16 posts • joined Sunday 6th February 2011 10:51 GMT
It's easy to see
iPhone 5 is so fast that it's easily still faster than the newest Samsung, despite Samsung's faster chips. This because of better iPhone code. Samsung phones break or fail one-third more often than iPhone. Tests confirm these results on several Web sites. How much better do iPhones have to be to outsell Samsung? Well, it's not a matter of better. When you can buy 2 Samsungs for the price of one, when Samsung counts every phone it ships, wold or not, as sold, it's hard to compare figures. When Samsung lumps toghter cheap phones that baresly qualify as smart with newer phones, and when Apple makes 75 percent of profits from smart phone sales, you have to raise a few red flags.
You have to raise even more red flags when you learn that Samsung is paying a lot of money to bloggers to trash Apple with what amounts to whopping packs of lies and misleading statements.
Re: Pretty much what others are saying.
First of all, Apple's phone "look" was unique when it came out. Now I see dozens of Androids that look so much like iPhone I can't tell them apart without a close look. If that look was so obvious, how come no smart phones looked like that until Apple made one? Android: "I passed for iPhone." Apple: "That's not allowed." Second, the supposed Sony drawing was actually an Apple drawing of what a Sony phone "might look like." It was, as such, bogus. It was not what Samsung said it was. Third, the drawings showing that Samsung had already started designs that looked like iPhones were believed to be faked for two reasons: First, Samsung argued that it had designed phones similar to iPhone before iPhone was introduced. Had that been the case, they would have presented drawings months or even years ago to prove their case. But they did not produce the drawings until the very last minute to get them entered into evidence. They could not argue that they designed iPhones before Apple did at trial without the design drawings, so they made some. Samsung's drawings look suspiciously like drawings Apple provided early on to Samsung for purpose of Samsung producing some of the chips Apple would use in the device. And fourth, Samsung has been caught lying before on other matters.
In a recent survey, 60 percent of Chinese consumers said they bought their iPhones because of the way they looked. Only 30 percent cited functionality and ease of use. Darned right people who can't afford iPhone will buy Android look-alikes to obtain equal coolness factor.
Samsung contends that it had drawings that looked like iPhones long before iPhone was introduced. That contention is believed to be false. So are the drawings offered at the very last minute by Samsung to back up its claims made months ago. So that would-be evidence has been rejected by the judge.
If Apple hadn't done the iPhone, there wouldn't be any Samsung Android phones. Android would have been a Blackberry knockoff, which it was at one point, before Eric Schmidt, then Google's CEO and Apple board member, became aware of iPhone development. Trying to educate Android zealots is hard work. So I quit: This is my last post on this thread.
Re: I will be the first to admit that....
As an Apple stockholder, I would be much more upset if Apple failed to defend its intellectual property from obvious theft.
The judge rejected Samsung's fishy drawings because she believed, based on several obvious facts, that they were faked.
How well did the Star Trek tablets scroll, pinch, and expand content, by the way? And what about
those transporters? When Apple comes up with a way to do that, will they be unable to patent the process because they figured out how to do it on Star Trek?
The fact remains that had there been no iPhone, there would not be Samsung phones that I cannot distinguish from an iPhone from a distance of more than 5 feet. Had there not been iPads from Apple, there never would have been exceedingly similar-looking pads from HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc., etc. They simply wouldn't have had the balls to take the risks involved in coming out with something that cost so much to develop and had such a high risk of being successful. Plus, even if such a thing ever was introduced by an Apple competitor, had there been no iPad it wouldn't have looked at all the same as an iPad and it would have been so kludgy to use as to be nearly useless.
Those aren't the things Apple invents. Apple invents how simple and powerful they are to use and how they work together. Apple invents the joy you get in using these things and how much you love their simplicity, power, ease of use and effectiveness. That's what Apple invents: the user interface that make the user powerful. If you don't get that, I wish with all my heart that you will be consigned to never being allowed to use Apple devices for the rest of your life.
I am deeply morally opposed to businesses giving to charity. The sweet goodness of capitalism is that it produces millions of times more help for mankind, poor or rich, than charity. Businesses should use their money to invest in themselves to produce jobs, growth, wealth and products that make peoples lives better. If they don't know how to do that, then they should go bankrupt and their assets go to other companies that do know how to make people's lives better.
Understand, please, that a business is a very fragile thing. Unless its customers like it and its products enough to buy, the business will go away in a very short time. Buy nothing from Apple and in a year or two, it will cease to exist, even with its nearly $100 billion nest egg.
Apple is at least trying to improve the situation. It is open and transparent about its suppliers and hires companies to find and correct abuses. No other company even lifts a finger to do anything similar, and dozens of U.S. tech companies use the same suppliers Apple does.
So for going out on a limb to make things better, Apple gets punished by 40,000 idiots. Is this what we have come to as a nation? Our education system must have turned the brains of thousands into oatmeal. No thinking. No logic. No reasoning. No gathering of facts. Just lashing out at whomever is available because someone has been depicted as suffering. Please, spare me.
Thank you for the insight
I am grateful to know that Apple is going down the tubes and Android is now ascendant. I hope the word gets to the thousands of hapless investors who have bought Apple stock so they can sell right now, before it's too late.
Then, you can expect Apple's stock to fall by 100 points or more in the next few weeks.
The main reason I'm grateful, is that maybe your story will have the desired effect. Apple will fall. And I will load up on Apple stock and make lots of money when it goes back up.
My only fear is that you are too late. Most of the things you report were reported last week or even earlier. So maybe Apple has already fallen all it's going to for awhile. Well, that's OK, I guess. I already bought back in when Apple went from above $360 a share to below $340 a share. But I sure would have liked to get it even cheaper.
How about a Steve Jobs health rumor? Do you think that would work?
It's up to Apple
It's Apple's store. They get to charge whatever they want. And it's the publisher's content. They get to refuse to pay Apple's price and sell their content elsewhere if they like. So what's the big deal? It's a free country. We like free markets.
This ain't Egypt
Let's not forget, the App store is a store. Every merchant has an absolute right to decide what to sell and not to sell in his own store. No one, not even the huge and oppressive U.S. government, can force a merchant to sell a certain product in that merchant's store.
So what are you blathering about here? What sense are you making. OSX Developers can sell elsewhere if they don't meet Apple's standards.
Store owners have a right to sell what they want to. Walmart refuses to sell playboy. And they won't let k-mart sell their goods on Walmart shelves. Apple has the same right. There is no restraint of trade here. Next we'll be after Walmart for not selling Chevrolets.
Selling on the Internet is costly and difficult. Sometimes, no one finds you. Selling through Apple is easy and you instantly get noticed. I spend more selling less when I don't use Apple. I'm sure the same is true for others. Apple presents a great, cheap opportunity with its App Stores.
If you start a lemonade stand, do I have the right to come by and demand that you sell my lemonade, too. If you refuse, aren't you limiting your customers' right to choice? Give me a break. This reasoning is not reasonable.