes. They were all done by members of the Open Handset Alliance at Google's behest to see what ideas they might come up with for integrating the Android OS in a usable interface driving smartphone hardware.

If you followed the news closely in 2007, you'd know that Eric Schmidt went back to Google and overhauled the entire Android project at the time because of the iOS UI.