|
Apple Vs. Samsung
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/sam...072410657.html
Apple's not doing itself any favours in my opinion. Do they really think they can rise anywhere near to being the one and only technology company and run a monopoly, even if it's just limited to one country like the US? Even if they manage to somehow achieve a monopoly in the US, it'l be near impossible to maintain with the internet. Foreign products can be EASILY bought and shipped in from abroad. Plus Apple is just getting more hatred from a lot of consumers over this. I'm not buying any more I-Pods for sure. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
I hope you're OK. Companies are legally obligated to defend patents and trademarks. If they don't - they can lose that patent or trademark. This is why Ford took Ferrari to court over a proposed new Ferrari model called the F150. The F150 'name' is trademarked by Ford for its pick-up trucks. IF Ford didn't take Ferrari to court - the trademark office could interpret that to mean that Ford no longer cares about the trademark - and take it from them - allowing anyone [Like Ferrari] to assume 'ownership' of the name. Apple had no choice BUT to take Samsung to court. Companies can not allow so much as one domino to fall when to patents, etc. GBH - :) |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Who cares. They're rich, fun and innovative. If they want to rule the world then let them, I'd rather witness them running any type of monopoly than say, Google (Skynet for sure). I'm sure Samsung will deal just fine with the Asian market and if they don't then lesson learned; don't copy others. But besides, the Internet isn't a competitor to Apple, if people want to purchase specific goods, they will find a way and make it happen and given that Samsung possibly won't compete in the US market at least after this, what has Apple got to lose?. They have a right to protect their business, Samsung infringed a law, but more than that, they crushed any respect their was between the two companies. I also find it amusing that even though some of Apple's overseas factories have some of the harshest work conditions in the industry, you're only just now deciding to boycott their products? lol. But, then again, why would you need to own 2 iPods?
|
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Apple are just an arsehole company.
Apple copy loads of features from other companies but apple puts patents on every single little thing, because they're that scared of the opposition, then trys to sue every company they can. I swear if it's not Samsung they're suing it's HTC... -Edit- Also, Apples arseholeyness is just going to prevent/delay future technologies from coming out |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Why would anyone "need" to own even 1 I-Pod??? I happened to get my first I-Pod something like 7 years ago I think. Since then I've bought and sold quite a few at a profit, taking them from the UK to Eastern Europe because where a certain model would cost maybe £160 in the UK in bulk, it could sell fast at £200 overseas. That's why I would own 2 or more I-Pods. Usually a lot more than 2. Just fyi. And it so happens to be common knowledge that apple has the "harshest working conditions"? What if I didn't know? What if I don't care? What if I do? It's irrelevant. To be honest most of your post was stupid. Either stupid assumptions or stupid arguments. Perhaps you're trolling but I can't tell. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Didn't Steve Jobs say he was more than willing to spend $50 billion to defeat Google/Android? I mean sure, he was probably just bluffing...or not. He died before this question was ever answered, but something tells me that, given Jobs' extreme arrogance and egomania, it definitely would've been incredibly nasty. The market in its current state is choked by patent wars and lack of real innovation from anyone. Everyone is either tied up in lawsuits, or simply cannot compete because their competitors own all the valuable patents that start-ups cannot afford to license, in which case the patent system functions as an iron-clad barrier to entry. In my opinion, the length and scope of most software patents and patents concerning "universal" design concepts like phones and computers, need to be severely trimmed down or even eliminated altogether. Apple in particular have become far too large and influential for anyone's good. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
You and I have officially agreed on something. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
|
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
The precedent this case sets is what I personally find most interesting.
|
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Im not even bothering to read everything thats been said already. Im too lazy :nosweat:
But I will throw in my own opinion: Apple is a horrible company. I have a passionate hatred towards them and whether or not I have a lot of rational reasons for it, I really do hate them. Im not sure who from Google said this, but it was someone important. His statement went something along the lines of 'anything that is a basic feature of technology shouldnt be allowed to be patented'. Rectangular devices with rounded corners? Seriously? Samsung has to pay $300,000,000-$1bil because theyre devices have ROUNDED CORNERS? *GASP* that is SO copying the iPhone, right? -__- Such bull. Although I am very frustrated about Apple winning, I read a great article (which I will link in a moment) that says this is more of a win for Samsung. Samsung generates $1 billion in revenue every 2.4 days. So its not that huge of a deal for Samsung to pay this kind of money to Apple. The win for them is publicity. Being dubbed as "copiers of iPhone" isnt that bad because Samsung devices are half the price, and run Android (which as you all should know, is much better than iOS). Now I go and search for iPhones on Google and guess what comes up? A Samsung smartphone. Hmph, this DOES look awfully like an iPhone... and it has great specs... and whoa, its pretty cheap too! So really this thing is just great publicity for Samsung. Heres the article: http://gigaom.com/2012/08/25/counter...erge-a-winner/ This "win" for apple just means that we're gonna end up with sharp pointy smartphones that can be used as weapons, or spending ridiculous amounts of money on iPhones As people from Samsung have been saying since the jury announced Apple the victor, 'We are going to end up with less creative and innovative smartphones, and higher price tags' |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Adding further irony to the mix: Supposed "copies" of Apple products won't harm Apple's business whatsoever. Apple's popularity and success have nothing to do with rounded corners, or any design element at all. They could slap an Apple logo on a turd, call it "the revolutionary, magical, innovative iTurd", sell it for $2,999 and Apple fanboys would snap it up. Their popularity stems solely from their established brand reputation amongst their consumerist fan base. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Well, let's be fair. Apple knows how to make a fine product, and time it well. The iPhone 3GS is currently up to par with the 4S in terms of firmware. How many other companies are supporting phones from 2009? Their laptops and desktops, while much pricier, also have a longer shelf life than their Windows counterparts. I know plenty of people still using pre unibody Macbooks that are just as functional as they were day one.
No one ever affords Apple an objective look. It's either mindless butthurt anti-Apple fanboyism (as exhibited 2 posts up) or senseless adoration. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Quote:
Or, if by "longer shelf life" you are referring to a Mac staying faster for longer, this is also a stretch if not outright false. Speaking in terms of specs, Macs are simply PCs running a different OS. A Mac with an i3-2100 CPU, HD 2000 GPU, 4GB of 1333 DDR3 memory and a 1TB Western Digital hard drive will perform *identically* to a PC with the same specs, and vice versa. There is nothing exclusive to Macs that makes them magically faster or less prone to obsolescence. Take a PC, cram it into a narrow enclosure, put an Apple logo on it, sell it for $1,000 above the cost of the actual components and bam, you've got a Mac. Apple's design specifications tend to take the route of "form over function." They sacrifice adequate ventilation in their desktops and notebooks in favour of thinness. It's pretty common knowledge that Macs run very hot. My mom's iMac idles between 60 and 70 °C, as did the unibody MacBook Pro that I used to own. When I would do anything resource-intensive like video transcoding, it would quickly jump to 83 °C or even higher. A friend of mine uses several 2011-model iMacs at his church for running the sound and lighting system, and they all hit 85 °C under load frequently. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Apple's present huge image mostly stems mostly from their creation of the I-Pod about 10 to 12 years ago. I think the first model came out in 2000, but I don't remember very well. Since then it's essentially same products with different looks and otherwise little real innovation. Why? Because there's no need for them to exert the effort into R&D whilst they're still making a lot of money from existing models and technology. Tablet computers and touch screens have been around for a lot longer than Apple would probably like people to think. As for features being withheld on the pretence that there are underlying hardware issues... it's a typical market strategy that reveals itself in various forms almost everywhere. One example, right now in Poland there's an issue that if you pay maybe £20 worth of minutes on pay-as-you-go, you have a fixed term (usually a year at most) within you have to spend it, or you lose it and even have your number shut down. Competition is fixed between the network providers, some of which (such as Orange) stem from Western economies where these problems don't exist to my knowledge anyway. It's a method of squeezing the last piece of dry shit out of consumers. The economy in Poland is nowhere near as developed as in Western countries, hence why this specific problem exists; the competition hasn't been around for long enough to cut this bullshit practice out and provide an honest service to customers. The same problem exists with Apple because they're too big and are basically making up their own rules. No problem with being big, but I think they are also being irresponsible. They work for their own private interests, that's understandable from any business. I think it's governments' job to regulate this kind of shit from getting out of control for the sake of the public. It's not that bad yet though. Still plenty of competition from Samsung, Microsoft, Google, HTC, even Linux lol. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Guys, guys. Lets stick to dumb vocabulary for those who arent so smart :nosweat:
I honestly dont even understand half of whats been said since my last post XD |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
I have to agree with Toz.
Apple makes a good product. I'll compare and contrast. I don't know who here has an android. But I've had nothing but problems with that phone. It froze all the time, glitched, broke, etc. I've had it replaced twice in a year period! I now have an iphone 3GS, and it's already heaps better, despite it being an older model. It never freezes, or glitches. If Apple keeping going that way it is, they'll become more powerful. Practically every person I know owns an iphone. A lot of people are switching over to macs if they don't already have one. And it seems like everyone has a freaking ipod. You see apple products all over. They be working out of their own interests, and possibly irresponsibly, but they're bigger, making more money, etc. They can AFFORD to do that. And why does it matter if they're working out of their own interest? How does that effect me? I still have a good phone that I like. Apple is playing hard ball with Samsung because they know they can. Whether or not they take over the US, is beyond me? But if everyone is buying Apple products, and Samsung is slowly going on the back burner, then there isn't much Samsung can do. Or maybe I'm just an idiot who has NO idea what I'm talking about. :) |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
What you've got to remember is that the android system runs on hundreds of different phones whereas apple have their system on about three or four different phones so looking at the numbers it's going to be obvious that some android phones have some problems. You also have to look at the fact that android phones start from a cost of <£100 whereas apple phones start from a cost of >£500. That's five times as much. It's a massive problem when people compare a £100 android phone to a £550 because it's obvious that the iPhone will be better. It'd be like comparing a Ford Focus to a Ferrari |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
I read somewhere that like 90% of patent claims are software or tech hardware related. To me, the inadequacy of the patent system seems like an issue that Apple just took advantage of. Even Steve Jobs joked that Apple ripped off previous technologies.
Android still owns the majority of the smartphone market, and I'm pretty sure this will be tied up in appeals for years, so it's not like this is Apple taking over the world. I don't know the demographics, but it seems to me like the largest apple fanboys are upper middle class college age hipsters who just make a louder noise than everyone else. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Another problem with companies or corporations that grow too large and too influential is that they *will* abuse their power and take advantage of consumers, their employees and even start to influence politics to benefit themselves. This is why companies should be regulated so they don't become too large and power-hungry. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
I dont believe Apple will ever take over the US. This past year, Android was the dominant phone and despite Apples cult with iPhones, I think (and hope) it will stay this way and that Android will only grow. Samsung is definitely NOT "going on the back burner", in fact I think that over the past year theyve taken a huge turn. They were falling behind but now that theyve "copied" Apple (cause Apple apparently owns the rights to freaking ROUNDED CORNERS) they are the #2 smartphone company and I dont believe they are going to fall from that position easily. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Also, despite Googles size and revenue, they arent at all like Apple in terms of being power and money hungry. Every company is out to make money. But Google gives out its Android OS for FREE to phone companies, so Google doesnt really have that same money crazy appearance as Apple who overprices for their products. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
In 2008, Google bought out another ad-delivery company and competitor called DoubleClick. This is something they shouldn't have been allowed to do, but unfortunately it happens a lot. Corporations often try to eliminate their competition in any way that they can, but for some reason, although scandals like price-fixing and patent trolling are considered anti-competitive, buyouts are generally seen as legitimate. Makes no sense. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
I dont know much about these buy out things, but they arent FORCED, are they? I mean the people at DoubleClick had the right to decline the deal I assume...
In terms of Google and theyre notorious privacy invasions. Honestly, i couldnt care less. Ok, so they have a bot searching through my emails finding key words so that they can put out personalized ads. I dont mind that. sometimes its even handy for me. Its not like theyre selling this information to creepers and other companies and stuff. Theyre using it for something that benefits everyone. And yes, Google is out to make money. But as I said, they dont have the same appearance as Apple. And theres rarely a company that isnt out to get money... |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Then the disease spread to other countries, naturally, because the USA had the largest economy in the world with which almost every other was connected. An example of what "too much power" in the wrong hands can escalate to. Personally I think the specific individuals responsible for deregulating the banks should be fucking shot in the kneecaps and left to bleed to death. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Its not as simple as the typical liberal talking point "more regulations" but the type of system. A survey conducted by the World Economic Forum, concluded that Canada has the best banking system in the world, receiving a score of 6.8 out of possible 7. We have a simplified regulatory system. We have no Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac promoting "affordable housing" through guarantees or purchases of high-risk loans. The banks own the mortgages instead of selling them off. Mortgage interest is not tax deductible. its harder to qualify for a mortgage, and if a down payment is less than 20% of the value of a home, the mortgage holder must purchase mortgage insurance. So you can't have an idiot buy with a 3% down payment freely like you can in the US. Plus in the US you can walk away from a mortgage...in Canada you are responsible under all circumstances. And yet it's not any more regulated than the US, or more government involvement - it's just a streamlined system with less legislation tying the hands of lenders and more responsibility on the buyers. Efficiency ftw. /end rant :p Monopolies and shitty business tactics are another story though...but that's been going on since Tesla and Edison, Beta and VHS, Apple and Microsoft. The world is forced fed a vastly inferior #2 product by muscling the #1 guy out and taking him to court in almost every fucking state in America (in apple and samsungs case, almost every county). I don't know what solves it, but it's a flaw in the free market that's for sure... |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
It's obvious that messy and thoughtless regulation is trumped by efficient, well organised regulation. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The subprime mortgage crisis in the US is directly attributable to lack of government oversight and accountability on the part of lenders. It most certainly was not due to "too much government." I for one am quite curious as to how the supposedly overregulated lender Wells Fargo managed to make $49 billion in profit from 2008 to 2010 while paying absolutely no taxes and even receiving a tax rebate of $681,000,000. Yep, obviously too much government tying their hands. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
I think there's two distinct cases here.
1) It is quite apparent that Samsung deliberately copied Apple. If you've spent any amount of time looking into this you'll realise how clear that much is. In an argument of "Did Samsung copy Apple?" the answer is "Yes" 2) The second thing which I feel is where the debate should be 'held' (so to speak) is "Did Apple copy others previously?" which would also be a "yes" in my opinion, but the argument in this legal case was not "Did Apple copy others first?" which is, in my opinion, why Samsung lost this case, because they were arguing a point of view nobody was questioning. And, while I'm not quite sure how the thread managed to drift into a discussion in regulation vs deregulation, I think the ideal system is either complete regulation or complete deregulation. If you completely deregulate then you take away the safety net. In my opinion that is why the Wall Street Crash happened. True, they were deregulated, but the businesses are out to make a profit, so when you tell them they can take as many risks as they want and it doesn't matter because the government will just bail them out, of course they'll take loads of stupid risks. Guess what happened? They didn't pay off and they were bailed out. If they were completely deregulated then that would never have happened because the mindset is still the same "How can I make the maximum possible profit?" but without the safety net they'll take a more risk-averse approach, because if they don't pay off then they're definitely screwed. Or you could just completely regulate them or nationalise them. That would probably do the same thing because you don't allow them the opportunity to practise immoral business practises or take risky bets. The downside is that you risk stagnation and a lack of innovation. Basically I think you just have to have one extreme or the other if you want to get the best results, but which one you pick is up to you because there are advantages and disadvantages to both. |
Re: Apple Vs. Samsung
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, Americans can walk away from a loan, Canadians are held strictly responsible for their home. It's putting the regulations on the buyers. Believe it or not but nothing in Canadas banking regulations bans lender risk taking. They're just smart enough not to do it just to make a quick profit. We don't really have "more regulations", just better. Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
All material copyright ©1998-2025, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints | Mobile