backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Dec 6 at 6:22 AM

Some advertising analysts say Samsung is overspending versus its rival Apple

Perhaps best known today for its Android smartphones, Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) has become a highly visible global brand.

In a new piece "Samsung's marketing splurge doesn't always bring bang-for-buck", Reuters discusses this trend and tends to take a highly critical view of Samsung's spending, its recent product launches, and its role as innovator in general.  

I. Hey, Big Spender

It is unquestionable that Samsung is spending big when it comes to advertising and that its spending is growing fast.  In 2012, AdAge reported that Samsung increased its U.S. advertising budget more (percentage-wise) than any other company, growing it 58 percent.

In the U.S. advertising market Samsung only spent $597M USD for the year, according to AdAge, a figure which appeared to narrowly miss the ad budget of archrival Apple (Apple spent $662M USD in the U.S.).  However, AdAge also estimated that Samsung's unofficial ad budget for the U.S. (which included smaller campaigns, blog advertising, etc.) was $882M USD, which indicated it might actually have actually outspent Apple in the region.  

Korean Won
Samsung is taking advertising spending to new extremes. [Image Source: 
SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg]

And globally Samsung spent $4.3B USD in 2012, easily eclipsing the $1B USD Apple spent globally on ads.

Like Apple, Samsung has used multiple advertising agencies to spread a dvierse message.  Samsung draws from more of a global pool of advertising giants The Publicis Groupe, based in Paris, France; The Interpublic Group, Inc. (IPG), based in New York City, New York; and MDC Partners Inc. (MDCA), a global agency with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario (Canada) and New York City, New York (U.S.).  

Media Arts Lab
Whereas Samsung's message is more globally driven, Apple's advertising campaign is primarily engineered by Californian firms like Media Arts Lab's TWBA. [Image Source: Archidose]

By contrast Apple uses mostly U.S. ad agencies, with the bulk of its help coming from agencies in its home state of California.  The agencies used by Apple are large, well known agencies, but tend to be slightly smaller than the ones Samsung uses.  Among its top partners are TBWA, based out of Los Angeles, Calif.'s nonprofit Media Arts Lab; Eleven Inc., based in San Francisco, Calif.; and Mono, based out of Minneapolis, Minn.

Both companies focus the brunt of their advertising dollars on their most profitable products -- smartphones.  In 2012 Apple spent $333M USD on advertising its iPhone, while Samsung spent $401M USD to advertise its Galaxy line of smartphones.  As you notice, those numbers -- a dollar for dollar comparison on a per product/product line basis -- look less lopsided than the global advertising budgets.  Indeed, Samsung may have outspent Apple in 2012, but it did so relatively narrowly in U.S. spending in markets where the pair compete.

Phone advertising
Samsung and Apple were relatively close in U.S. mobile phone advertising in 2012.
[Image Source: WSJ/Kantar Media]

That's one place where the Reuters piece comes off as biased and inaccurate, in that it fails to fully dig into not only how much was spent, but which product sectors it was spent on.

Samsung is winding down a year of massive advertising spending.  The Asian phonemaker's 2013 advertising makes its 2012 look downright frugal.  This year Samsung is expected to pour $14.3B USD into global advertising.  Apple's advertising is expected to under a tenth of that.  While U.S. regional ad spending was close in 2012, Samsung is expected to jump way ahead in 2013 -- without making a major run on Apple's crown in brand image rankings.

Given what Samsung has received brand image-wise versus what it's paid for you can see where some advertising analysts have been critical of Samsung.  However, it's important to not misstate, overstate, or misrepresent Samsung's 2012 efforts, which in many ways were much more modest and in line with Apple's in terms of tablet and smartphone industry advertising.

II. Market Gains

Another thing understated in the Reuters piece is that the spending appears to be working, even if the return on investment is fair fodder for debate.

Samsung is currently the top seller of smartphones both globally (where it's led for some time now) and in the U.S. (where it recently moved ahead of Apple).  It's in a solid second place in the tablet market (behind Apple).  But as crucial a profit driver as the mobile market is to Samsung, it's important to recognize the company's growth and rising prominence in other sectors as well -- growth that is driven by heavy advertising.

There's a lot more to Samsung than just phones and tablets.  Currently Samsung is the top seller of LCD TVs (ahead of LG Electronics, Inc. (KSC:066570)), globally.  It's in a solid second place in the tablet market (behind Apple).  Samsung went from a relative bit player in the global appliances market, with a 2.3 percent market share in the U.S. in 2008 to a market share of 10.3 percent in 2013, good enough for fifth place.  Globally, it is reportedly now the eighth largest appliance seller.

Samsung market share -- appliances
Market share by vendor, U.S. appliance market [Image Source: The Wall Street Journal]

And there's strong evidence that the spending is causative of the market share increase.  U.S. leader Whirlpool Corp. (WHR) spent less than a tenth as much as Samsung in 2013.  And between 2008 and 2013 its lead in the home appliance market has shrunk, as have the market share of other major U.S. appliance makers like General Electric Comp. (GE).

Samsung's rising brand recognition is driven not just by spending on advertising its mobile offerings, but also by its heavy spending in other sectors, including the TV and appliance markets.

In its annual rankings, compiled in November, Forbes rated Samsung the ninth most valuable global brand in 2013 -- up from number twelve in 2012's rankings -- but behind Apple who held the title of most valuable brand in 2012 and 2013.  Samsung's brand value grew 53 percent in 2013, faster than Apple's 20 percent growth, according to Forbes
Forbes Powerful Brands

Interbrand, another top market research firm, similarly estimated Samsung in ninth place, and Apple in second for 2012.  But it was more bearish on Samsung's gains, stating it gained "only" 40 percent in value, versus a 128 percent rise in value for Apple.  Interbrand ranked Samsung in #8 (up one spot) in 2013, and Apple #1 (up one spot).  Again, it diverged from Forbes, indicating that Apple was the bigger winner, growing brand value by 28 percent, versus 20 percent for Samsung.

Interbrand value
[Image Source: Interbrand]

Notably, Reuters didn't even mention the more favorable Forbes brand numbers, instead only citing the more pro-Apple Interbrand analysis.  With both sets of brand image numbers considered, the picture less black and white.
 
Either way you cut it, Apple is clearly getting top value for its dollar.  But if you trust the Forbes numbers Samsung is spending more and growing faster (than Apple).  If you trust the Interbrand numbers Samsung is spending more and growing slower.  But both reports agree that both Samsung and Apple are growing their brand image at a rapid rate, and spending large sums to do so compared to smaller competitors in the mobile electronics space.
 
III. Trying Too Hard?
 
Perhaps the harshest angle of attack in the Reuters piece is its implications that Samsung is a follower and not an innovator.  The author writes:

For a company long seen as a follower, this is now a big sell on it being an innovator.

And it backs up that claim, by further alleging that Samsung's advertising message is confused.  It quotes Moon Ji-hun, head of Interbrand's South Korean office, who comments:

When your brand doesn't have a clear identity, as is the case with Samsung, to keep spending is probably the best strategy.  But maintaining marketing spend at that level in the longer term wouldn't bring much more benefit. No one can beat Samsung in terms of (ad) presence, and I doubt whether keeping investing at this level is effective.

He points to the fact that Apple spends only 0.6 percent of its annual revenue on ad spending, where Samsung spends a whopping 5.4 percent of it.
 
While there's no denying those numbers, it's also important to consider that Samsung's growth targets are much more aggressive, where Apple's have looked increasingly conservative.  This again comes back to understanding that there's more to Samsung than mobile.  While the Apple versus Samsung angle is highly entertaining, the fact of the matter is that Apple and Samsung both enjoy mature dominant positions in the mobile market.  Aside from the tablet market, Samsung's biggest growth potential lies in markets where it's been traditionally been weak and/or unprofitable -- the PC, television, and appliance markets.


 
While tech enthusiasts may have been aware of the Samsung brand ten years ago, the average consumer back then had nowhere near the strong opinions that Reuters claims.  

Back in 2003, Samsung was known for its feature phones and TVs in the U.S. market -- but not that much else.  The whole "innovator" versus "follower" debate in the context of the average consumer arose more or less in 2010 when Apple sued Samsung.  And the public only became very aware of the legal war in 2011-2012 as it became more heated and the bans/decisions started rolling in.

Samsung clamshell
Back in 2007 consumers didn't have as passionate feelings about Samsung -- good or bad.
[Image Source: PhoneDog]
 
In other words, what to Reuters is "a long time" is actually at most a couple years.
 
IV. Innovator vs. Follower -- The Eternal False Debate
 
Samsung's problem wasn't that it was being viewed as a follower.  That's a strong opinion.  Samsung's brand problem was that customers didn't have a strong opinion about it, good or bad.  That's a primary reason why Samsung has for the last decade been steadily ramping up advertising spending -- it wanted customers to care.
 
And care they did.  If anything, the criticism conveys that Samsung is a brand today that inspires strong passions, not the lukewarm acknowledgements of a decade past.  To many Android fans Samsung represents freedom and innovation.  To Apple fans it's a "follower", a "copycat".  Both sides could make convincing arguments, but at the end of the day it's a matter of opinion in many regards.

Apple copycats
Apple may have accused Samsung of being a copycat, but its faced similar accusations itself.
[Image Source: Doyle]
 
What's worth noting is the passion in these opinions, passion Samsung bought with its ad spending and legal war with Apple.  Even if Samsung has lost some crucial decisions in that legal war, convincing some that it was a "follower", in many ways that discussion has added value to the Samsung brand.  As Oscar Wilde famously stated, "There is only one thing in life that is worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
 
Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) played this angle to perfection the 1980s.  Many initially derided Windows as a "clone" of Mac OS (which was in turn a "clone" of Xerox Corp.'s (XRX) PARC GUI, in many regards).  The Microsoft flames were further fanned by the high profile antitrust case of the late 1990s.  These controversies helped Microsoft grow its brand image and become a talking point -- even if they did so via negativity.

Xerox Star
Apple was widely accused of lifting its GUI design from Xerox. [Image Source: Ping.it]
 
It is inarguable that Samsung's 'Next Big Thing,' and 'It's Time to Change' campaigns are focused on casting it as pioneer in the "innovator" versus "follower" debate.  Some might assume that this is due to Samsung being eager to offset the damage that its recent lawsuit loss to Apple in federal court resulted in.
 
But that perspective fails to acknowledge the value the case had for Samsung in some ways, in terms of publicity.  It also fails to recognize that every firm -- including Apple -- wants to appear an innovator.  Apple's new iPad Air ad, and Amazon.com, Inc.'s (AMZN) cheeky parody both look to cast their products as unique innovations:




There will alway be some with a bone to pick with Samsung.  Some might be Apple shareholders who would profit off Samsung's misfortune.  Indeed, in its federal court loss against Samsung some of the jurors reportedly had family members that were Apple shareholders.  Others might have a personal issue with Samsung or its partners -- for example, the jury foreman in the federal trial had been sued by a company tied to Samsung.  Coincidentally he was accused of delivering misleading instructions, which helped guide the jury to a "guilty" verdict.

The same principle applies to Apple, who surely is less than beloved by Samsung's investors or disgruntled former employees.  The bottom line is that brand image is a lot like popularity -- most want to be popular, but you'll always have some people who won't like you no matter what you do.
 
V. The Only Thing Worse Than Being Talked About is Not Being Talked About
 
The Reuters piece fixates on the fact that Samsung is eager to change the “copycat” label leveled by Apple.  It points to Samsung's language and its advertising of features like its hands-free user interface in the Android-powered Galaxy S IV and its curved television displays.
 
It quotes Oh Jung-suk, an associate professor at the business school of Seoul National University, who comments:

Samsung's marketing is too much focused on projecting an image they aspire to: being innovative and ahead of the pack.  They are failing to efficiently bridge the gap between the aspiration and how consumers actually respond to the campaign. It's got to be more aligned.

The Professor's criticism may be valid, but that's more of a knock on the advertising Samsung's partners gave it, not evidence of whether its products are viewed as "innovative" or "copycat" devices.

Apple wasn't afraid to "copy" Samsung and move to larger screen sizes when the market demanded it to.
 
Most major tech firms -- including both Apple and Samsung -- want customers to view them as innovators.  And most major tech firms -- including Apple and Samsung -- have been accused of being copycats.  

Samsung may end up having to pay to license Apple's patents.  But then again Apple has to pay to license Nokia Oyj.'s (HEX:NOK1V) patents.  These deals boil down to a simple reality -- it is almost impossible to design a product that shares nothing with past products.

The South Korean company owns 30,000 patents in the U.S. and over 100,000 patents worldwide.  Even assuming it only "invented" half of those and bought the rest via acquisitions, auctions, etc., you're still talking about one of the biggest patent portfolios in the market.  It looks downright silly to say Samsung isn't innovative when you see these numbers.
Samsung holodisplay
Samsung owns over 100,000 patents worldwide.

Again, Reuters misses the big picture -- that in the last decade and a half Apple and Samsung have both made the journey from companies that few cared to heartily praise, much less fixate on criticizing, to companies that are at the top of the market and at the center of a firestorm of controversy.
 
VI. Galaxy Gear Sales Echo the iPad
 
If anything Samsung's brand is helping it achieve some extraordinary things sales-wise.  For example its heavy advertising of the Galaxy Gear, a wearable smartwatch device that received generally lukewarm reviews managed to drive major sales of the device.
 
Galaxy Gear Smartwatch 

Critics -- like the Reuters piece -- will be quick to chalk up the 800,000 units Samsung sold in two months was an epic failure.  The device launched aside the Galaxy Note 3 Android phablet, and was billed as the perfect partner device.  If less than one in five customers bought that pitch, the device was a massive failure, right?
 
That's a spectacularly silly argument because it misses the big picture.  Samsung in two months moved nearly a million units of a product in a niche other companies had consistently failed to generate interest in.  Further it managed to do so with a product that reviewers criticized as under-featured and overpriced.  The Galaxy Gear is priced substantially higher in terms of up-front expenses (at $300 USD) than a discounted Note 3 with two-year contract ($170-200 USD with contract, $780 USD unlocked).
 
Samsung watches

For a 800,000 customers in two months to buy in to a product that reviewers say isn't that great, which has a massive price tag, and which is in a niche that at present is "emerging" at best is a simply Herculean feat.
 
If anything, this should be viewed as a massive success, somewhat analogous to Apple's 2010 iPad launch.  The iPad moved "only" 1 million units in its first month on the market -- pathetic by current standards.
 
At the time of its launch the iPad was in a niche that had failed to excite (tablet computers) and was derided to the point parody by some critics.  The criticisms were similar -- it was under-featured (there weren't enough apps, it couldn't run Office, etc.) and overpriced.

iPad parody
A 2010 iPad parody; the iPad faced similar criticisms to the Galaxy Gear -- people thought it was redundant, underfeatured, and lacked apps.  Yet Apple's marketing built it into a star product. [Image Source: Mulaz.org]
 
But the iPad's early sales proved critics wrong.  Now Galaxy Gear sales are threatening to do the same, forcing critics to double down on their rhetoric.
 
VII. You Can't Argue With Success, But You Can Sure Try
 
In the end it'd be wise to consider all the numbers and analysis -- Interbrand's, Forbes, and others -- taking any individual analyst's opinion with a grain of salt.  But it's equally important to look at hard sales results in units moved and dollars made, not nebulous quantities in imaginary units like "brand value".  
 
Samsung is spending a lot.  But it is growing fast, and is pushing notable sales in product niches that were predicted to fail miserably like the "smartwatch" segment.  Better still, it's become a household name.
 
That hasn't come cheap.  But what makes it hard to say whether Samsung is getting good or bad value out of its spending is not only the fact that it's seen so much good come from the spending, but also simply because it's such a diverse company.  Breaking down Apple's advertising return on interest is much more trivial as it only has a handful of major product lines, each of which have just a few major models.

Samsung products
Samsung today is a key player in multiple markets.
 
Samsung's product is scattered across dozens of market spaces, many of which Samsung is a serious competitor in.  Advertising so many different things is inherently costlier and carries a far greater risk of being misunderstood by those who see the company in 2D, taking a narrow slice like "mobile" and basing their entire analysis around that slice.
 
Another factor making Samsung a hard target for analysis is its role as a global brand.  Until a few months ago Apple smartphones outsold Samsung in the U.S. -- but Samsung outsold Apple by healthy margins overseas.  Samsung's revenue is much spread out around the globe than Apple's, which remains concentrated most heavily in the U.S.

 Samsung revenue by region
Samsung's sales are spread out across the globe, requiring a more diverse ad approach.

The need for global recognition is a critical and expensive advertising objective for Samsung.  It's no coincidence that Samsung has been the official sponsor of all of the past eight Winter and Summer Olympics.  

In addition to the Sochi Winter Olympics Samsung's latest campaign focuses on the mid-2014 World Cup in Brazil.  Samsung has recruited the advertising rights to 11 of the world's top soccer (football) players, including Argentine striker Lionel Messi.  In the new ads it shows them facing off in a soccer match against a collective of hostile aliens, saving the world with the help of Galaxy devices.


 
That kind of celebrity advertising power and sponsorship of such a massive event obviously isn't cheap.  And in many regards it's representative of why Samsung's position is so unique.  Samsung is a big spender on advertising.  But for those who think it's a big loser, spending too much look at all the gains Samsung has made.  You can't argue with success.  And success is all too often inexorably tied to publicity.

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good Piece
By Reclaimer77 on 12/4/2013 11:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
Nice spot Jason.

My only suggestion would have been to contrast their advertising budget with their equally huge R&D department. Which I believe is far larger than any of their competitors.

Samsung is a company that's hell bent on moving forward. In business if you aren't moving forward, you're standing still.




RE: Good Piece
By ClownPuncher on 12/4/2013 11:06:18 AM , Rating: 3
What if I want to move backwards? Standing still or moving forward are my only two options?


RE: Good Piece
By Motoman on 12/4/2013 11:09:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What if I want to move backwards?


I would suggest working either for the government, or in the clergy. Which frequently are the same thing.


RE: Good Piece
By Samus on 12/4/2013 11:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
LOL. I can't believe how much half these companies spend on advertising.

Intel? What are they advertising, they barely have any competition: AMD hasn't ever run a decent advertising campaign, and for the most part they don't need to advertise against ARM because they just recently began competing with them.

Microsoft? With the exception of the XBOX, what choice do people have when they go to a store and buy a PC? Apple for 3x the price or Chromebook with a different eco-system? People aren't going to stop buying Apple products because of some ad campaign Microsoft runs, and once people get home with a Chromebook and discover it doesn't really do anything but surf the web, they'll return it for a Windows PC. Microsoft Office and Server products don't need advertising because there is no competition. I know they advertise Bing, and that has got to stop.

The fact Samsung spends more than Coca-Cola is unbelievable, and ineffective as the article suggests.


RE: Good Piece
By jimbojimbo on 12/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: Good Piece
By Mitch101 on 12/4/2013 2:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Where is IBM? I see the commercials but other than consulting services Its not clear where I would have given them money as a consumer. How is Big Blue making money is it just R&D and Consulting?

Im asking because I don't recall the last time I purchased anything or considered anything with IBM on it.


RE: Good Piece
By ClownPuncher on 12/4/2013 2:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing new specifically for the consumer market, but your old xbox 360 had an IBM cpu in it. Same with the Wii U.


RE: Good Piece
By jimbojimbo on 12/4/2013 3:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
Since I got rated down I guess people really have never heard of those companies. My fault for assuming people know things.


RE: Good Piece
By mik123 on 12/4/2013 4:32:42 PM , Rating: 4
I'm guessing you got rated down because you're confusing a desktop/laptop market with a smartphone/tablet market.


RE: Good Piece
By Just Tom on 12/5/2013 9:09:24 AM , Rating: 2
While I am not sure Intel spends its ad dollars wisely it is a mistake to undervalue the effects of mindshare. If people gets used to seeing Intel Inside on their desktops they will be more comfortable buying a phone with 'Intel Inside'. On the other hand ARM has little to no mindshare among the general consumer. An Intel Inside sticker has some value, a similar campaign from ARM would have much much less.


RE: Good Piece
By A11 on 12/4/2013 12:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get what Intel is spending 2 billion a year on either.

I suppose they pay for that stupid intel inside jingle thing that ends every PC commercial but 2 billion?


RE: Good Piece
By Mitch101 on 12/4/2013 2:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Especially since AMD cant afford to run commercials yes it does seem to be a moot point.


RE: Good Piece
By Strunf on 12/5/2013 8:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
Intel sponsors many events and they aren't cheap!


RE: Good Piece
By Dr of crap on 12/4/2013 12:40:23 PM , Rating: 1
I agree! Some ad I see or here is NOT going to make me buy that product, unless its some crazy low price.

And even worse, when the SAME ad is on over and over and over (you get the picture you marketing people) it makes me NOT want that product even more!!!

But how would the world survive if there was no ad money out there?? Double edge sword!


RE: Good Piece
By Captain Awesome on 12/4/2013 4:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think Microsoft spends a lot on whatever their new product is. I forget if it was $500 million or $1 billion that they spent advertising Kinect, and then there's stuff like their tablets and phones and zunes they need to advertise for.


RE: Good Piece
By Samus on 12/4/2013 5:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good point. I forgot about the Surface. Even though I own an RT, and love it, the advertising campaign is forgettable due to poor sales and in turn, poor app selection.

But they put a lot of money into poorly advertising that thing, particularly calling it a Windows device when it doesn't really run Windows apps. They would have been better off calling it WT8 (like WP8) or Windows Tablet 8 (like Windows Phone 8.) People just joke that RT stands for reduced technology.

Regarding Jimbo's comment about competition. I have two points to make: one is that Qualcomm, Nvidia and TI spend virtually nothing advertising, so it's unnecessary to advertise against them. The other is Intel competes against these companies in ONE market segment.
Qualcomm: ARM (which Intel doesn't make a competing compatible product)
Samsung: SSD/NAND & DRAM (via Micron/Crucial) and perhaps Exynos if you really want to bring ARM back in to the non-existent competition.
Nvidia: I'm guessing you mean Tegra 3/4?
IBM: Itanium is dead. Intel doesn't compete with any IBM-compatible products. This is a RISC vs x86 thing again.
TI: Intel has always had superior market dominance in network/wireless, there's no need to advertise these devices (unless you want to roll Centrino & vPro into it)

The ARM market is saturated just like the Android phone market. Too many hands in the cookie jar. Intel has a comfortable market position being the only relevant x86 chip manufacturer, having market dominance across multiple SSD manufactures (including themselves) and having a strong Wireless networking division. Yes, they screwed up not having Bay Trail ready a year or two ago, but since it wasn't ready, they wouldn't have been spending money competing against ARM, anyway. Even Intel isn't cocky enough to recommend 5-year old Atom architecture as a compelling alternative to Snapdragon.

So I ask you, what the hell did they spend $2 billion advertising?


RE: Good Piece
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2013 1:13:07 AM , Rating: 2
The Surface had the worst advertising campaign ever. Specifically the TV commercials. Everyone who had anything to do with it should be lined up and shot.

http://bgr.com/2013/03/15/microsofts-surface-marke...


RE: Good Piece
By kleinma on 12/4/2013 11:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
Not Microsoft. They each spend around the same (9 billion) on R&D. Now that of course is hard to break down without more info, because both companies make lots of things outside of the mobile realm. Samsung is spending lots of R&D money in chip fab and other technology, and Microsoft of course is creating countless awesome things that will never see the light of day outside Microsoft Research.

Samsung's biggest problem is actually Google. Which was the exact reason Nokia didn't want to go Android.


RE: Good Piece
By rechiel7890 on 12/4/2013 3:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
Mackenzie. even though Andrea`s article is astonishing... last tuesday I bought a great Renault 5 since I been making $5773 this-last/5 weeks and a little over 10/k last-munth. it's realy the best-work Ive ever had. I started this 8-months ago and right away started earning minimum $85, per hour. website here........bay91


RE: Good Piece
By rechiel7890 on 12/4/2013 3:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
up to I looked at the bank draft saying $8941, I didnt believe ...that...my cousin could truly making money parttime from there pretty old laptop.. there uncles cousin has been doing this for less than twelve months and by now took care of the dept on there house and got themselves a Ford. Check This Out...bay91


RE: Good Piece
By EglsFly on 12/5/2013 9:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, we know. Any article the props the Korean company Samsung, your "All In" for...


Lobbying
By rountad on 12/4/2013 12:09:02 PM , Rating: 4
While I'm not a fan of lobbying, it would seem that more of Samsung's money should be allocated for this.

Apple is getting unwarrantably beneficial treatment, IMO, in both the judiciary and the executive branches of our government.

Maybe some reallocated spending by Samsung might be able to balance this out.




RE: Lobbying
By Reclaimer77 on 12/4/2013 12:11:47 PM , Rating: 5
Good point. Samsung spends a lot on advertising, but Apple owns the President of the United States.

I see a mismatch here...


RE: Lobbying
By jimbojimbo on 12/4/2013 12:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. Personally help a candidate win the office and he's in your back pocket. Poor Ron Paul will never get backing like this since he's not for sale like everybody else.


RE: Lobbying
By tallcool1 on 12/5/2013 12:11:03 PM , Rating: 1
As an American, I would rather have the President of America supporting an American company instead of a Korean company.
(even though both companies have most of thier products manufactured in china)


RE: Lobbying
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2013 12:16:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As an American, I would rather have the President of America supporting an American company instead of a Korean company.


First of all that's not the President's job.

Secondly that's called Protectionism and generally isn't a good thing.


RE: Lobbying
By EglsFly on 12/5/2013 9:18:10 PM , Rating: 1
Yea I know, you would relish any chance to see an American company fall...


RE: Lobbying
By KPOM1 on 12/4/2013 12:43:49 PM , Rating: 1
That's a bit rich. Samsung is far more in bed with the South Korean government than Apple is with the US government. Samsung's chairman has been convicted twice of felonies for corruption but has gotten "pardons" so he can keep running the company.

As for the judicial system, it wasn't Apple's attorneys who leaked confidential information to executives, and it wasn't Apple executives who used that information.


RE: Lobbying
By ritualm on 12/4/2013 11:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
If you're saying all of that to justify Apple's direct involvement in US politics, you have essentially shot yourself in the foot.


RE: Lobbying
By A11 on 12/5/2013 7:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty obvious he's pointing out the blatant irony in the statement he replied to.


RE: Lobbying
By Strunf on 12/5/2013 8:26:38 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is Samsung has lost battles... even at home!


Samsung reviews
By Spookster on 12/4/2013 12:20:45 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe they should spend some of their budget hiring people to write more of these hilarious reviews. These types of things go viral over social media which good or bad equates to massive free advertisement.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN85S9-85-Inch-Ultra...




RE: Samsung reviews
By rountad on 12/4/2013 12:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for posting that link!


RE: Samsung reviews
By Spuke on 12/4/2013 2:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
LMFAO!!!!!


RE: Samsung reviews
By Mitch101 on 12/4/2013 2:08:46 PM , Rating: 1
ROLFMAO. The new 3 wolf moon shirt?

Q: This more than I make in a year. How the heck can anyone afford this much for a TV?

A:

I've heard of some people temporarily selling their kids into slavery; it seems to be working. If you have old money then this shouldn't be a...
See more

| See all 5 answers

Q: It looks like the TV is mounted in some sort of weird frame. Does the TV spin 360 is it motorized? Want to use it as a paddle wheel on a bass boat

A:

it does. We have one in Myrtle Beach SC on the back of our jon boat and it works quite effectively
See all 3 answers

Q: Anybody who spends this much money on a TV is f****** stupid.

A:

I am not stupid, I am investing. In 30 years, when I pay off this TV, we'll see who is f****** stupid.


RE: Samsung reviews
By Strunf on 12/5/2013 8:32:10 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I thought it would spin to create the 3D image without glasses, someone has shown this kind of technology before with a much smaller screen spinning at mad RPM!


iPad sales pathetic?
By MrX8503 on 12/5/2013 10:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
800,000 galaxy gear watches shipped in 2 months is a herculean feat, while 1M iPads sold in 1 month is pathetic? Yeah ok...




The Xerox nonsense again
By superstition on 12/6/2013 6:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple was widely accused of lifting its GUI design from Xerox.

Because people watched Pirates of Silicon Valley and took it as gospel?

quote:
Myth: Apple CEO Steve Jobs saw Xerox PARC product, such as the GUI, either on a tour or at a trade show. He then used the PARC GUI implementation without permission, to create the Apple Lisa and the original Mac OS / Macintosh GUI.

Fact: Apple obtained permission ahead of the Xerox PARC visit. In addition, Apple provided compensation in exchange for the various Xerox PARC ideas such as the GUI. The Motley Fool, a financial publication of investment news and provider of investment advisory services, says this about the real story of Apple and PARC: “Xerox could have owned the PC revolution, but instead it sat on the technology for years. Then, in exchange for the opportunity to invest in a hot new pre-IPO start-up called “Apple,” the Xerox PARC commandos were forced — under protest — to give Apple’s engineers a tour and a demonstration of their work.

The compensation for the Xerox PARC technology sharing deal with Apple was in the form of one million dollars of pre-IPO Apple stock. The rationale: if Apple does well, Xerox will benefit from Apple’s success. The compensation is not bad for showing some prototypes that Xerox didn’t know what to do with.

“November: Steve Jobs and software engineer Bill Atkinson visit the Xerox PARC lab in Palo Alto, California. More Apple employees will visit a month later.” [2]

“Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share.”

Moreover, the Xerox GUI, while impressive, was not nearly as friendly and polished as the Lisa system. Apple also did a lot more than just make a skin. The Lisa system had cooperative multitasking, drag/drop, copy/paste, protected memory, an office suite, stationary, and tons of other features. And, Apple further innovated by changing the entire GUI paradigm from document-centric (Lisa) to application-centric (Mac).

The people who think Apple just got Lisa and Mac out of a box at Xerox know nothing. What Apple should be blamed for is allowing Microsoft to get so much traction with its inferior operating systems. They clearly were at the time.




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki