Sounds like "good business" to me!
If ever there was a dirty player in the tech business, it's Samsung. It's amazing that they have so many vocal defenders. That are, I'm sure, "unpaid."
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Asks for $379 Million in Damages Retrial Against Samsung
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like "good business" to me!
If ever there was a dirty player in the tech business, it's Samsung. It's amazing that they have so many vocal defenders. That are, I'm sure, "unpaid."
Samsung does make more than just LCDs.
A lot more in fact. And 100 million is NOTHING compared to the (off the top of my head) 7 different electronics/appliance industries Samsung has it's fingers in.
Right, because Samsung didn't make phones until it copied Apple.
It wasn't to prove anything, I mentioned something about a specific issue regarding app crashes between platforms and someone asked me to prove it so I provided the details.
The 5C according to what's known out in the open is that it's not doing so well so Apple has slowed production for them. The mobile market isn't all about who can provide the best top-grade, top-dollar devices out there and there's demand for those on a budget.
No I don't because it's irrelevant to what was being discussed. The subject matter was in regards to the OS and their app crash rate.
Last edited:
I wont for a second discredit the work that Apple's put in towards their product development. Their products are pretty much exactly as advertised: they really do JUST WORK (cant say the same about others... ahem, windows). This is also the very reason that I continue to use OS X.
However, and this applies to pretty much every manufacturer: none of them 'invent'... its all an evolutionary process. Theyre just building upon existing technologies. Though some people (including here on the forums) would have you believe that apple invented the telephone...
Have someone splain it to you.
----------
Of course they are. That's why Walmart is selling the S4 for 96 cents on Black Friday.
96 cents + the carrier subsidy of $450?
Having a large market share is not proof of a monopoly. In fact, it is typical of a first mover. Apple was the first company to create a well-designed "mp3 player" that actually appealed to the masses. They achieved their high market share by having a great product, and no other reason. The fact is, that sort of share is not sustainable; hence, not a monopoly. And they didn't horde NAND, contrary to your implication-- they used and sold everything they bought. They bought up all the supplies they needed to meet the demand they believed they could achieve. Apple did NOT have a cash pile at the time-- they were nothing but a low marketshare PC maker -- and it would have been insane to tie up their capital in such a manner without believing in their strategy. And they were right--they could not make those things fast enough.
Just as your blindness previously led you being unable to see clearly enough to add $369M and $600M; and your hubris prevented you from humbly admitting your error; you continue to rant ineptly about Apple's success with iPod. You ineffectively attempt to rewrite history to feed your prejudices. Fail.
No. ""We want our money for Damages oh and by the way, if you get it to us soon we won't pull all our display and chip fabrication business from you quite as quickly. Capice?"
Thanks
Sincerely, APPLE"
Because:
The S3 was faster than the iPhone 5, and the S4 arguably has a better screen.
And frankly, the iPhone 5 wasn't up to the quality of the iPhone 4S or even iPhone 5S.
What I don't understand is why you care so much. Use your products, be happy. Samsung copied? A court ruled. A court will rerule. Don't like it? Don't buy Samsung. And you could even delude yourself into thinking Apple never copied anything, ever.
Finally, a decent post. As I've stated earlier, I don't see why there's a need to be a hater of X just because you prefer Y. Lawsuits between corporations are common occurrences, many of them aren't made public. Apple and Samsung keeps reappearing in the news because of the high appeal towards each company's products.
There is a reason to intensely dislike everything Samsung, not just its benchmark-rigged, unreliable plastic phones. Essentially, Samsung is a criminal enterprise (which is one reason it won't list its stock on U.S. exchanges since it would be subjected to regulatory scrutiny). If you don't mind supporting criminal enterprises, by all means, buy Samsung.
There's always a reason to dislike anything, partial or whole, doesn't make your statement factual, it's just your opinion. Losing lawsuits doesn't necessarily equate to a criminal enterprise. If you believe everything Apple says, then you have more faith with them than anyone I know belonging to any religious faith.
If you're going to slam Samsung for "plastic phones" then perhaps you could explain the development for the 5C series. The most reasonable explanation is that there's a market for them. I'm completely certain that Samsung's choice of materials has nothing to do with being unable to produce an all-metal phone.
As for benchmarks, anyone who puts a lot of weight on the scores isn't seeing the full picture. As I'm aware Samsung didn't over clock the CPU to achieve artificial scores, it simply operates at maximum speed possible for the hardware when being benchmarked. When you benchmark a system, you're going after consistent, repeatable results. Most mobile devices operate dynamically to offer a good balance between performance and battery times which may produce awkward results depending on what the device was doing at the time.
To put this in perspective, Apple's equally guilty of inflating the performance of their unique apps (like mobile iBooks and Safari) by allowing them to have an edge through the Nitro JavaScript Engine which aids WebKit-heavy applications other apps like Chrome, Facebook and Twitter, etc. doesn't have access to natively. Only on jailbroken devices do they have access to an app called Nitrous which allows the optimization to be applied to non-Apple apps and helps to level the playing field.
Last edited:
His claim probably had less to do with "faith" than Samsung's history of bribery, corruption, and tax evasion particularly among its senior leadership.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aH3aDwXXnvqc
When you benchmark a system, you do not expect the benchmarking app to have access to any more resources than any other app.
That's not really putting things in perspective, so much as pretending that a completely different situation is the same. Apple restricts the Nitro engine to Safari for security reasons. Samsung increases the clock speed of their processors for benchmarking apps in order to cheat and deceive.
Apple's also on the hot plate regarding tax evasion. There's no evidence that Apple's not engaging in such activities either, just because we aren't aware of it, doesn't mean it's not happening. Apple invests a lot of resources to keep many matters away from the public, perhaps much more so than Samsung.
BaldiMac said:
It's not using more resources when it's performing at the maximum value for that combination of hardware. As I stated Samsung didn't overlock their Snapdragon CPU's to achieve a score other identical CPUs in other products can't achieve. Nobody cares about benchmark scores when the unit's in a low-power mode for example.
BaldiMac said:
Sure it does. When you restrict other legitimate apps from using an edge to inflate the performance of your native apps, that's precisely identical to the issues you accuse Samsung for. As for security what you say doesn't make any sense since Google Chrome, Facebook and Twitter are all scrutinized, tested, certified and available through the App Store prior to being available for download.
You really can't be serious. First, Apple testified regarding their legal tax avoidance strategies. Not tax evasion. And then "There's no evidence that Apple's not engaging in such activities" is just ridiculous on its face.
That's just crap.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013...rking-adjustments-inflate-scores-by-up-to-20/
http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/nitro_ios_43
Right, like how just because you haven't seen life on other planets means it doesn't exist?
BaldiMac said:
If you read that article, it clearly states the CPU is a 2.3Ghz model, where in that link does it say it ran out of spec, beyond 2.3Ghz? All you did was solidify my point, perfectly. I mean wow, a 2.3Ghz CPU that actually ran at 2.3Ghz... how naughty of Samsung to do that!
BaldiMac said:
When you refer to links to support your statement, you really should check the content and compare it to its versions. For example Google Chrome wasn't even available for iOS 4.x and came out during iOS 6.
Last edited:
Left is right. Up is down. Dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
And if you read the article, it comes to the documented conclusion that Samsung cheated.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made.
We're both not going to get anywhere on this one, you can continue to try derailing the topic in your responses but when you have something useful, feel free to reply anytime.
That's just the opinion of the writer(s), I don't see any indication of Samsung doing anything unusual when it comes to benchmark testing. I'll simplify this for you.BaldiMac said:
If you bought a product rated for X Ghz, you benchmark it and realized it's not performing anywhere near that speed, wouldn't you feel deceived?
I'd argue that when you're benchmarking a system, what you want to see are figures at the device's limits. Nobody posts benchmarks of their Macbook Pro's when it's on battery because users know the priority isn't on performance but rather battery conservation.
ArsT's testing strategy has been questionable in the past and I'm not surprised here. If they wanted to test for the average performance a typical user experiences while using the device, they should've installed an app that monitors the critical data over a period of time which saves to a log file for later review, not a benchmarking app. It would be like testing a car for it's fuel economy while strapped onto a dyno during max pulls.
BaldiMac said:
I provided you specific examples and none of them apply to your link so your posts are irrelevant. You claim they didn't offer the Nitro Javascript Engine to other apps due to security issues while citing a website that deals with iOS 4, which none of those apps were made for. You do realize that part of the App validation process is to make sure it follows Apple's security requirements prior to being made available for download right? Nice try with Google though.
Last edited:
I'm not sure how to reply to the implication that Apple is engaging in corruption, bribery and tax evasion despite the fact that you admit there is no evidence of those claims. And then you claim that "perhaps" invests much more to covering up these claims that you pulled out of thin air than Samsung.It's complete gibberish, so I responded in kind.
It's not an opinion. It's documented in the article.
-Exact same processor on the LG and Samsung, Samsung scores significantly higher.
-Exact same benchmarking app with a different name runs 20% slower.
No. What you expect to see are the limits that a non-benchmarking app has access to.
Again, nothing to do with the claim. Your assumption that the security issue can reasonably be solved by an App Store review is not based on any evidence. Allowing a sandboxed app to mark memory as executable defeats the whole iOS security model.
Really? So if it's in an article it's a fact? This explains everything.
The article was written by a person who used a testing method that's flawed. If everything on the internet whether it's in an article or otherwise directly correlated to undeniable facts, you're obviously incapable of rational, true objectionable thought. If I were to take a guess, all you seem to do is key into anything that bashes Samsung to feed your hatred towards them.
Did you even read the whole article or are you just repeating certain lines from that article? What part of benchmarking don't you understand? Nobody in the right state of mind benchmarks a device for anything other than maximum performance.
You still haven't responded to any of my inquiries, show me where Samsung's 2.3Ghz Snapdragon performed higher than what a 2.3Ghz Snapdragon is supposed to do at maximum? The author clearly indicated that when benchmarked, the (2.3Ghz) CPU goes into full 2.3Ghz mode, how's that cheating? I'd argue that the LG G2 didn't do what it's supposed to during a benchmark test which has always tested for maximum performance.
BaldiMac said:
What are you talking about, have you even experienced what it takes to get an App validated in the App Store? Please don't go into the whole sandboxing issue and derail this thread and stay on topic, we both know you have no clue how sandboxing really works in iOS in relation to its apps on any level other than what you're copying/pasting from various articles on the web.
The issue of how Apple allowed for a leap of performance at the cost of reduced security makes sense for mobile Safari but not other browsers? Last time I checked a user can only use one at a time, so whether there's a security vulnerability in Safari or Chrome from using Nitro for example, makes no difference in the end because you can only use one browser at any given time.
Last edited:
Loving the debate between BaldiMac and Hyper-X! Signed up to post, Hyper-X you should conceit defeat.
"When you benchmark a system, you're going after consistent, repeatable results." How does that statement fit with what Samsung was doing? They were intentionally rigging the results in their favour in one piece of software. The same software that's used to measure it's performance against it's competitors. The results they gave are not consistent with typical daily use and are not repeatable by the average user.
If you purchased a vehicle that advertised it's maximum speed at 200km/h, and found out later it's rate limited at 175km/h, except while on the "testing track", would you feel deceived? I would.
First, neither you or I have any knowledge of how Nitro works and what level of memory and hardware access is required for it's optimizations. There's obviously a good reason it's split like this; security being the primary one.
Second, Apple is not marketing their phones with graphs showing "20% faster Facebook". Apple markets the platform, not app vs. app between eco systems.
The absence of evidence is not evidence in itself.
What does life on other planets have to do with Apple v Samsung..? You have no proof it does or does not so the point is moot.
That's exactly the point: "anyone who puts a lot of weight on the scores isn't seeing the full picture". The average consumer isn't as knowledgeable as you or I and a lot of us see rigging the results as an attempt to deceive consumers.
"When you benchmark a system, you're going after consistent, repeatable results." How does that statement fit with what Samsung was doing? They were intentionally rigging the results in their favour in one piece of software. The same software that's used to measure it's performance against it's competitors. The results they gave are not consistent with typical daily use and are not repeatable by the average user.
If you purchased a vehicle that advertised it's maximum speed at 200km/h, and found out later it's rate limited at 175km/h, except while on the "testing track", would you feel deceived? I would.
This is BS on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin.
First, neither you or I have any knowledge of how Nitro works and what level of memory and hardware access is required for it's optimizations. There's obviously a good reason it's split like this; security being the primary one.
Second, Apple is not marketing their phones with graphs showing "20% faster Facebook". Apple markets the platform, not app vs. app between eco systems.
What..? It has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with Apple not wanting every developer to have access to Nitro's low level magic. The security concern is a 3rd party app exploiting Nitro to Jailbreak/hack/infect the phone with a virus/malware. If performance is that great a concern you should be writing native apps not web apps.
That is quite absurd. You can't prove a negative, so no evidence that Apple is engaging in such activities is actually evidence that it is not - particularly after all the scrutiny they have received from governments in various parts of the world about their tax strategies.
Since evidence can't be produced in support of nothing, reasonable people focus on evidence of what is happening, because if something is happening, there will be evidence to demonstrate the fact.
Perhaps I should've used a different word other than evidence, but rather should've put more emphasis on uncertainties instead. However I would disagree with your analysis if it were applied to logic, since logical analysis can factor in a negative.
The point being is we really don't know what Apple's really doing internally whether it's shady or not, but that's also applicable to all companies. People here seem to think that Apple's the company who does no wrong or incapable of wrongdoing and that's the point I was trying to make. The entire basis of that comment I made is all about the pot calling the kettle black.
Of course you can always win an argument by reframing it once you find you lost it, but what you are talking about is speculation, not uncertainty. There is zero evidence Apple is involved in tax evasion - zero. And their tax strategies have been examined by the US government, and governments in Europe and (if I recall) Australia.
Nor was I talking about 'logical analysis' because that has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or absence of an evidential basis for accusations.
The point is that really we do pretty much know what Apple is doing internally. We have to because it is a public company required by law (in just about every jurisdiction where it is traded) to submit a whole raft of reports on internal matters, including income, expenditures and taxes. Samsung, on the other hand, do not provide that kind of transparency because they are not traded on the US stock market. It is therefore hardly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Personally, I'm not remotely interested in whether people here think Apple can do no wrong, or not. That's about as relevant to anything as whether anyone thinks Jurassic Park was a good movie or not. What actually matters is not what people here think, but what Apple actually does. There is evidence here that plenty of people are rather biased, but there is no evidence that Apple has at any time perpetrated, or attempted to perpetrate, a scheme of tax evasion.
Oh, and on reflection, let us not forget that in the issue being discussed in this thread, it is Samsung, not Apple, or even both companies, who have already been found guilty of unlawful activity - and who admitted to it. This trial is only on the issue of how much damage Samsung's unlawful activity has damaged Apple. On its face, this would hardly put the two companies on the same moral ground. Well founded and proven evidence against Samsung, unfounded and speculative accusations against Apple. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could think there is parity of wrongdoing in this.
Last edited: