Maybe you should try and understand what I am saying rather than repeating yourself.
Fact of the matter is, i dont think you understand what you are saying. It certainly doesnt look like it so far.
Apple doesn't have an advantage in R&D spending over Samsung. However much Samsung chooses to allocate to smartphone research is up to them. Their choice. The poster I responded to said that Apple had an advantage because of the amount of money they could allocate to a single smartphone. As the numbers show, Samsung could do the same thing.
They might, but we cannot make any such statements given the accessible data. In fact, it doesnt even allow for an educated guess.
That's all. No offer of proof on who spends more on smartphone R&D.
You finally get it. And yet you say things like the following sentence:
No, I said Apple is better at R&D than Samsung. That's an opinion. Not a false statement. One that would be hard to argue if we are still limiting the discussion to smartphone R&D.
No, that is a statement. The statement might be based of your opinion, i.e. pulled out of your ass, but its nonetheless a statement. The statement
may not be false, but it has shown to be baseless and the data provided to support the claim are non-indicative and thus irrelevant.
Second, "being better at R&D", and "being more efficient at R&D" aren't really miles apart, are they?
Because, they don't want to? Is that a trick question?
No, i was stupid enough to think that you could fill in the blanks yourself, then the classic quote by Scar came to mind. It usually does when discussing things with people online.
In essence, this is a make-or-buy decision (Google it and you might learn something). In the end, Apple would be retarded not "making" simply "because, they dont
want to". More likely, the answer is "because buying is (read: seems like) the better option"; i.e., when simplified, because Samsung is better at what they are doing then Apple is (e.g. producing SSD:s and LCD:s -- Apple buys the latter from LG though i guess, i would too).
Circumstantial evidence is not irrelevant. It's just not proof. And the numbers were very relevant to the point that I was trying to make, as opposed to the point that you think I am trying to make.
It is irrelevant. Both from a scientific point-of-view, and a non-scientific dito. You can not draw any conclusions (relevant to the discussion) from the data in question. Simple as that. If that doesnt make them irrelevant, i dont know what will.