backtop


Print 128 comment(s) - last by DeluxeTea.. on Nov 1 at 11:42 PM

South Korean electronics giant is now a firm number one in the smart phone business

It may not have tried to patent multi-touch, bouncing animations, or the swipe unlock, but South Korea's Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO:005930) is doing what it's best at -- making industry leading components and electronics.

I. Samsung Outsells Apple 8-to-5 in Smartphones

The company announced a strong quarter on Thursday.  

Leading the way was the company's telecommunications (phone) business, which reported selling 28 million smartphones in Q3 2011.  That's four times what Samsung sold last year and it's 65 percent more smartphone units than arch-rival Apple, Inc. (AAPL) sold in the quarter.

Robert Yi, Vice President and Head of Investor Relations, cheered his company's success, stating, "Despite the difficult business environment due to the economic slowdown in developed markets, Samsung achieved a solid performance and recovered its double-digit operating profit margin in the quarter, driven by strong sales of our smartphones."

Galaxy S II
Led by the Galaxy S II, Samsung's smartphone lineup proved much more popular in terms of sales than its rival Apple's lone product. [Source: Samsung]

The unit reported 14.90T KRW in sales ($13.49B USD) and 2.92T KRW in profit ($2.64B USD).  

II. Other Units Struggle

Factoring in the company's other core businesses, including PC sales, LCD TV sales, component sales, and more, the company reported 41.27T KRW in total sales ($37.65B USD), a 3 percent increase from a year ago.  Total profits 23 percent from a year ago to 3.44T KRW ($3.11B USD).

The company did struggle some in its display business, which lost 90B (won) ($81.45M USD).  Prices on TV displays and PC displays declined and sales essentially held steady. The only factor keeping the unit from posting a bigger loss was better-than-expected OLED display demand.

Samsung NAND
Prices on Samsung's NAND storage chips rebounded. [Source: Samsung]

Despite Apple -- Samsung's biggest component customer -- trying to sever its supply contracts due to the firms' eroding relationships, Samsung's component business managed to maintain profitable.  DRAM and NAND prices, depressed earlier in the year, jumped back up after several manufacturers exited the market.  As a result, Samsung -- again -- saw less than expected losses.  The component unit posted sales of 9.48T KRW ($8.67B USD) and profit of 1.59T KRW (1.44B USD).

III. Looking Ahead.

Looking ahead Samsung does face some threats to its ongoing business and profitability.  Apple's slew of international lawsuits [1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8] against Samsung's smartphones and tablets could hamper sales, should Apple achieve its effective goal of banning its competitor from the market.  And then there's the issue of the $10 USD+ per Android smart phone Samsung has to cough up to keep Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) from suing. 

Still, given Samsung's record-shattering-sales and solid position atop the smartphone business, these issues weren't enough to stop Samsung's stop from posting decent 2-3 percent gains in the day's trading.


Comments     Threshold


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

Smartsong is unstoppable !
By kensiko on 10/28/2011 4:31:39 PM , Rating: 5
Want a good TV? Get a Samsung TV.
Want a good PC monitor? Get a Samsung LCD.
Want a good hard drive? Get a Samsung F1.

What's next, a car ?




RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By neothe0ne on 10/28/2011 4:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
They do make cars in Korea, but that's a different part of Samsung Group.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By Omega215D on 10/28/2011 5:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
They also make jet engines for aircraft


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By Onimuto on 10/28/2011 8:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
And the some of the worlds largest and most efficient LNG super tankers.
Samsung heavy industry.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By kase123 on 10/29/2011 8:58:24 AM , Rating: 5
Living in Korea.. pretty much makes you a super Samsung fanboy.

My apartment is Samsung..
My ISP is Samsung..
My Fridge is a Samsung..
My lcd tvs are Samsung..
My laptop is a Samsung..
My cellphone is a Samsung galaxy s2..
My tablet is a Samsung galaxy tab..
Even my toilet is a Samsung x)

you get the idea.

people usually refer korea as the Republic of Samsung.
Their cars are sub-par though lol.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By SilthDraeth on 10/30/2011 1:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
LOL. True, but funny.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By The Raven on 10/31/2011 12:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Wow they are the poster child of "too big to fail"... I guess I should buy Samsung so that I know they will always be there to back up their warranty lol.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By JackBurton on 10/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By jimbojimbo on 10/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/28/2011 11:35:08 PM , Rating: 3
?


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By StevoLincolnite on 10/29/2011 12:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Want a good hard drive? Get a Samsung F1.


Personally I liked the Samsung Spinpoint F3's 1tb.

They're fast, used to be stupidly cheap... (Thanks China for stopping rare earth supplies and doubling the price on those.)

And reliable. - I've bought a good dozen or so over the last 12 months; for various systems and not a single one has failed.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By Ammohunt on 10/29/2011 10:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
I used to install Samsung hard drives in systems 12 years ago and still install them now they were rock solid then and they are rock solid now.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By protosv on 10/30/2011 11:33:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, same here. I have installed 5 samsung HDDs over the last 7 years, with my first being an old PATA-100 80-gigger. That thing still runs just fine as a small external USB disk, and is great for storage. Their Spinpoint F3 is fantastic. Basically it's the 2nd fastest HDD in most categories in a review a while back by X-bit labs, but the price is muuuuch lower than the leader (I think it was a WD Caviar?).


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By DanD85 on 10/29/2011 3:19:52 AM , Rating: 1
And what make it all happen?

Government picking, pushing, subsidising, protecting and nourishing BEFORE putting it out in the wild competitive world.

NOT the "holy" Free-market! Please, learn the TRUTH: "there's no such thing as a free-market".


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By KPOM1 on 10/29/2011 8:57:15 AM , Rating: 2
And that's also why Amtrak is such a success, Qantas has great labor relations, and privately run companies like Southwest, Apple, and Virgin struggle. Oh, wait a minute...

All developed economies in the modern world are mixed-model (neither capitalist nor socialist, but a mix of both). However, the problem with governments "picking winners and losers" is that it's tantamount to theft from the "losers" to pay for the "winners," and it leads to complacency. Hyundai made junk when it was "protected" from competition. It didn't start building good cars until it actually had to compete in the US market. It was the same with LG and Samsung. Small wonder that these companies never really generated the ideas.

Government would never have "picked" companies like Apple, Microsoft, FedEx, or Southwest. In many cases, government actively fought against them (it took 4 years of court battles for Southwest to make its first flight, for example).


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By The Raven on 10/31/2011 12:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NOT the "holy" Free-market! Please, learn the TRUTH: "there's no such thing as a free-market".

You're right, there is just one company in the whole world that makes electronics. They are Borg...err...I mean Samsung. I wish there were some alternatives out there. What are we to do?!


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By TakinYourPoints on 10/29/2011 6:23:22 AM , Rating: 3
TV - Panasonic Plasma
PC Monitor - NEC, Dell, or HP IPS
Hard Drive - Intel

FTFY


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By HoosierEngineer5 on 10/29/2011 10:50:47 AM , Rating: 1
Intel makes hard drives?


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By FishTankX on 10/29/2011 11:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
If you consider an SSD a hard drive, yes!


By HoosierEngineer5 on 10/30/2011 3:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. Completely different technology.

Solid State refers to semiconductor technology, as opposed to electronic vacuum tubes, which used free electrons (i.e. plasma). Solid state memory used trapped electrons on a floating gate to store information.

Hard Drive is distinct from floppy drives (or flexible-disk drives), which most of you probably have never seen... Both use magnetic fields to store information.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By tng on 10/29/2011 10:08:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Want a good TV? Get a Samsung TV. Want a good PC monitor? Get a Samsung LCD.
Don't know about the hard drives but I have found that Samsung TV's are pretty on the outside, have nice graphics, but really are not as good on the inside. As the person who buys TVs to use as monitors/displays at our company I have been underwhelmed by the quality of their TVs/monitors. Have not had any issues with the Japanese brands that I have switched to.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By vol7ron on 10/29/2011 6:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
I find Insignia TVs on average to have the best quality picture w/ regards to TVs


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By Dr of crap on 10/31/2011 10:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
Insignia - really?
You do know that is the low cost brand for Best Buy?
They are low cost for a reason - they suck!
Any other brand is better.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By Visual on 11/1/2011 5:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
Any other brand has low-cost products that suck as well. Sometimes even products that are only offered in eastern Europe countries because if they were even shown in USA the company would be laughed at. For example, if you even saw what a crap "Sony Bravia" TV I got 3-4 years ago, you'd puke your guts.

So I guess past a certain low price point it is quite possible that dedicated low-cost brands can offer better options.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By danjw1 on 10/29/2011 10:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
Not so much on the TV front. Their current flagship line of TVs have all kinds of problems. No one gets everything right.


By HoosierEngineer5 on 10/29/2011 10:48:41 AM , Rating: 2
ALL my Samsung equipment is operating - I can't recall a single device failing - and I have a lot of it.

NONE of my 'baloney' equipment is working - ALL has failed. and I had a lot of it.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By B3an on 10/29/2011 1:31:54 PM , Rating: 3
You missed...

Want the best phone around? Get a Samsung GSII.
Want an SSD thats as reliable as Intel? Get a Samsung SSD.
(even Apple use there SSD's because of this)


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By Schadenfroh on 10/30/2011 7:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung is too big to fail.


RE: Smartsong is unstoppable !
By senecarr on 10/31/2011 10:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
Given Samsung's size and S. Korea's size, I think it would be more plausible for Samsung to bail out the S. Korean government, than it is for the other way around.


Here come the fanbois
By XSpeedracerX on 10/28/2011 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 5
"Apple sucks! The iPhone gives you no choice 3.5 in or GTFO, Same with the iPad. Sammy rules because they give you a choice. Multiple screen sizes for the phone and the tablet, all the lawsuits are just because apple is trying to use big government to squash a rising competitor. Suck it crapple!"

"Samsung blows! Cheap ass plasticy phones don't even do a half assed job of ripping off the iPhone. The galaxy tab wants to be the iPad so bad, you can't even tell them apart. Apple is the real innovator. They invent and everyone else copies it. Also, move over poor person, and quit whining about the prices. Premium products cost good money for good reason. Either get a real job or buy a ripoff samdung Galaxy welfare pad. I hope the courts crush them like the un-innovative theives they are!"

There. That should just about cover all the comments. No need to read the rest of them, you can go about your day. :)




RE: Here come the fanbois
By bupkus on 10/28/2011 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
I saw the "Apple sucks!" and was about to reply with one word--troll. Then I saw the "Samsung blows!" and stopped, then read the full statement which I actually would do before replying.
Now I have only 2 words.

"Troll Guard"

I hope the meaning is obvious-- meaning "troll repellent"


RE: Here come the fanbois
By Mitch101 on 10/28/2011 5:55:28 PM , Rating: 5
Yea he went from suck to blow.


RE: Here come the fanbois
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/28/2011 9:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Best movie line ever.


RE: Here come the fanbois
By 2bdetermine on 10/28/2011 9:01:03 PM , Rating: 3
Correction, Xerox was the real innovator. Apple bought their idea and integrated into their iCrap products line.


RE: Here come the fanbois
By Solandri on 10/29/2011 12:50:10 AM , Rating: 3
It's almost comical how much opportunity Xerox missed by ignoring all the stuff invented at Xerox PARC: The GUI, the ball mouse, ethernet, the laser printer, the predecessor to Postscript, bitmaps, WYSIWYG, object-oriented programming, and a strong contribution to VLSI. If the CEOs of Xerox had had an ounce of foresight, they could've been as big as IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, and Intel combined today.


RE: Here come the fanbois
By cfaalm on 10/29/2011 5:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
The difference between Xerox and Apple at that time:
X: Company leaders don't bother with details
A: Company leaders are obsessed with details


RE: Here come the fanbois
By Tony Swash on 10/30/2011 2:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
Do you guys realise that the PARC team who built the Altos and the Apple team that made the Lisa/Macintosh included the same people?

The small computer team inside PARC, after years of benign neglect at Xerox and aware that none of their work was going to lead to real world products or significant impact, defected en masse to Apple. Fifteen top PARC people including Alan Kay and Larry Tesler joined Apple because they realised that not only were the guys that they met from Apple the only people other than themselves who 'got it' and who understood the significance of their work (which Xerox did not) but that Apple were the only company that could take their work and change the world with it. Which it did.

So quibbling about whether it was the PARC team or the Apple team who invented this or that is silly. They are the same thing.


RE: Here come the fanbois
By Solandri on 10/30/2011 3:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
How did you come up with that? You have a bad habit of interpreting everything you read as being anti-Apple.

Yes I know a lot of PARC people went to Apple. And I know Apple (eventually) licensed the IP they used from Xerox (since the IP for work for hire belongs to the company paying the inventors' salaries). I've never claimed Apple stole anything from Xerox (only that it didn't originate at Apple).

I was just pointing out that Xerox invented most of the computer stuff we take for granted today, but completely failed to capitalize on it.


RE: Here come the fanbois
By Tony Swash on 10/31/2011 10:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

I was just pointing out that Xerox invented most of the computer stuff we take for granted today, but completely failed to capitalize on it.


Here are some of the goodies that PARC failed to invent - want to guess who did?

Draggable and resizable windows

Regions (so windows, open documents ect could overlap giving the appearance of being virtual objects

Single click to select

Double click to launch/open

Double click to file rename

Drag and drop of files and folders

Drop down/pop-up menus

Inclusion of a suite of proportional fonts which were user changeable

File types and identifiers

Control panels

imagine a world where your OS didn't have those things.


RE: Here come the fanbois
By The Raven on 10/31/2011 12:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot Compiz ;-)


RE: Here come the fanbois
By matty123 on 10/30/2011 3:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you guys realise that the PARC team who built the Altos and the Apple team that made the Lisa/Macintosh included the same people


True but just imagine the patenting stance of today was held by the people back then, then xerox would be the only company in the world allowed to do anything at least in the hardware shpere. Just shows the patent system needs a massive rework I say good for apple that they were able to take something xerox considered worthless and turned it into what it is today.


RE: Here come the fanbois
By ZZm12 on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
I think they shipped, not sold, 65% more phones
By michael2k on 10/28/2011 4:37:30 PM , Rating: 1
What that means, realistically, is that any phones still in the channel after the end of the quarter (and there still may be) will negatively effect sales for this quarter.

We won't see the effect of course until next quarter.

For people who think I'm being pedantic, this same effect is what "boosted" Android tablet sales early this year and guess what? Motorola only shipped 100k Xooms last quarter despite shipping 250k the first quarter and 440k the next.

Please note I fully expect Samsung to sell all those phones, but not at full price and not in the quarter they were shipped (thus negatively effecting units this quarter).




RE: I think they shipped, not sold, 65% more phones
By chris2618 on 10/28/2011 7:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah your right Samsung shipped more phones than Apple shipped phone. As they are both shipment numbers the comparison is fair.

The comparison you give with the xoom is completely unfounded as the amounts shipped for the xoom are what 1-2% of Samsung mobile shipments. you don't get shipment numbers in tens of millions unless the resellers know they are going to go.


RE: I think they shipped, not sold, 65% more phones
By ciparis on 10/29/2011 12:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As they are both shipment numbers the comparison is fair.


I hate to say it but they aren't. Apple only reports sales. It's a fair complaint, but ultimately it doesn't make much of a difference -- blowout quarter for Samsung.


By Solandri on 10/29/2011 12:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
Shipped vs sold only matters if retailers fail to order more shipments. If a retailer orders more, that means they expect to sell all of the previous shipment which is in their inventory, so units shipped = units sold.


By chris2618 on 10/29/2011 4:39:44 AM , Rating: 2
They are shipment numbers. The third party these numbers come from state them at shipment number


By senecarr on 10/31/2011 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
No, this is shipment numbers. It doesn't matter what Apple reports, what matters is what the original article is reporting. The original report is for shipments, period.


So over a quarter billion dollars to Microsoft?
By ET on 10/29/2011 5:05:12 AM , Rating: 2
Android is a much better revenue source for Microsoft than Windows Phone every will be.




By UnauthorisedAccess on 10/29/2011 5:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
True, and because licensing patents is better than litigation I'm fine with that :)


Sprint
By bupkus on 10/28/2011 5:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sprint is so screwed.




RE: Sprint
By The Raven on 10/31/2011 12:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
I sure as hell hope not. BTW, Boost (their prepaid division) just came out with 2 new Android-based devices. Whoohoo!


This quarter is meaningless
By vision33r on 10/29/2011 8:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
So Samsung launches several new phones this summer and Apple launches in the fall.

It is obvious that people who are waiting for the new iPhone are going to hold their purchases or even buy alternatives.

Now that 3 weeks are in on the new iPhone sales, it will definitely affect Samsung sales this quarter as Samsung was rushing to ban iPhone with no luck so far.

Next year we will have very different results when this quarter is over.

I anticipate that Apple will sell it's 25million iPhones due to its global launch and in China Apple is a huge hit. Easily 80 mil, Samsung makes some nice phones but it's just not comparable to iPhone's "magical" feel to the customers that adore them.




RE: This quarter is meaningless
By matty123 on 10/29/2011 9:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed apple sold four million iphone 4s's on the opening weekend, I fully expect them to take the lead for the fourth quater and perhaps the first quater of next year. In the tablet market they will still remain top dog for the next while ecspecially if they release an impressive ipad 3 next year.

That said I do expect these quaters to be the last quaters they remain on top in the smartphone world, there is too much competition for them to increase at the rate they have been and for all the sndroid haters win 7.5 is a beautiful operating system and has all the security android haters would love.

Intresting times ahead in the smartphone world.


Thank god they didn't patent bouncing animations!
By CList on 10/28/2011 8:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
...and thank god my Android phone uses them rarely, if ever...

I see them on my iPad and all I can do is roll my eyes, and wonder how so many people can find Apple's super-corny candy-ass gheyness so endearing.




By ShaolinSoccer on 10/29/2011 3:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of this woman I know. She was on Facebook for a long time then she bought an iPad and in one night, she took 75 pictures of herself using the iPad and uploaded them all to Facebook. I think it's safe to say that Apple products make people lose their minds...


Nice...
By V-Money on 10/28/2011 4:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
...Although I am more interested to see how Q4 plays out with the 4s out and ICS finally becoming available.




Adverse effect for Apple perhaps.
By ssnova703 on 10/28/2011 5:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Apple tried to slow down sales of Samsung with all these lawsuits and getting their new tablets and phones banned from stores... all the while people are hating Apple for this and perhaps even bought a SGSII out of spite just to give Apple a point.

I couldn't say for certain though, as I haven't talked to any SGS2 owners yet.




Apple is thinking ...
By 2ManyOptions on 10/29/2011 2:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
whether they can sue Samsung for selling more phones than they managed to? Thank goodness there is no patent system for market share else that would have been a no-brainer.





Apple fan is embarrassed
By ptmmac on 10/30/2011 11:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
I am really tired of the fight over who is the greatest. I don't want to be another Apple Troll. I am more interested information that relates to the success or failure of each of the businesses in this article. I do think Apple has a special new product category that was stolen by Google. I know many of you think that interface patents are less important than music licenses. I really do think this is nuts. This is one of the truly wide open business markets that exist in this world. It has so much direct relevance for each of us and to the future of technology in general. We use these products 10 times a day and rely on them to keep most of our life organized. I want competition, with each businesses IP protected and all competitors fighting for every edge they can get. For the most part this is the system we have right now. Apple and Google have both benefited from this competition which has only superficial similarities to the Microsoft-Apple battle that happened during the late 80's. Google does not sell Android. Google gives it away for one reason only- they want to make money in mobile search (which not quite coincidentally removes all pretense of privacy that cell phone users claim to have). I do not like every thing Apple has done, nor do I like everything that Google has done. Patents are not my problem with Apple. lock ins and overly locked down preferences are my two biggest beefs with Apple. The first I find far more palatable than Googles creepy data mining. The second is a result of how Apple manages both the initial experience, long term stability and the development of change in the interface. I prefer stability to personal control, so I am willing to compromise on the second part.

I am glad that Google is pushing Apple, and I hope that Apple is able to finally break Googles lock on search. This is what Siri is all about. Google has been constantly building and updating their search algorithm to keep their lead in this area. The results are now so good that I use Google for spell check because it is smarter than a spell checker at guessing what I am trying to spell. One interesting theme here is how close we are coming to an AI system that can pass the Turing test (a computer that can sound convincing to a human over the phone or teletype). With the shift to speech as the focus of search we are beginning to get real results with AI feeling and attitude. This is why I think interface patents have real value that goes way beyond just the swipe or a box of pretty icons. The personality of each of these systems matters to those who use them. Open and techy versus closed and cleanly constructed. We need both, but there is no doubting that the popularizer is the closed and clean structure. With out a way to protect this there is no way to keep this system going. We may have saved some upfront money with Windows interfaces, but we lost so much individual productivity to the lowest common denominator, cheapest beige box competition that resulted. Here we look to lose something even more important: privacy and safety.

Your views are different than mine. I accept that and want you to get the best computing and communication device you can afford. I know I will not convince any one on this board of my views. I just hope some thing I have written will raise the discussion from Google sucks - No Apple sucks ect.




Some of you don't get it
By INeedCache on 10/31/2011 10:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
You can argue all day long as to who is copying from whom, and draw whatever conclusions and have wahtever feeling you wish as to who the innovators are and who the copiers are. But the fact is, this is big business, and big business is about marketing. not who actually invents something. If Company A can more or less copy a product from Company B, get away with it, and become more successful with that product than Company B is with the original, then so be it. That is business. It has been that way for a long time, and will continue to be so. It doesn't really matter who invents something if they can't market it and get it to the public. So Xerox had some great inventions. Good for them. But if it weren't for others taking them and properly marketing them, would we really have them? Props to the marketers. Remember VHS and Betamax? VHS wasn't better, but it was marketed better and won out. Business really boils down to marketing, not really who has the better product. Bottom line.




And once again...
By masamasa on 10/31/2011 12:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
The better product wins!




Silly Article
By testerguy on 10/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Silly Article
By matty123 on 10/30/2011 3:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or, if you weren't such an Apple hater, Apple has sold 38.5% fewer phones. Notice how you hand-picked the number to use in your 'article'.


In all fairness if he had chosen this number the android fans could make the exact same argument in reverse, he chose one set of numbers doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

quote:
Now, lets examine the complete failure of misunderstanding context and invalid conclusion. You are comparing Q3 only, not a year, or a more substantial period of time, but one period only.


Companies release profits per quater it's not unreasonable to publish the results this way, year end sales arn't out yet, both samsungs and apple's are for this quarter. Unless you are proposing he waits till the end of the year to publish the article but to be honest this is newsworthy and people have an intrest so its fair to publish them when released.

quote:
The iPhone 4S sold 4m in the first weekend alone. Weekend. That's 14% of Samsungs QUARTERLY sales in one weekend. That of course, from you, gets no mention. The numbers sold already probably bridge the gap completely, making your whole article completely invalid.


As mentioned above this wasn't included in apple profits for the quarter which they released.

quote:
The bottom line is that you are the worst journalist I've ever seen, on any technology site ever. You're not just ignorant, and biased, you're downright misleading, manipulating the facts to try and paint the picture you want to believe.


Attacking the journalist because it displays something in a negative light is absurd and shows your bias.


RE: Silly Article
By testerguy on 10/31/2011 4:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In all fairness if he had chosen this number the android fans could make the exact same argument in reverse, he chose one set of numbers doesn't seem unreasonable to me.


The fact that Android fans would complain if he chose the opposite numbers does not validate his decision, and it simply enforces the point that Apple (or even logic) fans should call him out on this number, too. He could easily have included both. The fact is he chose the one which looked more dramatic.

quote:
Companies release profits per quater it's not unreasonable to publish the results this way, year end sales arn't out yet, both samsungs and apple's are for this quarter. Unless you are proposing he waits till the end of the year to publish the article but to be honest this is newsworthy and people have an intrest so its fair to publish them when released.


Again, your complete logical failure surfaces. I'm not saying he should wait to publish the results. I'm saying he should only make judgements such as 'South Korean electronics giant is now a firm number one in the smart phone business' over a reasonable time frame, and most DEFINITELY not at a particularly unusual result such as always would occur just before the release of the best selling phone of all time. Suggesting that I'm suggesting he waits to publish results really underlines your failure to grasp the point that is being made. A logical, unbiased journalist would have displayed the same figures, but in a logical, balanced way, putting them into context by explaining the facts as we all know that many people waited to buy an iPhone with the promise of a new one coming out. Of course, Jason did none of this, and reached a ridiculous conclusion that Samsung is now the leader.

quote:
Attacking the journalist because it displays something in a negative light is absurd and shows your bias.


I'm attacking the journalist because he overstated and exaggerated the figures, reaching sensationalist conclusions which simply don't follow when you put the numbers into context. I am not bias in any way, in fact your defence of such poor journalism leads me to believe you are. The reality is that Samsung are in no way the leader of the Smartphone market just because of 1 strong quarter just before an Apple launch. That's the reality, yet your continued ridiculous anti-logic defending his conclusion seems to suggest to me that you're most definitely the biased one. I'm asking for logical conclusions based on context, you seem to be quite happy for invalid conclusions to be drawn.

That's the difference.


RE: Silly Article
By The Raven on 10/31/2011 12:52:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You say Samsung sold 65% more. The numbers are: Samsung 27.8m Apple 17.1m That's 62.3% more.

Why do you have to hate on rounded numbers so much?

And if he would've done as you said it would look skewed the other way. You really want to but his balls over 2.7 percent, or a 4.3338684% difference in the numbers (2.7/62.3).

Yeah we would have a much different outlook on the article if that were the case. Put your pro-decimal bias away moron.


Amazing! Seriously!
By MartyLK on 10/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By Solandri on 10/29/2011 1:01:45 AM , Rating: 2
This is only for 3Q2011, and only for smartphones.

In terms of total smartphones sold over the past 10 or so years, I suspect Apple is still ahead since they've been in the lead for years since the smartphone market exploded. The opposite of what you're arguing.


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By MartyLK on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By Solandri on 10/29/2011 6:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Smartphones were not a very big market until the iPhone. Up until about 2004, almost all cell phones were regular phones, which you coupled with a PDA if you wanted portable computing. Blackberries were basically pagers with keyboards up til then. 2004 was when the BlackBerry with a color screen and icon apps showed up, along with a Palm phone, and some Windows combo PDA-phones.

Previous smartphones were geared towards geeks and gadget freaks. Apple did a really good job packing the iPhone with easy-to-use features which would appeal to the average user. Apple was the first one to get that right, which is why the smartphone market really didn't take off until the iPhone. There's a tendency for technology enthusiasts to want to just cram in more features with little thought to usability. Apple seems immune to this, due to ease of use being a prominent part of their history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ6H-3J6_5Y

That's what allows them to bring out products which do well in the market even if they're ridiculed by technophiles. For most users, if a feature is difficult to use, it's basically not a feature.

quote:
Yet even with one phone, Apple has managed to completely rape Samsung till now.

You're somehow implying that if Apple had made two models of phones, it would've had double the sales?

Apple is sending a strong message to the computer industry that ease of use matters. You can make a product which lacks features, and is overpriced (e.g. the iPod). But if it's easy to use, people will still buy it up in droves. Other companies are learning from this and responding with products which are similarly easy to use, and not surprisingly it's whittling down Apple's market share. That's the very nature of competition.

In the end, what's important is that consumers get a choice of a wide variety of good products at a good price. That is best accomplished by a thriving competitive market. Giving Apple a monopoly on easy-to-use phones or tablets subverts that, and thus is bad for society.


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By testerguy on 10/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By matty123 on 10/29/2011 6:51:55 PM , Rating: 1
In all fairness this is not strictly true. Apple had the iphone, the iphone 3G, the iphone 3GS, the iphone 4, the iphone 4s. the 4 and 3GS in three different models 8Gb 16Gb 32Gb and two colours {black and white}, the 4s in 3 different models 16Gb 32Gb 64Gb and two colours, the 3G in two models 8Gb or 16Gb and the original in three models 4Gb 8Gb 16Gb.

Now for other manufactures this might not be significant but I have freinds who went to buy the white 3GS when it came out even through they already had the black ones, largely because iphones are also a fashion statement.


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By testerguy on 10/31/2011 4:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In all fairness this is not strictly true. Apple had the iphone, the iphone 3G, the iphone 3GS, the iphone 4, the iphone 4s. the 4 and 3GS in three different models 8Gb 16Gb 32Gb and two colours {black and white}, the 4s in 3 different models 16Gb 32Gb 64Gb and two colours, the 3G in two models 8Gb or 16Gb and the original in three models 4Gb 8Gb 16Gb. Now for other manufactures this might not be significant but I have freinds who went to buy the white 3GS when it came out even through they already had the black ones, largely because iphones are also a fashion statement.


There is a big difference between variations of 1 handset and multiple handsets.

People buying the iPhone despite already owning a black one, because it was white, are very much the exception, rather than the norm, the vast majority of people who bought the white iPhone 4 did not own another iPhone 4. A small example like this is certainly nothing which can be used to draw conclusions from. Similar examples will also be easy to name for Android phones too.

With regard to the 3G, 3GS, iPhone4, and 4S - the original poster clearly was referring to one new phone in any given cycle (say a year), in comparison to Android manufacturers who bring out multiple different phones (not just variations) during the same period.

Of course, poor users like those of the Nexus One which could have been bought 7 months ago and now isn't supported can tell you all about the problems of that rapid release cycle on products which you tend to buy with 2 year contracts.


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By matty123 on 10/31/2011 12:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
I can't predict the buying trends of others I only pointed out that my freinds had brought the white one even through they had the black one. Also all my freinds {me includeded} when they used to have iphones, till the releae of the galaxy s2 used to break contract to get the new phone I believe this is significant if you don't thats up to you.

quote:
With regard to the 3G, 3GS, iPhone4, and 4S - the original poster clearly was referring to one new phone in any given cycle (say a year), in comparison to Android manufacturers who bring out multiple different phones (not just variations) during the same period.


I am sorry I didn't get that at all...

Quoted from that dude's post "It is utterly amazing Samsung, with their hundreds of handsets on all carriers, could outsell the iPhone on a couple carriers initially and now a few more. There's like how many Apple phones? Don't tell me, I'll try to count that high. It'll take a little time...might need to enlist IBM's super computer...ummm...maybe...1?"

To be honest I am not sure how you could get that either he says there are hundreds of samsungs released in a year and then go's on to say that there is only one iphone. At the moment apple is supporting 3 iphones according to my understanding the 3gs, the 4 and the 4s


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By distinctively on 10/30/2011 7:22:03 AM , Rating: 1
You do realize that Samsung outsells Apple 5:1 in the cell phone market, don't you? Apple's market is severely limited as there is only so many people willing to buy overpriced, easily breakable items like an iPhone. It's really kinda sad to see Apple getting their asses handed to them by Samsung in the smartphone arena now too. I've got a big family here fella and lots of phones amongst the kids. The iPhone just can't compare to the current Samsung offerings, especially in overall quality.

The future is going to show Samsung continually outselling Apple by a landslide. They just simply offer better products and a far superior value.


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By testerguy on 10/30/2011 11:44:31 AM , Rating: 2
Oh wake up, the cellphone market is a completely different animal to the smartphone market.

Apples market is limited? Compare their profits. See which market is bigger.

Apples market is, ironically (given your comment), the high quality smartphone segment. The Samsung phones are cheap plastic, the iPhone is glass & metal, no comparison in terms of quality. The iPhone 4S is also much, much faster than any other smartphone, and that includes every single smart phone. The fastest GPU found in a Samsung phone is the Mali 400. The PowerVR SGX543 in the iPhone 4S is much, much faster. All I hear about with people who have Samsungs is awful battery life & problems with lag and slowdown during multi-tasking. Even the processor running at 1.2 ghz is nowhere near as fast as the A5 in the iPad 2 running at 1 ghz, so the CPU will probably be about the same as the iPhone 4S running at 800mhz.

As for 'asses' handed to them? Please. This quarter happens to be the only quarter Samsung has outsold Apple and also coincidentally is the longest period of time since Apple has released a new smartphone since they started. The gap in sales has probably already been made up by the iPhone 4S sales, which amounted to 4m in the first WEEKEND alone. And of course, at the budget price that Samsung are selling phones, their profits are way, way lower. If Apple charged the same they could sell comfortably more, but choose a more educated and more logical sweet spot between sales and profit.

In other words, Apple will sell more in Q4 and will make more profit from each.

'Ass', 'Handed' , to who, now? ;-)


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By matty123 on 10/30/2011 3:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh wake up, the cellphone market is a completely different animal to the smartphone market.


This isn't really a argument the numbers are quite clearly presented all apple's profits show is that they charge more for products and that us as consumers are prepared to pay more for said apple products, it is however also true that as the markey becomes more and more saturated there will be a smaller and smaller demand for smartphones through this won't only apply to apple.

quote:
Apples market is, ironically (given your comment), the high quality smartphone segment. The Samsung phones are cheap plastic, the iPhone is glass & metal, no comparison in terms of quality. The iPhone 4S is also much, much faster than any other smartphone, and that includes every single smart phone. The fastest GPU found in a Samsung phone is the Mali 400. The PowerVR SGX543 in the iPhone 4S is much, much faster. All I hear about with people who have Samsungs is awful battery life & problems with lag and slowdown during multi-tasking. Even the processor running at 1.2 ghz is nowhere near as fast as the A5 in the iPad 2 running at 1 ghz, so the CPU will probably be about the same as the iPhone 4S running at 800mhz.


This is definetely not true, I am sorry I use an iphone and it's certainly not the case that the iphone is faster than the dual core androids ecspecially samsungs exonys chip. The GPU for the iphone has about twice the power of the mali 400 according to anandtechs review {which I personally tend to trust} however this review was done on an ipad 2 and no one seems quite sure if the iphones GPU has been downclocked or not and if it has to what extent. Through it is definitely true that the GPU is superior but there is no way the CPU is superior to the exonoys chip. Please don't refer to this article to try and show the CPU is superior afterall Link: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4951/iphone-4s-preli... as Brain from anandtech in the comments section notes that the tab runs honeycomb with the tegra two chip which has been shown to be far inferior to the exonoys chip and that the that the improvments the iphones experience are largely software related as is shown by the tab with inferior hardware outperforming the ipad and iphones. Link: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4686/samsung-galaxy-... note the improvements the iphone 4 has gained with IOS 5 this is purely software related. Also these are browser benchmarks and don't reflect processor performance at all, if there are other benchmarks done by a reputable site I would love to look at them but to my knowledge these are the only true benchmarks available at the moment.

quote:
As for 'asses' handed to them? Please. This quarter happens to be the only quarter Samsung has outsold Apple and also coincidentally is the longest period of time since Apple has released a new smartphone since they started. The gap in sales has probably already been made up by the iPhone 4S sales, which amounted to 4m in the first WEEKEND alone. And of course, at the budget price that Samsung are selling phones, their profits are way, way lower. If Apple charged the same they could sell comfortably more, but choose a more educated and more logical sweet spot between sales and profit.


Companies report the profits in quarters, that is the nature of the business it can't be helped that apple didn't launch a phone before the end of the quarter but don't forget that was their choice and the results are theirs. Also some people me included consider apple expensive I still use an iphone but would love it if prices were cheaper.

quote:
In other words, Apple will sell more in Q4 and will make more profit from each.


Agreed apple has already sold more than 4 million 4s's but these are still the results for this quarter


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By testerguy on 10/31/2011 3:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't really a argument the numbers are quite clearly presented all apple's profits show is that they charge more for products and that us as consumers are prepared to pay more for said apple products, it is however also true that as the markey becomes more and more saturated there will be a smaller and smaller demand for smartphones through this won't only apply to apple.


You miss the point entirely. You stated a number of CELLPHONES that Samsung cell, and point out that is more, but that is beyond ridiculous. Do you not understand that the Smartphone and Cellphone markets are DIFFERENT? It could NOT be more irrelevant, we may as well include iPod sales.

As for Apple making more profit, yes, they did, they charge more for phones, because they can, because there is a higher demand. Samsung have only achieved higher sales by sacrificing profitability. Apple could sell more if they wanted, but they took the more intelligent business approach and decided to make more profit. And even with higher prices, I would assume Apple will sell more smartphones in Q4.


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By matty123 on 10/31/2011 12:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you had read all the posts you may have noticed this posted about 3 or 4 posts under yours by me.

quote:
The 5 to 1 figure as I understand it includes feature phones which apple don't sell, I could be wrong through


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By testerguy on 10/31/2011 3:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is definetely not true.


This statement could not be more wrong. Firstly, just because you use a particular phone doesn't add any credibility to your claims of any particular phone being faster or slower. The GPU of the iPhone 4S is indeed TWICE as fast, even if it is downclocked slightly it is still the fastest GPU on a mobile phone. The CPU, running at 800 mhz appears to outperform the exonoys chip:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4951/41655...
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4951/41619...

Sorry, I know you asked me to ignore the benchmarks proving you wrong (shockingly) because you believe it's only due to 'software' that the CPU/GPU combination in the iPhone 4S is much much faster. But guess what, I don't stick my fingers in my ears and shout 'LA LA LA LA' like you. What is indisputable is that the CPU/GPU combination in the iPhone 4S is the fastest you can get in any phone, full stop, with or without software.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4951/41612...

You also addressed none of the quality points I made which were not all related to the performance. With regard to dismissing performance because of software, how ridiculous is that? Guess what, phones COME WITH SOFTWARE, and the performance that matters is THE PERFORMANCE ON SAID SOFTWARE. What use is a CPU which can run 1.2x faster when it can't actually achieve any performance game when you make it run software. That is ridiculous head in the sand arguing. What's more, even if the CPU in the iPhone 4S was slower, the GPU being SO much faster more than makes up for it, making the iPhone 4S the current clear performance king, especially given that the entire OS is hardware accelerated. I don't see any evidence from you whatsoever that this is not the case, in fact I don't see any evidence from you whatsoever showing any benchmarks in which any Samsung phone is faster than the iPhone 4S? There's a reason for this, of course.


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By matty123 on 10/31/2011 12:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This statement could not be more wrong. Firstly, just because you use a particular phone doesn't add any credibility to your claims of any particular phone being faster or slower. The GPU of the iPhone 4S is indeed TWICE as fast, even if it is downclocked slightly it is still the fastest GPU on a mobile phone. The CPU, running at 800 mhz appears to outperform the exonoys chip:


Except the CPU part which I disagree with I already pointed this out in my post.

quote:
Sorry, I know you asked me to ignore the benchmarks proving you wrong (shockingly) because you believe it's only due to 'software' that the CPU/GPU combination in the iPhone 4S is much much faster. But guess what, I don't stick my fingers in my ears and shout 'LA LA LA LA' like you. What is indisputable is that the CPU/GPU combination in the iPhone 4S is the fastest you can get in any phone, full stop, with or without software


That's not true at all what I said was please read the comments wherin the people who published the benchmarks explain that they firstly did not perform them and thus cannot validate them and secondly that the improvements are almost completely software related as evedinced by the fact that as I pointed out the tab with a vastly inferiotr CPU and GPU outperforms the Ipad 2 and the vast gains made between iphone 4 with IOS4 and IOS5. "With or without software" Except for the GPU part this isn't true.

quote:
You also addressed none of the quality points I made which were not all related to the performance. With regard to dismissing performance because of software, how ridiculous is that? Guess what, phones COME WITH SOFTWARE, and the performance that matters is THE PERFORMANCE ON SAID SOFTWARE. What use is a CPU which can run 1.2x faster when it can't actually achieve any performance game when you make it run software. That is ridiculous head in the sand arguing. What's more, even if the CPU in the iPhone 4S was slower, the GPU being SO much faster more than makes up for it, making the iPhone 4S the current clear performance king, especially given that the entire OS is hardware accelerated. I don't see any evidence from you whatsoever that this is not the case, in fact I don't see any evidence from you whatsoever showing any benchmarks in which any Samsung phone is faster than the iPhone 4S? There's a reason for this, of course


I didn't provide any evidence because again as I pointed out I don't believe it exists these are the only benchmarks I have seen on a site I trust, I have watched some youtube vids on comparisions but they always come out to baised on one side either the iphone or the galaxy, I trust anandtech to remain objective.

Also again pointed out in previos post these are browser benchmarks and DON'T REFLECT CPU PERFORMANCE AT ALL and are also pretty worthless since the iphone doesn't have 4g so even through the phone may have the potential to render pages faster it pulls info over the network to slowly to compete with the 4g phones, my freinds have showed me this I am on IOS 5 and live in japan.

Anyway lets do this

quote:
Samsungs is awful battery life


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKcS65YUBfE
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2121285/a...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/hardw...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395559,00.as...

quote:
problems with lag and slowdown during multi-tasking


Never heard of this all my freinds use androids I am the sole iphone user, most of them have galaxy s2's please provide some proper links ext.???????


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By testerguy on 10/31/2011 3:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Companies report the profits in quarters, that is the nature of the business it can't be helped that apple didn't launch a phone before the end of the quarter but don't forget that was their choice and the results are theirs. Also some people me included consider apple expensive I still use an iphone but would love it if prices were cheaper.


Again, you completely miss the point. Companies release profits in quarters, but they also release them annually. But the issue is not with looking at numbers quarterly, and the issue isn't even about Apple having not released a product in that time (which as you ridiculously point out, is their choice). The point is that you can't and SHOULDN'T (and nobody who has a clue) draws conclusions from one quarter, such as suggesting that it now means that Samsung sells more smartphones. Particularly, as is the case, that the best selling phone of all time, the iPhone 4S, was released in the very next quarter, and we already know what phenomenal sales it has achieved. Reporting quarterly figures is one thing, and that's fine (and all that any of your points defend). Reaching illogical conclusions from that small dataset is the failure, which completely escaped you. As I said, the gap in sales has probably already been made up with iPhone 4S sales.

quote:
Agreed apple has already sold more than 4 million 4s's but these are still the results for this quarter


It's beyond belief really that you don't understand the point. I'm not denying the figures, I'm denying the conclusion. The conclusion that Jason reached that Samsung is now the smartphone leader is illogical given the knowledge any tech enthusiast has about the development and release cycles Apple has.


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By matty123 on 10/31/2011 11:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, you completely miss the point. Companies release profits in quarters, but they also release them annually. But the issue is not with looking at numbers quarterly, and the issue isn't even about Apple having not released a product in that time (which as you ridiculously point out, is their choice). The point is that you can't and SHOULDN'T (and nobody who has a clue) draws conclusions from one quarter, such as suggesting that it now means that Samsung sells more smartphones. Particularly, as is the case, that the best selling phone of all time, the iPhone 4S, was released in the very next quarter, and we already know what phenomenal sales it has achieved. Reporting quarterly figures is one thing, and that's fine (and all that any of your points defend). Reaching illogical conclusions from that small dataset is the failure, which completely escaped you. As I said, the gap in sales has probably already been made up with iPhone 4S sales.


Quoted from the article "Leading the way was the company's telecommunications (phone) business, which reported selling 28 million smartphones in Q3 2011" As I understand it this means samsung outsold apple this quater please provide your understanding so I can understand your point???? I don't see the article saying samsung now leader of the smartphone business FOREVER I read it as saying this quarter samsung outsold apple what is incorrect in that??? I also don't see hom drawing the conslusions you are talking about samsung outsold apple this quarter thats the end of what he is saying in my opinion

quote:
It's beyond belief really that you don't understand the point. I'm not denying the figures, I'm denying the conclusion. The conclusion that Jason reached that Samsung is now the smartphone leader is illogical given the knowledge any tech enthusiast has about the development and release cycles Apple has.


Im not sure how you can say this considering apple broke that release cycle this year everyone was expecting the phone in june it wasn't out till october, I don't think predicting the future should be part of that knowledge, and again how is the conslusion wrong in the figures we have samsung outsold apple thats what I got from this article if you got more please explain it so I can understand what you mean.


RE: Amazing! Seriously!
By matty123 on 10/30/2011 3:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do realize that Samsung outsells Apple 5:1 in the cell phone market, don't you? Apple's market is severely limited as there is only so many people willing to buy overpriced, easily breakable items like an iPhone. It's really kinda sad to see Apple getting their asses handed to them by Samsung in the smartphone arena now too. I've got a big family here fella and lots of phones amongst the kids. The iPhone just can't compare to the current Samsung offerings, especially in overall quality.


The 5 to 1 figure as I understand it includes feature phones which apple don't sell, I could be wrong through


Looks like crime does pay!
By AnalogToDigitalKid on 10/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By MartyLK on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By tng on 10/29/2011 10:27:04 AM , Rating: 1
I know I will be downrated for this, but here goes....

I really don't like any of MartyLK's comments, but he may have a point here.

While working at and with Samsung in the Semiconductor field, I saw that Samsung had a unspoken CORPORATE directive to copy products when they could. Watched one of our competitors give Samsung the complete CAD drawings to their equipment and two months later, Samsung had duplicated that equipment and was working on a second. Much cheaper than buying it from a supplier.

They tried the same thing with our company and we told them flat out NO. They still buy from us, they just make copies of our competitors equipment now.....


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By matty123 on 10/29/2011 12:26:19 PM , Rating: 5
Wow what a troll, a simple google search would tell you samsung helped develop the WDCMA standard and 3G standards for mobile phones and have patents for them. {These patents are used in ALL mobile phones}

Apple is refusing to discontinue using these patents because they are covered by FRAND {Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms}. Yet they refuse to license what most people consider other FRAND patents back to samsung becuase they are scared of androids growth. I own an iphone and enjoy using it but some fanboi's must stop worshipping at the church of apple and the gospel of Jobs.

Also android was founded in 2003, four years before IOS was released to the market if they were copying IOS they wasted 4 years playing solitaire waiting for IOS to release, IOS is also built on unix not there own work, siri on wolfram alpha and vlingo, capitive touchscreens were out long before apple came around excfept for certain gestures {which shouldn't be patened} pinch to zoom apple innovated nothing...


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By MartyLK on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By matty123 on 10/29/2011 1:21:46 PM , Rating: 5
As I said stop worshipping at the church of apple if you think you're disproving me by offering up defamities either you are a troll or your a jerk.

I am well aware IOS came out in 2007, if you had actually read my post you may have noted that I querried the logic of the android development team paying it's staff for 4 years {2003-2007} just so that they could copy IOS. And what about my other points is this the only rebuttal you can offer swear words and something I had already pointed out in my post.?????

As I said I own apple products and they are quite good if terrible value for money but people like you give apple fans a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bad name.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By MartyLK on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By matty123 on 10/29/2011 1:54:18 PM , Rating: 3
DUDE CANT YOu READ I HAVE POINTED OUT IN BOTH THE POSTS ABOVE I HAVE AN IPHONE, I just find people like you distort the truth for your own ends and arguments. I use apple products and they are good but why arn't you challening the fact that apple is using technology samsung developed for cellphones that make the 3g and WCDMA standards possible. These technologies are also used in apple smartphones and if it wasn't for these technologies there would be no smartphones.

A lot of apple fans have been brainwashed by the lies that they have told I used to be aswel until I done some research I guess you havn't yet


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By MartyLK on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By matty123 on 10/29/2011 2:20:28 PM , Rating: 3
You really need to cut down on profanities using them doesn't help your case at all and makes you seem quite irrational.

Anyway what does the samsung tech have to do with google, I am not quite sure I get your argument here????? It's true that motorola developed the first cellphone but that ran on the 1G band {analogue}, 2G phones were the first digital phones and 3G {Developed by samsung} is what makes smartphones possible, 3G makes it possible to stream massive amounts of data across the network an absolute requirment for smartphones, im not quite sure how you can see this as a small thing considering it's the reason the iphone exists...

As for the slide to unlock debacle again do some research, a dutch court already threw the patent out in europe because it was proved there was proir art. another company had already used that feature before. I used to have windows mobile 6 phone which done exactly the same thing.

This is ecactly what I mean by worshipping at the church of apple you are so blinded to the apple spin on things you disregard everything else, a simple google search would have given you all the information I have pointed out in my post.

I love my iphone but I won't spread lies about the competion thats pathetic and shows a losers straergy.

Links: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/dutch-judg...


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By Solandri on 10/29/2011 5:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
A good contrast to Apple's slide to unlock patent is Android's pulling down the notification drawer to enlarge it. The gesture is a drag, just like slide to unlock, only the function is different. It's so obvious Google never bothered trying to patent it. Apple copied it.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By matty123 on 10/29/2011 5:35:55 PM , Rating: 3
I know the notification bar is a blatant copy of the androids notice bar, thats my point of course android has got a few ideas from IOS and IOS has got a few idea's from android, I don't think this is a bad thing. I often wonder what the fanboi's and fandroids will do when their respective operating system wins and there is no competition or innovation anymore.

Even through I use an iphone I have rooted for android all these years and now I am rooting for win 7.5, more competition is only good for us the consumers. It will only be bad for us the day there is only one OS to choose from and no competition for that platform.

That is one thing I really like about google and their efforts, they don't patent everything, to be honest I am not sure if they are allowed to considering it's open source but either we should scrap the ridicolous patent system or we should make all patents available under FRAND for a price, I find it quite unfair that certain patents are FRAND and others not it seems absurd.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By DFranch on 10/29/2011 3:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
Like Apple "innovated" when developing the Mac. I seem to recall Apple stole the GUI from Xerox, along with the mouse. But that is ok because Apple was the one stealing.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By drycrust3 on 10/29/2011 2:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... You really believe you're the world's gift, don't you? ...

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a scientific forum, so it would be nice if you tried to maintain the standards normally expected in that environment. One of those standards is that anyone is entitled to present an argument based on facts, and another is that one should try to refrain unnecessary venting of emotions, especially with lots of profanity and use of derogatory terms.
We are very privileged to have monitors that give us a lot of freedom to say a lot of things on this website, and your tirades could affect that. I doubt that the editors at Anandtech will consider discussing the origins and history of iOS and Android as necessitating the use of words that could create legal problems for them, so don't be surprised if your login is suspended.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By MartyLK on 10/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By matty123 on 10/30/2011 3:39:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Apologies for saying all this bad language. It's inconsistent with a proper perspective and morality.


Thanx appreciate this, I love debating on these forums and I think everyone's points should be presented and debated but there is no reason for us to be ugly.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By testerguy on 10/31/2011 4:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple is refusing to discontinue using these patents because they are covered by FRAND {Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms}. Yet they refuse to license what most people consider other FRAND patents back to samsung


Wow you're really a one-stop logical fail aren't you.

What you meant to say was that the Samsung patents have been proven to be FRAND and thus Apple has every right to refuse to discontinue using them.

What you also meant to say when you said 'most people consider' is that it's not been legally proven at all. Strangely enough, the legal system doesn't work on your opinion. Talk about manipulating reality?

quote:
Also android was founded in 2003, four years before IOS was released to the market if they were copying IOS they wasted 4 years playing solitaire waiting for IOS to release, IOS is also built on unix not there own work, siri on wolfram alpha and vlingo, capitive touchscreens were out long before apple came around excfept for certain gestures {which shouldn't be patened} pinch to zoom apple innovated nothing...


When something did or did not start (and by the way, this 2003 founding date is just a formation of a company, not necessarily starting development) does not mean at all that a company can't later on copy other ideas. Android came out over a year after iOS, and REGARDLESS of when they started, and REGARDLESS of how much progress they made before that time, that gave them PLENTY of time to copy. And if you compare the Android which was released to the early previews, you can clearly see the transformation during that time bringing Android closer to iOS. To claim Apple innovated nothing just underlines your complete anti-Apple bias and I suspect you claim you own an iPhone just because you think it'll mask your blatant Apple-hatred just that little bit. Well guess what, it doesn't.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By matty123 on 10/31/2011 12:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
I am sorry if my english confused you but if you had read all my posts you may have realised that what I wanted isn't what you decided I wanted to say. I pointed out in a later post that I find it ridicolous that certain patents are covered by FRAND and others not and that the best solution would be a rework of the ridicolous american patent system or a compulsory license agreement for all patents.

I can't see how anyone can disagree with the fact that apple had gotten some very ridicolous patents http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/dutch-judg... ecspecially in the USA.

Wheter you accept it or not apple is harming innovation by using others work even if the patents are covered by FRAND and then refusing to license their work back. Also all that FRAND means is that the work is to important to not be allowed to be used by other manufactures yet somehow apple seem to have convinced at least the german court that the rectangle is not needed in design. Link :http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Crushes+Samsung+in+...

Quoted from article: "Ultimately, this ruling seems to indicate that Apple has sole rights to make ~10-inch tablets in Germany. While a competitor in theory could make a rival design, it would have to:

a) Have an abundance of physical buttons on the face

b) Be substantially thicker or heavier than the iPad

c) Not be a rectangle (e.g. a circular tablet)"

If you don't think this is bad for the industry then I think you are crazy or too obsessed with apple.

quote:
Apple bias and I suspect you claim you own an iPhone just because you think it'll mask your blatant Apple-hatred just that little bit. Well guess what, it doesn't.


If you ever come to japan I can show you but otherwise I can't really prove it but equally I could argue that you work for apple and are getting paid by them to put out good PR it's not like you could disprove me either so it's quite lame to bring it up.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By drycrust3 on 10/29/2011 1:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Samsung has very little cost investment in the Android phones and use Apple as their R&D.

Really? Google is not the sole financier behind Android, rather it is financed by the Open Handset Alliance, which has 34 member corporations and companies, some of which are Samsung, Google, Vodafone, Sprint, T-Mobile, HTC, LG, Huawei, Sony, Motorola, Garmin, Acer, Dell, and ebay. I would suspect membership of this alliance doesn't come cheap (especially if you are selling handsets by the millions), which would be a motivating reason why companies such as Samsung, Huawei, HTC, and LG (and obviously Motorola) have Android handsets.
The alliance was formed in November 2007. Google got Android when it purchased Android Inc in 2005.

If you bothered to read some of Apple's patent applications you would notice they reference a ton of similar patents that belong to other companies, e.g. their Australian multitouch patent looks "very similar" to an American patent that belongs to Logitech. Even the term "iOS" belongs to Cisco and Apple pay them to use it. If you followed the family tree of iOS you would find that Jobs took the NeXTSTEP OS with him when he left NeXTSTEP and rejoined Apple, and that it was the basis of OS X, which was supposedly the operating system on the early iPhones. NeXTSTEP was derived from opensource software and Unix. I think there is a lot more copying done by Apple than you would have us believe.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By MartyLK on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/29/2011 3:29:52 PM , Rating: 3
You are a moron...plain and simple


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By drycrust3 on 10/29/2011 8:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you bothered to actually look at the truth you would see that Mac OS is completely and totally Apple work.


Quote from Wikipedia's article on iOS (History section):
"At first, Apple marketing literature did not specify a separate name for the operating system, stating simply that the "iPhone runs OS X".[6]" (The "[6]" indicates they got that information from a reliable source).
Quote from Wikipedia's article on the history of OSX:
"Mac OS X is based upon the Mach kernel.[13] Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in NeXTSTEP, the core of Mac OS X. NeXTSTEP was the object-oriented operating system developed by Steve Jobs' company NeXT after he left Apple in 1985.[14] ". Again, the [13] and [14] indicate the information is from a reliable source.
As you can see, I did actually bother to find out the truth.


RE: Looks like crime does pay!
By rudy on 10/30/2011 7:57:44 PM , Rating: 1
Is apple any better they have never in the history of computing come up with a single idea themself. All they do is copy others ideas and use their advertising and name to sell it. Big money lets you get away with that. Also no offense to idiots but if you think you can outsource every single aspect of your company and it just collect lots of profits you will find that only works in the short term. The USA outsourced to Japan now we have almost nothing left in computing besides making CPUs. Then japan outsourced to Korea and Tiawan, those 2 countries are now crushing Japanese companies. Finally Korea and Tiawan outsource to China and guess what now they are taking over everything.

When are people going to learn that outsourcing will never work out in the end.


Why no actual official sales figure?
By Tony Swash on 10/28/11, Rating: -1
By its tom hanks on 10/28/2011 7:35:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I wonder which business model will turn out to be the most successful in the long run?

duh... the same business model that brought mac os to the top of the w.... wait, wait, no, not that business model... maybe the business model that's allowing iOS to dominate the mobile mark.... wait, wait, not that business model... what were you saying?


RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By ipay on 10/28/2011 7:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus of course Samsung sold more phones, apparently, but made less profit. That's interesting. A bit like Amazon saw revenues sharply up and profit sharply down. Apple by contrast seems to be able to grow sales at a fairly steady 100% growth rate per annum and still retain some of the highest rates of profit in the business. I wonder which business model will turn out to be the most successful in the long run?

It's nothing new, everyone knows Apple has huge markups on their phones compared to the competition. It's the same with their computer division, they have higher profit per machine than companies like Dell/HP that rely on mass sales.


RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By MartyLK on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By themaster08 on 10/29/2011 3:41:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
They do all the R&D on their products and code all of their software.
They sure do. The SRI International Artificial Intelligence Center had absolutely no involvement with the R&D of Siri.

That must be why Apple is Samsung's biggest customer. Whose R&D went into many of the iPhone's internals? I think you'll find that's Samsung.

quote:
iOS was coded by Apple from the ground up.
Really? Apple developed FreeBSD? Thanks for clearing that up.

quote:
They have no R&D investment in coding a mobile OS.
Bada.

quote:
And very little in designing their phones because they use the iPhone as their copying material.
Absolutely. That's why products such as the Galaxy Nexus have 3.5" screens, glass backs, a metal outer rim, none-changable battery, non-expandable memory, one front-facing button.... Oh wait...

quote:
That is one of the highest costs of a smartphone and Samsung gets it completely free from Google.
There's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.


RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By MartyLK on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
By Solandri on 10/29/2011 5:39:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You will pull one teeny, tiny example of software Apple didn't create...they did refine it, though...and try to make it look like YOU have all the correct answers and that God, himself, cannot show you up.

It's not a tiny example. OSX is basically BSD Unix. I can pop open a command prompt and do practically anything I normally do under Unix. That's how I troubleshoot my friends' Macbooks. I don't know where all the settings, diagnostics, and logs are hidden in OSX, but I do know where to find them in Unix. What you know as OSX is just a very good shell sitting on top hiding all the unix-ness of it. It was the main reason I was going to switch to a Mac for my laptop a few years back - I'm a unix guy at heart, I just tolerate Windows. But then Apple turned evil.

quote:
Apple put out all of the money for their phone and phone system. Samsung and the others ripped Apple off of all the technology used in the iPhone. Look it up, God, and see.

A huge chunk of iOS is copied from previous phone OSes and other apps. The notification bar, the number of bars of connectivity, the green phone icon to place a call*, the battery meter, the charge icon, envelope icon for email, talk bubble for text, the wifi connectivity icon, etc.

It's just that prior to Apple, everyone thought all this stuff was so simple and obvious that the USPTO would never grant a patent or trademark for it. So when Apple copied it en masse in the iPhone, they never raised a fuss. (When Apple copied Android's pull-down notification drawer, Google still didn't raise a fuss.) Then Apple showed the industry that the USPTO will grant patents on stupidly obvious stuff. I'm simultaneously horrified at how much this will slow down technological progress, and gleeful that this will increase the momentum for patent reform.

*Yes, the silly green phone icon Apple fans keep bashing Samsung over actually belongs to Google now. It was used on one of Motorola's early brick cell phones (circa 1992).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15...
http://home.arcor.de/tourist16/Motorola3200-5990-2...


By Cheesew1z69 on 10/29/2011 10:28:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
They use Apple as their R&D by copying the iPhone
You are another idiot, right up there with Tony WashedUp and Pricks.


RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By chris2618 on 10/28/2011 7:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
The numbers being used are from "Strategy Analytics" not apple not samsung not mircosoft. All the numbers used a shipments therefore its a fair comparison.

The reason why apple can give actually numbers is the fact you needed to always activate it whereas with other phones you don't.

With regard to apple making a profit its simple they have very high margins and due to them being a fashion house people just buy it.


RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By Tony Swash on 10/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By Boze on 10/29/2011 12:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, I didn't believe Reclaimer77 when he said that you would defend Apple even on articles were no defense is necessary, all because you were dumb enough to buy into Apple stock 20 years ago or some such nonsense...

He was right.

By the way, I hate to break this down for you, BUT ...

If you had bought 1000 shares of Microsoft in 1987 versus 1000 shares of Apple in 1987, right now you'd have $7,776,000 worth of Microsoft shares and only $3,230,000 worth of Apple shares.

So what was it you were saying about which business model is best...?


By Boze on 10/29/2011 12:29:27 AM , Rating: 4
Actually, I'll go ahead and write your post for you.

"APPLE PROFITS ARE ENORMOUS. APPLE HAS THE HIGHEST MARKET CAPITALIZATION OF ANY COMPANY TO EVER EXIST ON PLANET EARTH! I MUST VALIDATE MY DECISION (even though I could have invested in fucking Walgreen's in 1987 and made more money)!"

There, now you don't even have to post.


RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By chris2618 on 10/29/2011 4:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
"Why don't Samsung just release the figures for phones shipped then? They must know how many phones they shipped?"
They do its just to let your know as you didn't seem to know that the source for the data was a third party.

Also what have you quoted i don't remember every saying that.

"That's right, the one that, after 20 years of Apple apparently 'losing' the PC wars, makes Apple the most successful computer company on the planet. By units shipped and by profits made and by annual growth in sales. Apple are wiping the floor with the other PC makers with a strategy that apparently failed 20 years ago"

"'losing' the PC wars,"
well they did lose the PC war by their own admission macs aren't pc


RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By Tony Swash on 10/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Why no actual official sales figure?
By chris2618 on 10/29/2011 10:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
I always find it interested that anyone against apple is seen as an android fanboi. I'm just here to point out your errors

You say that you said

"As I said some unofficial and unverified sales figures show Samsung selling more handsets than Apple"

you didn't you said that

"This story is all based on estimates, not actuals. Apple, by way of contrast, always gives figures for actual Phones sold"

Which is misleading as you are saying that apples phone sold where used in the figures. when these figures aren't based on that

"All I know is that Apple sells more computing devices than any other company on the planet - by far. "

Firstly you need to define what you mean by computing device

Secondly are you talking about a this year or last year or 10 years ago

finally i think you are alluding to articles that say they have sold more portable computing devices in October-december quarter of last year.


By rudy on 10/30/2011 8:29:56 PM , Rating: 1
All this ranting about what could be just different business models. How would samsung know exactly how many phones they sell?

google has activation info, samsung sells to thousands of outlets apple only a handful. So my point is that for samsung they would probably vastly underestimate if they reported units sold because quite frankly they dont know. But what they do know is how many units they shipped. And while that could be totally wrong for a new emerging company like HP with webOS it is probably pretty accurate for a well seasoned player like samsung. In my family sasmung has the most phones and I see them everywhere as well as HTC so I am not really surprised nor do I think it is unreasonable.

All the nay sayer complained when google did activations they said it was artificially high because it included tablets and non phone mp3 players. But guess what it was not long after that that Android officially took over just about every statistic.


By DeluxeTea on 11/1/2011 11:42:20 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry to burst your bubble Tony, but Apple considers shipped units as already sold.

From Apple's SEC 10K filing (Part II > Item 7 > Page 26 - Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates > Revenue recognition):

"Net sales consist primarily of revenue from the sale of hardware, software, digital content and applications, peripherals, and service and support contracts. The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred. For most of the Company’s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped. For online sales to individuals, for some sales to education customers in the U.S., and for certain other sales, the Company defers recognition of revenue until the customer receives the product because the Company retains a portion of the risk of loss on these sales during transit."


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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