Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes, the only reason non Apple smartphones are sold is because salesmen get spiffs

(271) CountSessine: There are THREE (3) NON-TECHNICAL REASONS that Samsung has left all their Android competitors in the dust.
1. In North America, Samsung sucks telephone company executive cock harder than anyone else
2. They give big spiffs to all the greasy salespeople in the Verizon store
3. They are literally outspending even their closest competitor (Apple) in marketing by a factor of 2 - Samsung isn't just the market leader - they're the marketing leader.

(272) Oletros: <sarcasm>I read somewhere that there is a world outside USA but perhaps I can be wrong.</sarcasm>

(273) CountSessine: Yes - reason #2 applies outside North America [as does reason #3].

(274) Oletros: <sarcasm>Yes, the only reason non Apple smartphones are sold is because salesmen get spiffs</sarcasm>

CountSessine: <speechless/>
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why that's a problem. I would've LOVED to get 5% commission on selling all of those *$$)#*$#) iPhones and Macs when I worked for Apple Retail. But then I would've brought home a $9,000 check ever month.

I don't think that it would be a problem, except that there are people who are naive enough (think grandparents) to walk in to a Verizon store expecting the salesperson to help them find the solution that's best for them. I don't think that its widely known that telephone store salesmen get spiffs from the handset makers - I'm sure most customers could guess that they'll get a commission from getting a customer to sign a contract, but how many people would guess that the salesman will make more money that month selling them a Galaxy than a One?

Of course, because anyone with an Android was obviously conned into buying one, everyone where in the world . . . . people are being conned into buying $650 Android handsets.

Well... isn't it your experience too that Android users are the most and the least technical of all telephone users? In my purely anecdotal experience, Android users either seem to be technically-knowledgeable people like programmers or IT people, 'power users' (people who pretend to be technical), and then on the other end of the spectrum the most ignorant of the ignorant - the folks who walked into the Verizon store looking to buy an 'iphone' (without really knowing much about what an iphone is), but walk out with a Galaxy Q or something and say, "but I got this Samsung iphone for $50 less!" (yes - I had a relative say this to me. No, she isn't genetically related to me).
 
(271) CountSessine: There are THREE (3) NON-TECHNICAL REASONS that Samsung has left all their Android competitors in the dust.
1. In North America, Samsung sucks telephone company executive cock harder than anyone else
2. They give big spiffs to all the greasy salespeople in the Verizon store
3. They are literally outspending even their closest competitor (Apple) in marketing by a factor of 2 - Samsung isn't just the market leader - they're the marketing leader.

(272) Oletros: <sarcasm>I read somewhere that there is a world outside USA but perhaps I can be wrong.</sarcasm>

(273) CountSessine: Yes - reason #2 applies outside North America [as does reason #3].

(274) Oletros: <sarcasm>Yes, the only reason non Apple smartphones are sold is because salesmen get spiffs</sarcasm>

CountSessine: <speechless/>


Yes, I'm also speechless with your claims, and looking and how your classify Android users it is normal that you can make those nonsensical and totally wrong claims.

Have a good day in your lala land
 
I don't think Apple wants to compete. I think Apple wants to shut down the competition.

What I've seen with pretty much every company now is that they don't compete anymore, they fight. That's what it seems to me.
 
Innovating? How do we measure that? With the number of patents filed?

And truth be told, Samsung is dominant right now because they have the best relationships with the north american telecoms, they give the biggest 'spiffs' to salespeople (in fact with many carriers Apple doesn't spiff at all), and they're outspending everyone by at least a factor of 2x on marketing and advertising. It's amazing that Apple keeps up with them at all.

As for the actual phones, the Galaxy phones are made with cheap-feeling plastic and have a badly-implemented Apple-aping UI (who knows why they would want to copy *that* particular bit of iOS). And they have a reputation for atrocious reliability with the support people in the telecoms - at least when compared to HTC and Apple - the SGS2 and the Galaxy Nexus in particular.

There are so many things wrong about this post.

Samsung is not making their sales solely in America. Actually most of Samsung sales come from (wait for it gasp) out of NA . In Europe and Asia people mostly buy their phones unlocked or even from the carrier the price is the same for an unlocked version.

And cheap plastic? Have you ever even owned a Samsung phone? When I had my gs2 and note 2 I dropped it numerous times. And not even a scratch on the plastic. And current gen of Samsung phones like gs4 and note 2 are hybrids of plastic and aluminum.

I guess you forgot that iPhones once had that crappy plastic you talk about.

It kills me when isheep go on rants about Samsung phones and have no clue what they are talking about.

----------

I don't think Apple wants to compete. I think Apple wants to shut down the competition.

What I've seen with pretty much every company now is that they don't compete anymore, they fight. That's what it seems to me.

When they can't innovate anymore they litigate. Motto of every huge cooperation.
 
Mocking Wikipedia is also moot. I am no researcher, but I usually read the comments, then check the sources at the bottom and read them. I see that some still just take what folks say at face value.

Seriously, look at the specific Wikipedia page, there is a big sign at the top of the page saying it lacks sources and references. At the bottom of the page there are links to other topics mentioned in the article under "See also". You are being quite dishonest about it.
 
Yes, I'm also speechless with your claims, and looking and how your classify Android users it is normal that you can make those nonsensical and totally wrong claims.

Have a good day in your lala land

A wiser man might understand that if he were speechless, silence would be more appropriate than blathering on with nothing to say.
 
it's not their will

I believe there would be no stupidity like "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system." being patented by Apple, if the others wouldn't push them into it. What Apple do is simply balancing the values in the battle and I believe they hate it, but they have to do it. They had no idea what they were going into by patenting multitouch, simple and meaningful technology at a time.

Just go on Apple, I would never say I hate you - because of this *****.
 
. They give big spiffs to all the greasy salespeople in the Verizon store

Ha Ha. Big spliff. Are they as big as this?

spliff-3986.jpg
 
There are so many things wrong about this post.

0_o

Samsung is not making their sales solely in America. Actually most of Samsung sales come from (wait for it gasp) out of NA . In Europe and Asia people mostly buy their phones unlocked or even from the carrier the price is the same for an unlocked version.

Was there a point you were trying to make?

They do this better than any of their competitors and always have. Motorola learned that after being jerked-around for months by Verizon's asshat management telling them to redesign the Q. Samsung waltzes in and introduces the copy-cat BlackJack and its all good with Verizon's execs.

In North America you sell to the telephone company execs, not consumers.

In the rest of the world Samsung relies on the sheer weight of their marketing and advertising.

And cheap plastic? Have you ever even owned a Samsung phone?

Yes, three, as a matter of fact. Most recently a Galaxy Nexus.

The Galaxy Nexus I had was a disaster. Aside from the fact that it had a mysterious firmware/hardware bug that would cause it to reboot twice a day after overheating spontaneously (check out the xda developer forums for how many people had this same problem), that wasn't the worst of it. Every once in a while it would just decide to silently go off the cell network. I'd check my phone and find out that I was missing texts and calls all day without knowing it. Quality!

On top of that, someone else discovered that if you press gently on the back of the Galaxy Nexus, it'll lose power and reboot - probably because the battery leads lose contact with the battery because of the case flex. They foolishly pushed the case design beyond the limits of what a plastic enclosure can tolerate. Because it looked 'cool' - form over engineering. Quality!

Don't get me wrong - I loved the software. Android 4 ICS was da ****, and I'm sure its only gotten better since. It was the first version of Android that you could buy without being a sucker or vehemently and irrationally anti-Apple. It addressed most of Gingerbread's worst shortcomings (horrible touch-screen and rendering lag, ugly system widgets, ****** bundled browser, etc) and kept all of Android's traditional strengths. I'm quite comfortable saying that Android as an OS is well ahead of iOS 6 in most respects - and I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Android phone in the future - as soon as my carrier makes an Android visual voice mail app that doesn't suck (and the current one does).

But Samsung didn't have anything to do with the software, did they?

In fact I've probably owned more Samsung products of all kinds than most people have. And I don't think that I've had a single one of them that didn't die or malfunction badly before having owned it for 2 years. One of my Samsung TVs died 11 months after I bought it, got serviced under warranty by a Samsung tech, and then died again in a different way 2 months later, just out of warranty. Quality!

Samsung is the king of DRAM and NAND flash. They make solid feature phones, their displays are the envy of the industry, and I've heard they make good refrigerators. Props to them.

I just wouldn't buy one of their phones again.

When I had my gs2 and note 2 I dropped it numerous times. And not even a scratch on the plastic. And current gen of Samsung phones like gs4 and note 2 are hybrids of plastic and aluminum.

Bully for you.

It kills me when isheep go on rants about Samsung phones and have no clue what they are talking about.


Did you really just say 'isheep'? Seriously? Am I debating an adult?

When they can't innovate anymore they litigate. Motto of every huge cooperation.

Does rhyming help you to understand difficult concepts?

----------

Ha Ha. Big spliff. Are they as big as this?

Image

That's what you've gotta smoke to feel good about working for the phone company. :D:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They do this better than any of their competitors and always have.

Motorola learned that after being jerked-around for months by Verizon's asshat management telling them to redesign the Q. Samsung waltzes in and introduces the copy-cat BlackJack and its all good with Verizon's execs.

Verizon never carried the Blackjack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyway, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Apple had its moment of glory, but as always, the open platforms succeed over the closed platforms.

Very true words. Apple adopted a unix-like core for Apple OSX - because "the open platforms succeed over the closed platforms".

The fans have trouble seeing this, however, and even more trouble in applying the idea to mobile devices.
 
0_o



Was there a point you were trying to make?

They do this better than any of their competitors and always have. Motorola learned that after being jerked-around for months by Verizon's asshat management telling them to redesign the Q. Samsung waltzes in and introduces the copy-cat BlackJack and its all good with Verizon's execs.

In North America you sell to the telephone company execs, not consumers.

In the rest of the world Samsung relies on the sheer weight of their marketing and advertising.

The point I was trying to make there is a world outside of America. I notice a lot of people(not saying you just a general observation on this forum) like to only look at how samsung sales are structured in the US and never talk about the rest of the world.






Did you really just say 'isheep'? Seriously? Am I debating an adult?



Does rhyming help you to understand difficult concepts?
Now in one sentence you are questioning my maturity and in another you are saying something immature to me. I don't mind it. But if you are going to accuse someone of immaturity don't come back with a middle school comment.

And yes rhyming does help me with difficult concepts. Got a problem with that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(271) CountSessine: There are THREE (3) NON-TECHNICAL REASONS that Samsung has left all their Android competitors in the dust.

1. They give big spiffs to all the greasy salespeople in the Verizon store
2. They are literally outspending even their closest competitor (Apple) in marketing by a factor of 2 - Samsung isn't just the market leader - they're the marketing leader.

(272) Oletros: <sarcasm>I read somewhere that there is a world outside USA but perhaps I can be wrong.</sarcasm>

(273) CountSessine: Yes - reason #2 applies outside North America [as does reason #3].

(274) Oletros: <sarcasm>Yes, the only reason non Apple smartphones are sold is because salesmen get spiffs</sarcasm>

CountSessine: <speechless/>

bro you do know that Verizon is the biggest carrier in the usa and it did not get the galaxy s,galaxy s2 and note 1 AT ALL and those were the phones that put Samsung on the radar and they finally got the nexus as there first Samsung flagship android phone.They were 3-4 months late on the note 2 and were late on the gs3 and they finally just got the gs4 a few days ago.

Samsung broke all android sales with the s2 and it was never even sold on Verizon

Samsung got where it is because it was always one generation ahead of the comp in hardware and it built massive momentum from there.

you do know that the exynos gs4 is a true next gen cortex arm A15 design right and not even the krait 800 that is do in nov can compete clock for clock?

maybe just sit back and look how ahead Samsung was compared to the rest of the phones and see why it got to where it is today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that it would be a problem, except that there are people who are naive enough (think grandparents) to walk in to a Verizon store expecting the salesperson to help them find the solution that's best for them. I don't think that its widely known that telephone store salesmen get spiffs from the handset makers - I'm sure most customers could guess that they'll get a commission from getting a customer to sign a contract, but how many people would guess that the salesman will make more money that month selling them a Galaxy than a One?

I honestly say that that's the way of the retail world. If a salesmen or woman can sell an Eskimo a fan . . . . . that's one GOOD salesperson.

I know my time working for Apple had me see a whole lotta behind the veil stuff. Specialists extending the EDU discount to regular users if they bought AppleCare, DotMac (back in the day), and OneToOne. All that to say, that there's a lot that the average user don't know or at times assume.

Being an educated consumer, is still the responsibility of the said consumer.

Well... isn't it your experience too that Android users are the most and the least technical of all telephone users? In my purely anecdotal experience, Android users either seem to be technically-knowledgeable people like programmers or IT people, 'power users' (people who pretend to be technical), and then on the other end of the spectrum the most ignorant of the ignorant - the folks who walked into the Verizon store looking to buy an 'iphone' (without really knowing much about what an iphone is), but walk out with a Galaxy Q or something and say, "but I got this Samsung iphone for $50 less!" (yes - I had a relative say this to me. No, she isn't genetically related to me).

I say it's a mixed bag on both ends. I know there are times iPhone users like clamoring about how IT folks love the iPhone and it can do so much, but at the other end it's easy for grandma to pick up and use.

Android users love talking about how they can tweak their handsets and do all sorts of stuff with hacking and ROMs and such, then say how Android is easier to get into the hands of the layman.

----------

Seriously, look at the specific Wikipedia page, there is a big sign at the top of the page saying it lacks sources and references. At the bottom of the page there are links to other topics mentioned in the article under "See also". You are being quite dishonest about it.

Click the "See also". You will actually have to do more than just ramble off a bunch of off topic statements that aren't even related to what we were talking about two pages ago.

The original point was that Winni mentioned open platforms, you through a smoke screen by stating the success of open platforms is dependent on the success of two open SOURCE OSes that were never even in the original topic and that no one mentioned.

I tried to clarify the difference between open-source and open-platform, and that the OSes you mentioned have nothing to do with the success of open-platform systems.

You took it off on a completely different tangent and started to debate your knowledge of open systems, and criticize links that were merely posted to help you get an understanding of what you say you already know.

If you know . . . then move on and forget the links. They were only there to help in clarification, but since you are clear, FORGET ABOUT THEM.

Now, the only thing left to discuss is the original comment you made to Winni, asking him for proof that open-platforms succeed every time.
 
Click the "See also". You will actually have to do more than just
ramble off a bunch of off topic statements that aren't even related to
what we were talking about two pages ago.

They are links to other topics! They are not
sources or references that backs up the point!

The article mentions some criterias that are properties of open
platforms. But is the list complete, how many of the criterias has to be
ticked for an platform to be considered open etc., is it enough to only
provide public apis for exaple, if so iOS is an open platform. It only
support my previous statement that it's a lose definition, which
likely is also why you don't find any sources or references. But let's
try to go in the other direction and use your own Wikipedia link to
support my statement.

P.S the reason I go on about this is that it's the nail that all your
arguments hang on
.

The original point was that Winni mentioned open platforms, you through
a smoke screen by stating the success of open platforms is dependent on
the success of two open SOURCE OSes that were never even in the original
topic and that no one mentioned.

I tried to clarify the difference between open-source and open-platform,
and that the OSes you mentioned have nothing to do with the success of
open-platform systems.

It wasn't a smoke screen at all (but a bit of devils advocate). It's
hard to imagine an open source platform that is not also an open
platform, in fact it would tick all the boxes from your Wikipedia
link by default. The only thing that could put that in question is
related to the organization behind the project. If you look at the
examples I mentioned they have no vendor or economical interest at all,
in the case of Mozilla their stated mission is to support open
standards. Here is an excerpt from your Wikipedia link:

Using an open platform a developer could add features or
functionality that the platform vendor had not completed or had not
conceived of. An open platform allows the developer to change existing
functionality, as the specifications are publicly available open
standards.

Now from the Open governance report:

Google tightly controls the Android platform and its derivatives, i.e.,
the make-up of the Android platform on commercial handsets. Device
manufacturers must pass the Compatibility Definition Document (CDD) and
Compatibility Test Suite (CTS) tests in order to be allowed use of the
Android trademark, the Android Market or other important Google Mobile
Services such as GMaps, Gmail and GTalk.

And further down:

Devices that pass the CTS can then “seek” approval to use the Android
trademark and the Google Mobile Services, although the final criteria
appear both undocumented and somewhat capricious.
As Google’s Dan Morrill put it in an e-mail on Aug. 6, 2010, “We are
using compatibility as a club to make them [OEMs] do things we want.”

Do you see how the platforms I brought up can be seen as more open? Do
you see how Google services is really part of the platform, and thus should
have their openness put in question? (see the SOA part of your Wikipedia link)

http://www.visionmobile.com/rsc/researchreports/Open Governance Index (VisionMobile).pdf
 
P.S the reason I go on about this is that it's the nail that all your
arguments hang on
.

Here we go again.

I was NEVER ARGUING anything to begin with! Your pull some major assumptions. I agree with everything you say except the comment you made to Winni.

Even Renzatic "GOT IT" early on:

Now do you see? The whole issue with open source doesn't even figure into what he said. You brought it up, he tried to clarify.

Since things are a little messy, yet VERY clear, we can move on to something else . . . . . like the original topic. Which is about patent wars between Google and Apple . . . . not technicalities.
 
Last edited:
Here we go again.

I was NEVER ARGUING anything to begin with! Your pull some major assumptions. I agree with everything you say except the comment you made to Winni.

Even Renzatic "GOT IT" early on:

:D Well, sorry. I guess my point is, yes those examples are open source, but that is besides the point. Anyhow I already admit it was a devil's advocate sort of argument, mainly because I suspected that (previous successful platforms) referred to Windows.

Anyway, let's leave it and move on.
 
Do you see how the platforms I brought up can be seen as more open? Do you see how Google services is really part of the platform, and thus should
have their openness put in question? (see the SOA part of your Wikipedia link)

The ****ing Google services are not part of the Android platform. How many times must be told to you before you stop spreading that lie?
 
The ****ing Google services are not part of the Android platform. How many times must be told to you before you stop spreading that lie?

Try to look at the reality, how the platform is used, and how Google uses it.
Their main interest is getting eyeballs, not providing a free OS to OEMs.
 
Try to look at the reality, how the platform is used, and how Google uses it.
Their main interest is getting eyeballs, not providing a free OS to OEMs.

The reality is that Google services are not part of Android.

What Google wants doesn't mean a **** so you can try to bend reality, it will be the same and reality is that you're wrong

Android is an open platform and Google Services are not part of it.

Do you understand?
 
The reality is that Google services are not part of Android.

What Google wants doesn't mean a **** so you can try to bend reality, it will be the same and reality is that you're wrong

Of course it does, they control Android. I see you bring insults while I bring research reports. Have a good day. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.