Print 103 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on May 31 at 10:39 PM

  (Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech LLC)
Steve Jobs gets his final wish, companies appear ready to fight to the death in court

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) have made it clear that they're over cooperating and are gearing up for total war.

I. Samsung and Apple's Settlement Talks Collapse

According to a report by The Korea Times, the phone industry's two largest players, and two of the world's largest intellectual property owners, walked away from the settlement table despite the efforts of Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero to encourage their chief executives to work out a compromise.  With settlement talks failed the "nuclear war" will begin with Apple's trial, which is scheduled for July 30.

For Apple and Samsung the cost of battle may be enormous.  Both companies could see their products banned, at least temporarily in certain regions.  Samsung may be forced to abandon billions in chipmaking revenue it takes in from Apple on a yearly basis.

And Apple may be forced to find a new supplier for its smartphone CPUs.  With past trials reportedly not going well, that could mean inferior product and fewer upgrades for the iPhone.

Apple CEO Tim Cook sounded dejected in his company's last financial report, commenting, "I've always hated litigation and I continue to hate it we just want people to invent their own stuff."

Samsung v. Apple
Whoever wins in Samsung and Apple's full-blown court war could have a monopoly on the mobile market. [Image Source: The Telegraph]

But despite the seemingly promising signs early this month of a bilateral agreement to cut the number of patents asserted in the companies' lawsuits against each other, the pair could not reach a cross-licensing agreement, as both handset makers believed the other should be paying it licensing fees.

With Apple scooping up large LCD screens for its iPhone 5 (Samsung is the world's largest display manufacturer), the two companies' mutual business has reportedly ballooned to $12B USD for 2012 (up from $8B USD in 2011), even as the pair's public relationship has appeared to deteriorate drastically.

II. Steve Jobs Gets His Wish -- Full Blown "Nuclear" War With Samsung

But ultimately the two companies' leadership seem to believe they stand more to gain by destroying each other, versus working together.  

Samsung current has a larger slice of the smartphone market -- 29.1 percent compared to Apple's 24.2 percent in Q1 2012.  But Samsung trails Apple in profit, making just $4.45B USD in profit, compared to Apple's $11.6B USD haul.

Samsung girls
Samsung's attractive models beat out Apple in unit sales. [Image Source: Shootspeak]

Both companies control close to two-thirds of sales and 99 percent of mobile profits, and their cases are built on questionable legal foundations from a technical perspective.  Samsung is suing Apple mostly based on wireless standards patents.  But Samsung should be obligated to license those patents to Apple under the "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) rules that govern standards patents.

Samsung is currently under investigation for its questionable discrimination of Apple licensing-wise.

Apple on the other hand, may have a bit of a case against the original Galaxy S, which narrowly mimicked the iPhone 3GS in case appearance and GUI (much more than any other Android).  

iPhone 3GS v. Galaxy S
(Click to enlarge) 
Samsung's TouchWiz version on the Galaxy S (left) presented a near identical interface, visually, to the iPhone 3GS (right). [Image Sources: Slashgear (left); Ubergizmo (right)]

But Apple's case becomes much more tenuous when you consider that Samsung’s newer handsets bear far less similarity in case appearance or GUI to Apple's new handsets.  
Still patent disputes are often less about technical merits and more about the persuasive power of a company's pricey legal team.  In that case, “Apple v. Samsung” will be fought by lawyers when it goes to trial this summer in U.S. federal court.

But one thing is certain; the collapse of settlement talks would have greatly pleased the late Apple founder Steve P. Jobs, even if his company ends up losing this war.  He vowed near his time of death to send Apple into full war mode and destroy Android at any cost -- or perish trying.

Steve Jobs
Steven P. Jobs' dying wish of "thermonuclear war" with Android has been fulfilled.

He commented, "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

Well, that "nuclear" war is now almost upon us.

Source: The Korea Times

Comments     Threshold

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

Over before it began?
By Iketh on 5/24/2012 3:38:59 PM , Rating: 5
But Jobs has already breathed his last breath... i don't understand...

RE: Over before it began?
By retrospooty on 5/24/2012 3:49:54 PM , Rating: 4
meh... It was teh dying rant of a madman, so it gets press on tech sites, but it wont change a damn thing.

RE: Over before it began?
By michael2k on 5/25/2012 9:52:49 AM , Rating: 3
Excepting that it already has; forced HTC and Samsung to modify their products, gotten some ITC bans here and there (including Apple and Microsoft products), gotten some to license MS patents (which probably contain some "protection" against Apple), etc.

RE: Over before it began?
By retrospooty on 5/25/2012 11:05:19 AM , Rating: 2
minutia... It wont change the fact that Android is conquering the market. Already its way outselling IOS and that is with the lackluster Android 2.x OS. Once Android 4 devices are prevalent it will only get larger.

RE: Over before it began?
By michael2k on 5/25/2012 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 3
iOS has continued to grow despite Android's 2.3/4.0 release. A year ago it was 18%, today it is 23%

Android might get the larger share of the market but they won't be able to conquer the market until Apple's share starts shrinking. There's no indication that is inevitable, especially if Apple continues to push into China and lower the price of iPhones.

RE: Over before it began?
By retrospooty on 5/26/2012 4:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
I never used the word "conquer" or inferred anything like it. I am just saying Android is dominating based on sales of the lackluster Android 2.3. Android 4 is finally a really good OS and Android will continue to dominate the market even more so now... Apple's IOS is looking really old and tired when compared to Android 4 and Windows phone 7.5.

RE: Over before it began?
By semiconshawn on 5/26/2012 5:26:32 PM , Rating: 3
It wont change the fact that Android is conquering the market


RE: Over before it began?
By retrospooty on 5/26/2012 7:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
doh... meant to add "literally". Conquer would be to take it over. Whatever, It the biggest and also growing that fastest and that is with a crummy version 2.x. With 4.0 it's all the better.

RE: Over before it began?
By geddarkstorm on 5/24/2012 3:50:45 PM , Rating: 5
He leads Apple on, from beyond the grave. This should definitely be part of the Steve Jobs movie. I'd love to see a cameo by the Ghost Busters at the end.

RE: Over before it began?
By Flunk on 5/24/2012 4:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the Mythbusters already did a show about Jobs. Maybe they can do the Ghostbusting too.

RE: Over before it began?
By AnnihilatorX on 5/24/2012 6:07:32 PM , Rating: 1
You don't understand

Now Almighty Job's in heaven, he will be able to oversee this war with divine intervention and guide us lambs to our eternal glory.

RE: Over before it began?
By HrilL on 5/24/2012 6:55:59 PM , Rating: 5
While I understand the sarcasm in most of your post the part of Jobs being in heaven I take issue with. He was a greedy person that stole more ideas and tech then anyone in the industry. He is surely rotting in hell for all the wrongs he has done. Apple has lead the way with stealing technology since it was founded. They've never invited anything on their own.

RE: Over before it began?
By spread on 5/24/12, Rating: 0
RE: Over before it began?
By Tony Swash on 5/24/12, Rating: -1
RE: Over before it began?
By zerocks on 5/24/2012 9:31:43 PM , Rating: 4
The implication of what you are saying is that Apple has managed to enter, disrupt and economically dominate three existing mature markets in the last decade by merely copying what everyone else was already doing. That's some trick :)

That's exactly what actually happened, where the hell have you been?

RE: Over before it began?
By slunkius on 5/25/12, Rating: 0
RE: Over before it began?
By bupkus on 5/25/2012 2:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
He just doesn't have a Steve Wozniak to befriend then bully into servitude while representing himself as the genius behind the Apple I.
By 1971, one year after enrolling, Wozniak withdrew from the University of California, Berkeley and developed the computer that eventually made him famous. By himself he designed the hardware, circuit board designs, and operating system for the Apple I.


RE: Over before it began?
By topkill on 5/25/2012 3:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that's like saying "people make lots of money selling drugs or pimping out why don't you do that and get rich too?"

Because, some of us don't like to make money by wrecking other people's lives. I assume you're just being a smartass, but seriously, that is flawed logic.

RE: Over before it began?
By TheJian on 5/26/2012 11:15:36 PM , Rating: 1
That might be worth reading if I actually believed they created most of that stuff FIRST. No, I didn't say were first to patent it. I said if they CREATED it first. I don't believe you should be able to patent anything someone else has already done. There should always be a way for a company to approach the company that came up with the idea and buy it or do some deal with the originator to bring the product to market. But what Apple is doing is ripping off others and calling it their own, then complaining when someone basically does the exact thing to them.

You really can't argue that Apple has been ripping people off when Steve himself openly claims they have been the most prolific thieves of the century, perhaps EVER!

Note I admit apple is very smart and runs a great business. They have great products too. They have great management and have mastered the art of lying better than any other company from what I can see (and I've been in IT for 15yrs, pc biz for 1/2 that, note all companies lie, just some far worse). But that doesn't make what they're doing good, or say anything good about their ethics. Which I'm not sure if they have any at all at this point.

They are making a complete mockery of the patent system. Also, they should NEVER have been allowed to get half of these asinine patents which propelled them into this 100bil cash company. Is the patent office completely ASLEEP? They should be fired (whoever let these through) and the patents revoked and money gotten with those patents returned to anyone who paid on these. Without them, nobody would have caved to licensing and they'd be just better than they were when ipods were king (which are no longer raising the bottom line). They've amassed 95% of their 100bil since the iphone debut. A good portion of that is appstore, macs etc. But how much of it could have continued to expand without iphone getting traction which propelled appstore and everything else (no different than windows is used to propel everything MS tries to push)? I doubt they'd be anywhere near 25bil today without this nonsense from our patent office.

There's not really a trick here. Just an abuse that is being ALLOWED by our patent office. I really can't understand how they're letting this through without just being BOUGHT off and we haven't found out how yet. Heck, companies like ATT just come out and SAY they're going to BUY our govt off...LOL. SERIOUSLY? In voice and print you say that, straight from the CEO etc? HUGE TITANIUM BALLS on these companies today. Forty years ago there wouldn't be a discussion of whether to break them up or not, it would just be a question of how many pieces do we want them to be in? None of the patents Apple is suing over currently would have passed even 20yrs ago if you ask me (maybe 30, but there's a point where what I'm saying is TOTALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY true - their patents would have been laughed out of court). You can only make a phone, computer, tablet so many different ways. I'd argue that all cellphones today look the same for the most part (aside from having a keyboard or not), with very little differences between them. They're all shooting for super tiny and light, which means by default you're going to end up with a lot of stuff that will be pretty much the same.

When we coded a solution to a problem in Adv Pascal (years ago in HS/1st yr college), there were only a few correct ways to do the program. You couldn't tell half the class they cheated when there may be only 1-2 ways to code the problem. There were literally a good 50% on each side, or in some cases only ONE answer. You might have an X as a variable when I use A etc, but essentially we wrote the same crap no matter what. A few had useless lines of code here and there, but by and large they were dupes of each other. They were much smaller programs than today's OS etc, but you get the point.

How many different ways can you make a phone where everyone has the same goals? Smaller, faster, lighter, same screen's used across many models, same cpu's, memory etc. We all know green means go, red stop etc. I expect a green power button, and a red off button no matter what the product is...LOL. I would NEVER expect to see a patent over these. But I'm starting to wonder if I should try to patent breathing or some other stupid thing we all do. Can I trademark breathing through any air holding device(lungs?) with the goal of survival? $1/hr sounds good? I know you all have lungs, but Apple didn't patent that yet so sorry suckers. If I really don't like you I'll sue for $5-15/lic per lung...ROFL (you can donate one if you don't want to pay for the multi-lung lic...LOL). IF only to cause someone to go WTF? Why did you come here with this crap? Umm, because of all the crap you let companies like apple have that are completely generic in nature, or already done by a bunch of others first; just not patented because back then it would NEVER have made it through.

RE: Over before it began?
By Tony Swash on 5/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Over before it began?
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/27/2012 10:10:35 AM , Rating: 2
This is what he said...

“Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas .”

Can't YOU get YOUR facts straight? Oh, that's right, it's YOU, if it doesn't suit YOUR agenda, you won't post it. And YOU will never believe that SJ could POSSIBLY steals others ideas.

All kinds of posts on the net with you trashing Google and praising Apple....

Really, how much does Apple pay you to troll sites? It must be a good size amount eh?

RE: Over before it began?
By AnnihilatorX on 5/25/2012 4:25:20 AM , Rating: 4
I still remember the famous interview of young Jobs saying the best innovation come from (sic: copying) people's ideas

RE: Over before it began?
By GotThumbs on 5/29/2012 2:09:50 PM , Rating: 2

Jobs is NOT in heaven.

The man stole/withheld half of a $5,000 bonus in 1979 from his good "friend" Steve Wozniak...who helped earn the bonus by doing Jobs job. Steve Jobs was an egotistic thief/salesman.

No respect for the man and karma kicked his A$$.

RE: Over before it began?
By superstition on 5/31/2012 10:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, "karma" made him extremely wealthy, powerful, influential, and all that. It even hot him a replacement liver despite being way down on the list.

No, what killed him was his reliance on "alternative" medicine.

It's mind-boggling how people continue to attribute some sort of divine influence to people's circumstances, when the evidence is overwhelming. There is no karma and there is no old man up on a cloud pulling strings.

RE: Over before it began?
By Iketh on 5/24/12, Rating: -1
By retrospooty on 5/24/2012 3:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
All these lawsuits are getting old. All most people care about is getting the phone they want. Regardless of Apple's fantasies, we can all get Android phones and always will. Meanwhile the Android juggernaut marches on extending its lead. This trend will continue regardless of these petty lawsuits.

"Out of the 152.3 million smartphones shipped during the first three months of 2012, Android-powered ones had a market share of 59% while iOS phones had 23% of the share. Around this time last year, both operating systems only had a total market share of 54%."

"Despite being many companies' choice for smartphones, the BlackBerry OS continued its decline in marketshare, going down to 6.4% from 13.6%. Last year, RIM shipped about 13.8 million units and saw that number drop to 9.7 million units this year. "

RE: Yawn...
By Pirks on 5/24/12, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn...
By Tony Swash on 5/24/12, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2012 8:40:03 PM , Rating: 4
As an end user I don't care who's making money from what. I only care about my own experience.

Why Apple people seem to jizz all over themselves over how much Apple and developers make off of them is stupid. What's it matter to you?

I guess that's rhetorical because you're obviously financially invested in Apple's success.

Remind me - minus all those things why is more units sold a good thing?

Because it's that many more people who aren't buying Apple. Always a good thing.

RE: Yawn...
By nolisi on 5/25/2012 1:44:45 AM , Rating: 3
Wow, you get a few things right, but there's still a whole lot of wrong to sift through. Let's deal with the wrong:

a) Apple doesn't really work with OEMs. If anything, they try to cannibalize as much of the market as they can. They're in the practice of building a monopoly, if you haven't noticed. Almost every move they make is to slowly absorb and monopolized by every conceivable piece of their product offering (siri, hardware, exclusion of apps, media). Jobs even tried to cut carriers out of the equation. At some point, Apple will exclude or absorb any competition/collaborators within its ecosystem.

b) This is a valid existing stat, but there's a few reasons why this is and ultimately it may not be a good thing:
1) Apple users on the whole are less likely to be tech saavy, and therefore are unaware of software which is free that may function as well or better than paid software (I've experinced this on my iPad, vs my T-Mobile G2)
2) The closed nature of Apple's ecosystem makes free software overall less available, whether it's valid and useable software (i.e. Firefox) or otherwise.
3) This stat is likely to change as Android's users base is larger, and it has shown to be downloadng more overall Apps than Apple's base

c) Having more software doesn't make it more useable or better when you're lacking key software through a closed ecosystem. I'd love to have Firefox or Chrome on my iPad.

d) Outright lie. I can't add an SD card to my iPad. Android is far more peripheral friendly and uses far more open standards than iPhone/iPad. Apple is rejecting a whole market of third party peripherals.

e) Sure, they've got a lot content.

And now we come to our educational portion of my post. Where I drop some knowledge on you that you either completely fail to realize, or completely ignore.

1) Carriers hate Apple and spend far more to artificially subsidize the platform, for now. As Androids (and other platforms) popularity grows and as more users begin to recognize the limitations iOS artificialy imposes, Apple will be forced to change practices when carriers realize they don't need to put up with Apple's BS. This will likely happen at some point and will impact how much Apple makes off of its devices.

2) Android is a superior value proposition to the end user, hands down. As an open platform with options and versatility both in hardware and in software, Android offers end users value where Apple focuses on its own + developer value. It is shown by Androids far superior marketshare numbers over iPhone.

You're probably going to bring up the idea of OEMs not making (much) money off of Android. But this ignores two things:
1) It is not proven that Android is the direct cause. In fact, many phone manufacturers haven't had a viable alternative as iOS is closed and Microsofts platform is immature and has had less time on the market. Given that Android manufacturers are in competition with eachother as well as competing platforms, it is an unfortunate reality that some Android OEMs are cannibalizing others sales by virtue of having an open market. But this is a reality of *any* competition and is a good thing because of my next point...

2) By virtue of being a lower cost, open and competitive platform, the value proposition is higher to carriers and users alike. Two very important parts of the equation that you always ignore when making your argument in favor of developers and Apples profits- in fact, I would suggest that overall value proposition to the user is a far more compelling argument than "Apple makes a lot of money."

3) Lastly, apple makes a lot of money, yes, but in order to do this, it must take substantial value from carriers and customers. Without change, this will likely prove itself to be unsustainable long term with competition (Microsoft taught Apple this lesson previously). Fortunately for Apple, as they figured out integration in the mobile market and do seem to learn as they are making lower cost versions of their products (which you have maintained that they don't do).


RE: Yawn...
By Tony Swash on 5/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn...
By Tony Swash on 5/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn...
By retrospooty on 5/25/2012 8:34:31 AM , Rating: 4
"In the above comment the sentence in the fourth paragraph ... [insert correction]"

LOL. You actually think anyone gets to the 4'th paragraph of your posts? Now THAT is funny.

RE: Yawn...
By Tony Swash on 5/25/12, Rating: 0
RE: Yawn...
By retrospooty on 5/25/2012 10:20:00 AM , Rating: 1
No Tony, the issue is all anyone sees when they read your posts is "Blah Blah [skew towards Apple regardless of the subject] blah blah" It could be one sentence or these lengthy novellas , but no-one cares because you cant be objective about anything. You do often have some good points and the reasoning behind those points are clearly laid out, but the constant slant toward Apple invalidates anything valid that you have to say. I know your bright enough to get that point, so just let it sink in for a while...

If you can just once, do these 4 things I could begin to take you seriously... Say something truthful and negative about Apples business practices. Say something truthful and negative about Apples products. Say something truthful and positive about Googles business practices. Say something truthful and positive about Android products.

Go for it... I dare ya!

RE: Yawn...
By retrospooty on 5/25/2012 4:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
tony: [crickets]

that's exactly what I thought you'd say. When confronted by logic you always fade away with no response. This way you can act like it never happened and continue to spam onward to the next article. Yes tony, we all notice that too.

RE: Yawn...
By Tony Swash on 5/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn...
By Iketh on 5/25/2012 4:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you never got rediculed and exposed, you'd grow a following of stupids.

RE: Yawn...
By retrospooty on 5/25/2012 4:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
Because your all over every smartphone article on this board spouting your disinformation... As much as you think it's your duty to defend every move Apple makes and every product they create, I think its my duty to call you on your twisited words. The fact is Tony, your debate skills are FAR greater than the platform you champion.

I repeat... If you can just once, do these 4 things I could begin to take you seriously... Say something truthful and negative about Apples business practices. Say something truthful and negative about Apples products. Say something truthful and positive about Googles business practices. Say something truthful and positive about Android products.

RE: Yawn...
By nolisi on 5/25/2012 1:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, this was your question:

It is funny isn't it. Apparently Android devices selling more than iOS devices is good for some reason that doesn't involve:

Now I assumed you understood economics, but I'll break it down.

More units sold=lower prices=better value proposition for users/carriers. Having the greater market share also means you have control over the direction of the market. And you're beginning to see Androids effect on the direction of the market- Apple has started to follow Android's lead by integrating features that Android has had (in some cases) for years prior to iOS and creating products that can compete with Android's value proposition (downmarket) to recapture market share.

Greater competition is ultimately good for the market and end users.

none of the handset makers seem to be be able to make any profit doing so, with the exception of Samsung,

Why do you seem to think this has anything to do with Android, please provide proof instead of supposition. It is more evident that market share shifts towards Samsung devices are the reason for OEM failures. Can you demonstrate otherwise? HTC was (and still is, albeit diminished) netting profits until they lost market share. Android only makes money if you can capture market share, how hard is that to understand?

Time to put up or shut up, Tony- please provide some proof other OEMs declines have anything to do with Android. Amazon AND Samsung's profits (you keep ignoring Amazon's profits for some reason) show that Android can be a profitable platform if you market and integrate well.

I'm not going to argue anything else until you show some proof or drop it.

RE: Yawn...
By Tony Swash on 5/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn...
By karlostomy on 5/26/2012 1:25:55 AM , Rating: 1
Finally I repeat my simple proposition and ask some one to try to refute it. In the new mobile device world having the largest unit sales does not mean that a platform can deliver more profits for device makers or developers, more peripherals, more or better software, or more content. In which case what is the advantage of a platform selling more units?

That's easy, Tony.
The advantage is for the consumer.
Specifically in terms of lower cost and improvement in economic efficiency.

Any competent student of Economics will tell you that the Android platform is moving the mobile phone market away from the quasi monopolistic practices of Apple toward a more competitively efficient equilibrium.

Apple's practices have resulted in inefficient rent seeking (a term from Economics - look it up) behaviour, such as suing its competitors, that results in deadweight loss (again, look it up) to the phone industry as a whole. This ensures that Apple makes more profit, albeit at the expense of consumers and lack of economic efficiency in the market.

In layman's terms, Apple profits more and consumers pay a higher price than they should. In this instance, the industry is inefficient and a high deadweight loss exists. Producer suplus is high and Consumer surplus is low. Read up on that, please. It's not a good thing for the industry.

The advantage that is provided by the platform that is selling more units at less profits (android) is a reduction in deadweight for the industry as a whole and the capture of more consumer surplus, through increased competition and competitive pricing, close to marginal cost.

In layman's terms, consumers get a better deal and the industry as a whole become more efficient, as consumers now have a choice to buy a better product at competitive prices.

Bottom line is, Android is making less profit, yes, but in doing so is capturing a larger market share. As its market share increases, it is matching and even exceeding the services, peripherals, software and content that is delivered by Apple, but at a lower price.

The consumer wins and economic efficiency wins.
Company profits are down, but as long as there is a profit to be made, even a small one, companies will continue to compete and innovate, until we reach a point of perfect competition.
Of course, Apple is trying to protect its surplus (economic) profits by suing its competitors (rent seeking) to try to stop this from happening. For its shareholders this is a good thing, but for the economy and for consumers this is a terrible thing.

I have addressed your question and refuted your viewpoint.
Any questions, Tony?

RE: Yawn...
By TakinYourPoints on 5/26/2012 3:18:57 AM , Rating: 2
This would mean more if Android was actually a superior platform, but sadly it isn't.

It is a security disaster and is not suitable for enterprise. Numerous government agencies and companies like Halliburton are migrating from Blackberry to iOS. For consumers it is inferior due to a much smaller developer base and weaker app selection, as well as for security concerns. For a casual device to tinker around with, Android is great, but for anything else there are way too many drawbacks compared to the alternatives.

Android being "free" primarily benefits cell carriers and hardware manufacturers, not customers. The ability for carriers to customize their distribution, have control over updates, and Google not having a central OS update repository has been a huge detriment to the platform. Charlie Kindel's (ex-Microsoft GM) suggestion that Google divest itself from Android and follow up with a new mobile platform that they do have control over makes a lot of sense. Android has gotten completely out of their control.

RE: Yawn...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/26/2012 5:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
This would mean more if Android was actually a superior platform, but sadly it isn't.

RE: Yawn...
By TakinYourPoints on 5/26/2012 9:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
It is pretty objectively bad, and for enterprise it is a complete disaster.

If you want to tinker with the home screen though, then its pretty good.

RE: Yawn...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/26/2012 9:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
Again, to you...

RE: Yawn...
By Tony Swash on 5/26/2012 10:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
I have addressed your question and refuted your viewpoint.

No you haven't.

Your comment is a simplified exposition of neo-classical economic theory.

It has nothing to do with the reality of the actual global smart phone market as it exists today, not does it explain how Android selling more units than iOS manifests as a concrete advantage in any way to anyone anywhere.

Android handsets do not offer greater value at a lower price than equivalent iPhones.

Android does not allow OEM's to achieve economies of supply and get components cheaper than Apple, quite the opposite actually.

Demand for Apple's products us still very, very high and is rising not falling.

Apple continues to double iPhone sales each year.

Apple's continues to take 75% of the total global phone industry profits.

All surveys of end users show that Apple customers are happier across the board with their products compared to Android customers.

Carriers continue to pay Apple to sell the iPhone for the simple reason that any carrier that dropped the iPhone would start to bleed customers quickly.

It is impossible to have a monopolistic practice, quasi or otherwise, whilst only holding 25% of the market.

Your entire exposition of the mythical advantages brought by Androids higher market share is just vague wishful thinking dressed up in pompous and poorly digested abstract economic theory.

Again I repeat - can anyone offer a real world example of an advantage (with evidence) bestowed on anyone (OEMs, consumers, developers) by Android having a larger market share?

Come guys it should be easy, some of you celebrate Androids market at the drop of a hat so here an opportunity to tell us all why it matters.

RE: Yawn...
By karlostomy on 5/27/2012 7:58:14 AM , Rating: 3
No you haven't.

Yes, I have

Android handsets do not offer greater value at a lower price than equivalent iPhones.

Yes, they do. I bought an equivalent android handset at a lower price than the equivalent Apple handset and it does everything at least as well, or better than the equivalent apple model. I have a Galaxy S.

Android does not allow OEM's to achieve economies of supply and get components cheaper than Apple, quite the opposite actually.

Ok, I am guessing you are actually attempting to refer to economies of scope and scale? Please try to get the terminology right. I have to inform you that companies such as Samsung do indeed benefit from economies of scale and scope. They sell millions upon millions of units, just as Apple does. With increasing Android market share, that will continue to be the case. Not sure what your point was here?

Demand for Apple's products us still very, very high and is rising not falling.

Demand for Android products is also still very, very high and is rising, not falling. In many areas Android is currently posting higher rates of growth than Apple. Not sure what your point was here?

Apple continues to double iPhone sales each year.

Reputable analyst IDC estimates that Apple's sales growth has diminished in the most recent quarter.
That's not how you continue to double sales, is it?

Apple's continues to take 75% of the total global phone industry profits.

That's just confirming what I said above. Apple is capturing surplus economic profit by suing competitors, thereby stifling competition and as a result inflating prices.
Thanks for providing further proof on that.

All surveys of end users show that Apple customers are happier across the board with their products compared to Android customers.

All Surveys? Did you personally check them all? Did you ensure they were all free of bias? Did you ascertain they all were performed without a hidden agenda? Surely you didn't include those surveys that were conducted by Apple themselves? You need to do much better than that.

I can't be bothered answering your other points.
You are just not getting it.
Frankly, I don't think you are capable of getting it.
I feel I am debating with an Apple marketing robot.

Again I repeat that I have refuted your original point.
It's all laid out for you.
You can choose to bury your head in the sand all you like.

You ask for evidence?
Consider this evidence:

I, and millions of others, like my android better than the equivalent Iphone. Android provides better Utility to us than an equivalent iphone. That's why we bought android. Duh.
I, and millions of others, got the android phone for a cheaper price than the equivalent iphone. That shows the benefit of increased competition resulting in lower prices for consumers.
I, and many others, have dropped android phones several times and the screens did not smash, despite the plastic construction, unlike the many equivalent iphones that are very well documented to smash screens so easily.

Clearly, it can be seen that Android's increased market share has directly resulted in advantages such as: Cheaper price, same or better services/features and tangible durability improvements.

Millions upon millions of consumers are flocking to android as there are real and tangible advantages, as shown.

What are you not getting here, Tony?

RE: Yawn...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/27/2012 10:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
I feel I am debating with an Apple marketing robot.

RE: Yawn...
By Tony Swash on 5/27/2012 1:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I feel I am debating with an Apple marketing robot.

I on the other hand feel like I am exploring the world's most perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.–Kruger_effect

My point is that no one can point to a tangible actual advantage that Android's larger market share actually delivers to anyone. All you offer is waffle.

If I can paraphrase your responses to my point:

a) your current phone is better and cheaper than than an equivalent iPhone.

From what I can see the price of an iPhone on contract is about the same as an equivalent Android with a similar spec. In the realm of smart phones Apple's products are not priced significantly higher than equivalent Android handsets. What I don't see is any evidence that Android handsets are undercutting Apple handsets as a result of market share.

b) You, and millions of of others really like your Android handsets.

Well that's great but how is that enjoyment enhanced by having a larger market share? Your enjoyment of your Android phone doesn't seem to relate to the point I was making. Some people love their RIM handsets, is that a function of having a smaller market share?

c) There is a report that it is possible Apple's sales have diminished in the most recent quarter.

That may or may not be true as we don't have any actual figures yet so speculation in any direction is easy. If it is true then it would be an exact replica of the sales curve for previous years, when after the holiday season sales drop back below the previous peak. Given that iPhone sales are seasonal the only worth while comparison is to the same quarter a year ago when Apple sold 20 million handsets (the following quarter that dipped further to 17 million prior to the new model release). If Apple sells anything above 20 million then it is growing. Personally I expect another annual growth figure of between 60-80% but let's wait and see. The main point is that year after year Apple has grown it's phone business by around 100% and there is no evidence (fact based evidence) that that is slowing.

d) Android sales is rising.

So what? Again it doesn't address the point I made which is that having a large market share is not delivering any advantage to anyone.

e) You don't like surveys of customer satisfaction

That's because they all say the same thing - iPhones owners like their handsets more than Android owners. If you think that is not true then find some that say something different.

f) Some Android hand set makers are achieving economies of scale in their supply chain. Duh - obviously. The point is that there is no evidence that those economies are enhanced by Android having a larger market share - but if you have evidence that I am wrong on that by all means post it.

g) You think Apple is capturing surplus economic profit by suing competitors, thereby stifling competition and as a result inflating prices. Although confusingly you are also arguing that Android is power ahead - which is it, stifled or booming?

Apple makes better profits than anyone else because on the one hand it keeps it's costs way down through limiting it's number of SKUs and managing it's supply chain, and on the other hand it demands very high payments from carriers. Carriers pay those high rates to Apple because demand for the iPhone is so intense. If a carrier were refuse to pay and thus be forced to drop the iPhone they know they would immediately start to bleed customers. All the whining about Apple's legal actions is just the usual smoke screen to try to obscure the central weaknesses and failures of the Android business model

Still no answer to these questions:

Can anyone offer a real world example of an actual concrete advantage (with evidence) bestowed on anyone (OEMs, consumers, developers) by Android having a larger market share than iOS?

Can anyone offer a real world example of an actual concrete disadvantage (with evidence) bestowed on anyone (Apple, consumers, developers) by Apple having a smaller market share than Android

RE: Yawn...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/27/2012 1:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another novel from the Apple iTool, never fails...

Seriously, how much does Apple pay you?

RE: Yawn...
By Tony Swash on 5/27/2012 3:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another novel from the Apple iTool, never fails...

Seriously, how much does Apple pay you?

It must be really galling to have nothing substantive to say. This is a discussion forum, people debate, people have different opinions, people disagree, sometimes strongly, that's the point.

Standing on the edge just hurling insults around is juvenile. Grow up.

RE: Yawn...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/27/2012 8:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
People debate huh? Sure, most people, but most people don't blindly defend one company no matter the circumstance.

So answer me, how much is Apple paying you to troll? Your go to guy, was found to be a fraud and on Oracle payroll. Funny how you never posted in that article defending him.

Grow up? LOL...perhaps you should get a life?

RE: Yawn...
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/27/2012 8:26:36 PM , Rating: 2

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]

100 percent you...yet you try to point it towards other people...funny how that works...

RE: Yawn...
By Noble1994 on 5/28/2012 10:24:19 AM , Rating: 1
Remind me - minus all those things why is more units sold a good thing?

It depends. It's a good thing for consumers because developers are more likely to develop for Android which increases the value of the Android platform even if it's small, You can't deny that fact. But other then that there really is no advantage like you said if more units are sold, it would actually depend on how the software is developed on what parts of it is easy to make money off and how much benefit it gives to the user.

It's similar to how Sony and Microsoft develop consoles and have additional on-line services that sell digital content to the consumer. Going back to my main argument, there's always an advantage for more units being sold depending on how your going to exploit this fact but it's mainly advantages for OEM's. The only other advantage that can be identified is increased competition which is mainly for the consumers benefit. Another example is that one of the main selling points for the iPhone is the App Store and iTunes. Now me and you both know that Apple make a crazy amount of money from both of these services and the amount of iPhones that are sold only increases the revenue. Android could easily implement these services but I haven't seen any evidence of this yet.

In conclusion, it really depends on who the advantages are for but these tend to be advantages for businesses and corporate entities and less for consumers.

RE: Yawn...
By hexxthalion on 5/25/2012 5:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
"Out of the 152.3 million smartphones shipped during the first three months of 2012, Android-powered ones had a market share of 59% while iOS phones had 23% of the share. Around this time last year, both operating systems only had a total market share of 54%."


RE: Yawn...
By eddieroolz on 5/29/2012 11:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yet, with 29% of smartphone shipments Apple rakes in 79% of profits.

Comparison photo.
By torpor on 5/24/2012 4:08:00 PM , Rating: 5
I have a Galaxy S phone.

The photo is misleading - on the Galaxy S, the photographer loaded the Applications menu, but they showed the home screen on the iPhone. Not exactly an honest comparison. It's mostly done because the candy-bar format for phones has been popular since the palm pilot (in 1996) made us start to recognize it, and this makes the phones seem similar.

So when Apple starts to pay UI royalty fees to HP for mocking up a Palm Pilot, this won't seem like such nonsense.

RE: Comparison photo.
By drycrust3 on 5/24/2012 6:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
The photo is misleading - on the Galaxy S, the photographer loaded the Applications menu, but they showed the home screen on the iPhone. Not exactly an honest comparison.

Good point.

I know this will disappoint the people at Apple, but I think the idea of lots of icons on your desktop is a sign of weakness and inefficiency, less so on a smartphone, but definitely on a computer. Looking at what they've got on the iPhone, I would cull at least half of those icons and put them on another desktop (and why do you need a compass and a map on the same desktop?)
What I think you should have is only the ones you actually use on a more or less regular basis on "a desktop" screen, and then most of them don't need to actually be on your "home" desktop.

RE: Comparison photo.
By Tony Swash on 5/24/12, Rating: -1
RE: Comparison photo.
By Bateluer on 5/26/2012 3:31:31 PM , Rating: 1
iOS didn't get folders until pretty recently, iOS 4. WebOS and Android have had it since their pre-alpha days.

RE: Comparison photo.
By zerocks on 5/24/2012 9:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
So when Apple starts to pay UI royalty fees to HP for mocking up a Palm Pilot, this won't seem like such nonsense.

I second that.

RE: Comparison photo.
By jimbojimbo on 5/25/2012 12:34:15 AM , Rating: 5
I just found it funny they made the Samsung look as much like the iPhone as they could including the black background (and which Android owner uses a black background?) and a screen full of icons with no widgets. How many Android users have just a home screen full of icons?? I've never seen that!!

Next thing you know Apple lawyers will install an iPhone emulation program and saying Androids look just like iPhones. That's actually 100% plausible considering they Photoshopped the Tabs in order to change the proportions to match the iPad exactly.

RE: Comparison photo.
By michael2k on 5/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: Comparison photo.
By AssBall on 5/25/2012 2:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
Gonna have to give you the Wiki-stick on this one.

The first PDA was released in 1986 by Psion, the Organizer II. Followed by Psion's Series 3, in 1991, which began to resemble the more familiar PDA style. It also had a full keyboard. [4][5] The term PDA was first used on January 7, 1992 by Apple Computer CEO John Sculley at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada, referring to the Apple Newton. In 1996, Nokia introduced the first PDA with full mobile phone functionality, the 9000 Communicator, which grew to become the world's best-selling PDA. The Communicator spawned a new category of PDAs: the "PDA phone", now called "smartphone". Another early entrant in this market was Palm, with a line of PDA products which began with the March 1996 Pilot 1000.

So no, not really.

RE: Comparison photo.
By michael2k on 5/25/2012 3:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say the Newton was the first PDA, at all. Your wiki-stick is irrelevant.

I said the Palm was directly inspired by the Newton, at least as asserted by David Pogue:

Learning from the Newton, PalmPilot designers figured it would be better to have one reliable script that millions of people could learn rather than the other way around. It worked, and the script Graffiti has become second nature for more than 6 million people happily scrawling away on their PalmPilots.

The point isn't who's first, it's who gets licensing fees for what:

Not Palm->iOS

You can, if you wish, argue that it should be:

But that still validates my point; at no point is HP/Palm involved in the iOS/Android spat since Apple can still claim the Newton as prior art wrt to the screen full of icons, springboard, and, btw, the Psion 3 which you quoted doesn't have the "screen full of icons" look either; it looked a lot more like the springboard than anything else.

Suing Samsung is not going to stop Andriod
By KaTaR on 5/24/2012 4:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
It may slow or stop some Samsung smartphone models being shipped here and there, but the Andriod OS is made by Google and distributed free of charge. If Apple really wanted to go 'nuclear' on Andriod, they would sue Google instead and try to win a outright ban of the OS. This is about money, and Apple trying to collect what it thinks is IP royalites it deserves.

By inighthawki on 5/24/2012 5:54:10 PM , Rating: 3
Google makes the OS, but it's samsung's UI mod that is in question here. Not all Android devices use that interface.

RE: Suing Samsung is not going to stop Andriod
By retrospooty on 5/24/2012 6:41:54 PM , Rating: 3
" If Apple really wanted to go 'nuclear' on Andriod, they would sue Google instead and try to win a outright ban of the OS. "

It will never happen. Android is its own unique OS and didnt copy Apple any more than Apple copied Palm. At this point, Android 4 is more advanced than IOS in form and function and is leading rather than following. Apple needs to catch up. IOS is looking old and dated.

RE: Suing Samsung is not going to stop Andriod
By Pirks on 5/24/12, Rating: -1
By elleehswon on 5/25/2012 7:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
BB10, the best mobile platform no one will own, lol You might as well put the "DeLorean" logo on it :P

RE: Suing Samsung is not going to stop Andriod
By retrospooty on 5/25/12, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2012 1:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
WP7 interface might "look" good and wow people, sure. But they need to think, is scrolling through large "live tiles" endlessly really that great of a UI? I don't think it's all that great. I rather have a traditional desktop look where I can scan a large number of launcher icons at once with my eyes. Form and function trumps eye candy.

By Ish718 on 5/24/2012 3:49:16 PM , Rating: 5
Thanks to a failed patent system that supports monopolies

RE: Smh
By vision33r on 5/25/2012 10:56:18 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for the failure of the patent system to protect American patents. Asian competitors are stealing American ideas everyday for mass production at cheap prices.

I'm sure you love sending all our inventions to Korea for nothing.

RE: Smh
By Initium on 5/27/2012 12:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
The patent system is not universal. An American patent is hard to enforce in other countries especially if that country is not a 'friend' of America. Hence the number of patent law suits in different countries. As for the Koreans, they are doing what America taught them to do. America opened its markets to Korea after the Korean war. America signed an FTA with Korea. America continues to import Korean products that may or may not be manufactured using patents that originated in the USA. If you feel so strongly about this stop buy Korean products. Easy.

RE: Smh
By Jaybus on 5/28/2012 10:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
This is a good thing. It is FAR better for the issue to be decided by a court of law than an out of court settlement. A court will either rule the patent valid or invalid. An out of court settlement leaves the issue open for continued disputes and posturing. Also, if a big player settles, it affects future settlements. The worthiness of a patent should be decided openly by a court of law, not secretly by a bunch of lawyers and company execs.

Apple has more to lose
By tviceman on 5/24/2012 5:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
Apple would be royally screwed in the short term if Samsung cut them off from their fabs. Samsung can sell their displays to someone else, but Apple would have to find another company with the fab capacity to make both their screens and cpu's, and they would also have to make some engineering changes to their CPU if they do jump ship to a different fab.

Samsung would lose all of Apples business, but it would take Apple around a year to "catch back up" to getting cut off from it's primary supply source for screens and cpu's, which is enough time for Samsung, LG, HTC, and Microsoft to dig into Apple's market share in every segment. Very interesting indeed.

RE: Apple has more to lose
By messele on 5/24/12, Rating: -1
RE: Apple has more to lose
By SunLord on 5/24/2012 6:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung would have little trouble finding customer to keep there fab at capacity if they lost apple simply because apple would displace capacity at some other fab probably TSMC which would drive customers to Samsung. Though Samsung IBM and Global Foundries are all supposed to be compatible so in theory anyone building for one fab can build at all the rest of them with only minor tweaks but I'm not sure any of them would take the order.

RE: Apple has more to lose
By messele on 5/25/2012 1:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
What if the other component makers built more plants, what if the customer pool shrank because so many are now making a loss because in reality they are struggling to sell goods.

Anybody can chuck any imagined scenario in to the hat, me included, the point is nobody knows.

RE: Apple has more to lose
By tviceman on 5/24/2012 11:20:28 PM , Rating: 1
Samsung would love to lure some of TSMC's customers to their fabs. Apple, being the proprietary company they are, won't share their in-house tech with anyone. But someone like Nvidia or AMD would. There have been reports that Nvidia already taped out and manufactured some tegra test chips at one of Samsung's fabs. I don't think Samsung would have a hard time filling their capacity back up in about the same amount of time it would take Apple to get final silicon working CPU's from another fab.

RE: Apple has more to lose
By Bateluer on 5/26/2012 3:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
Heck, Samsung could utilize their own fab space for Exynos 4412 chips and stick a quad core Exynos in every single Galaxy S and Galaxy Tab model they make. Top to bottom quad core, performance bar would be jerked up higher than it's been in years.

I seem to recall
By overlandpark4me on 5/24/2012 3:59:55 PM , Rating: 5
Apple suing because they whined about how the swipe feature was ripped off from them, except someone had it way before them. This company is past embarrassing. The word elitist doesn't quite sum it up.

Original ideas
By jthistle on 5/24/2012 5:23:27 PM , Rating: 5
"I've always hated litigation and I continue to hate it we just want people to invent their own stuff ( that we can later claim we invented )"


Samsung makes most of the tech
By Nyu on 5/24/2012 7:30:26 PM , Rating: 5
Apple should be thankful they get to use all the technology other companies spent billions developing, as is the case here, Samsung actually makes most of the components in their phones.

Windows Phone is better...
By Hackpiper on 5/25/2012 8:05:17 AM , Rating: 3
WP7 is vastly superior to both of these. Smoother, more reliable, and much more elegant than Android. Just plain better than the restricted, ugly, and generally clunky iOS. Apple's staying in the market with smoke, mirrors and the famous reality distortion field. Samsung is wisely spreading its bets between Android and WP7.

I can understand why people go for the new Android phones and their great hardware. But the iPhone is really just an outdated cash cow that only proves how easily people can be conned by great marketing.

Windows Phone 7 is - remarkably - better than either of them in every key user-oriented regard. Yeah, I know....who would have thunk it possible for Microsoft? But you have to give credit where its due...and MS is the major innovator now.

Fanboys, please calm down and unbunch those knickers...

RE: Windows Phone is better...
By zlandar on 5/25/2012 10:42:33 AM , Rating: 1
Yes that's why it's just grabbing market share in the smartphone market.

Or not.

Jobs - Good Riddance!
By BarkityBark on 5/25/2012 11:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
Jobs showed hostility and mistreatment toward his own wife and kids. Go research it if you don't believe me, instead of blindly defending this moron because all you see in him is your beloved iProduct. He hates Android, he hates Adobe Flash, so he wants to burn the house down to get what he wants. Spiteful, arrogant, dictating, self-centered, and one who preferred conflict to negotiation. You can have him!

RE: Jobs - Good Riddance!
By retrospooty on 5/25/2012 11:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
"Spiteful, arrogant, dictating, self-centered, and one who preferred conflict to negotiation."

Yup. A true iTool.

Oh no
By geddarkstorm on 5/24/2012 3:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
Time to start building bomb shelters stocked with Galaxy S and iPhones. The end times are upon us!

By Motoman on 5/24/2012 4:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
...that could mean inferior [Apple] product...

How could you tell?

And would it affect sales at all?

<hint: no>

what a waste
By crazyirish on 5/24/2012 5:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see them both kill each other and break the stranglehold on the market.

Jason! English!
By Isidore on 5/24/2012 6:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
'Both companies control close to two-thirds of sales and 99 percent of mobile profits'

Mathematically impossible. I think you mean: The companies between them.....

By BugblatterIII on 5/24/2012 7:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
The only way to win a thermonuclear war is a pre-emptive strike that takes them out before they can retaliate.

Apple must already be arranging for alternate manufacturers. If they'd already done it they'd have dumped you by now. Dump them first. The Galaxy S3 will make even bigger gains against the iPhone. If you wait you lose your chance to knock them down. Take your chance!

Once Apple's reeling there are plenty of companies that will join in with the arse-kicking.

Capitalist are Greedy
By hiscross on 5/24/2012 10:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
And the world is better for. Take away capitalism and you have Haiti or some place similar. BTW: I like the 3rd from the left the best. Anybody see one that is better?

Fun Times...
By BigEdMan on 5/25/2012 2:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
Sweet... Should be fun...

Inflated article
By BZDTemp on 5/25/2012 3:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
Just this bit
Both companies control close to two-thirds of sales and 99 percent of mobile profits, and their cases are built on questionable legal foundations from a technical perspective.
has me wondering. In my world the 29.1 percent and 24.2 percent market share mentioned just before in the article come to 53.3% making it just over 50% and not close to 66.6%.

Something similar goes on with the mentioning of the two companies being some of the world's largest IP owners, something that can hardly be said about Apple unless of course it's a reference to company value and not amount of IP (Hint - Apple is nowhere on the list of annual granted patents).

By Richard875yh5 on 5/25/2012 9:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
I wish Apple were not so greedy. Some of the so call patents they hold are ridiculous. In the end, that's what will kill them.

In a botched up AVP tagline...
By xenol on 5/25/2012 11:05:30 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter who wins; we lose.

what about Windows 8?
By mosu on 5/25/2012 6:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
If you replace every tile in the Metro interface of Windows 8 with a large icon rectangular shaped you'll get what?... a similar look to iPhone's but nobody is suing..
So please Samsung, don't contribute to your enemy's product and dump Apple from your customer list.

Dead man's switch
By ct760ster on 5/25/2012 8:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, the corporate of Apple is lacking this device in the decision making department, how come that after the operator is gone they still want to trigger the A-bomb, sounds very unsafe and unwise in my opinion, albeit I think Apple is the one who need to diversify more the offering, they're just making barely 3 product launch each year. They ought to put good use of the money they intend spend in court fees into R&D.

Sensational Headline
By eddieroolz on 5/29/2012 11:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
is sensational.

The post reeks of fanboyism.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki