Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What you're trying to say:

I was hurt when Apple had monopoly over the digital audio player market through their iPods.

Does it even make sense?

The original iPod was a great product. And iPods have a come a long way since then. Being sad or disgusted just because a company sells a ******** of their stuff is not just stupid, but sad too.

I was also upset with Apple practicaly much monopolized the market with the iPod, simply because I think competition is in the best interests of the consumer.

I've been using portable audio players since 2004, and in that time I've had the opportunity to own a Creative Zen Vision:M which I still feel to this day was quite superior to the iPod it competed with (and cheaper too). Also, I absolutely love my Zune HD. Sure its not as full featured/supported as my iPod touch, but its very noticeably lighter and I think its interface just plain owns iOS' and has helped firmly convinced me to eventually drop my Android phone in favor of a Windows Phone once my contract is up.

The iPod is a great product and I love my iPod Touch, but there have been great, cheaper, and in my opinion superior products out there in the past that have been overlooked because of the power of the Apple brand.

I'm sad Microsoft bowed out with the Zune HD and I'm said that the potential for great alternative players is greatly limited by the apparent lack of a market for them.

Just to offer you a detailed perspective on that so that it can make sense.
 
I would love to know how much Apple spends every year on their these lawsuits. Including salaries, offices, etc. it's got to many tens of millions at a minimum, if not hundreds. Is it really worth it? Apple is already dominating the market in profits, why not just collect licensing fees and squeeze their competitors' bottom lines even tighter?

Apple thinks it's worth it. Apple spends millions on its designs, and has spent billions integrating its design with its engineering. So when someone skips that step and just copies the design...yeah, I can see how that would be worth it.
 
I was also upset with Apple practicaly much monopolized the market with the iPod, simply because I think competition is in the best interests of the consumer.

Apple did not create a monopoly, they created a better product. Nothing is stopping other companies from doing the same.
 
Wow Apple give it a rest.

Samsung tablets are about as much of a threat as Geo Metros are to Ferrari sales.

Which begs the question... Why resort to banning your competition?
Does anybody really not know the answer? Honestly?

Btw, do Metros blow up in your pocket, have antennas that don't
work properly or batteries that don't hold a charge properly?
Take your time.
 
Honestly I'm happy that Apple is being so aggressive with this. Hopefully Samsung gets the message and their future tablets and phones won't be iPad/iPhone knockoffs. That type of business shouldn't be rewarded.

Even though I don't plan on buying a Windows or Nokia phone in the foreseeable future, I at least applaud them for designing unique OS and phones. They're offering products that clearly stand apart from Apple's.

When I first saw the Samsung Vibrant, I literally thought it was the 3GS (and was surprised they'd produce such a blatant ripoff). Then their tablets roll out and if it weren't for Samsung written on them, I'd think they were iPads too. And was it in the Australian court where the Samsung attorney couldn't initially tell the Galaxy Tab and iPad apart lol. Pretty sad.

Samsung needs to hire some designers like everyone else and stop being lazy and mooching off Apple's team.
 
Apple did not create a monopoly, they created a better product. Nothing is stopping other companies from doing the same.

I disagree. As I've said, there has been a least one portable music player out there in the past that I feel is superior to the iPod it competed with (read: I don't think it was a better product).

I cannot blame Apple for making a product that sells, but I do not like the idea of the Apple iPod brand being so powerful that it severely limits the market for other players that may be cheaper and better. That is what is stopping other companies from doing the same. It stopped Microsoft didn't it? And as I've tried to imply, as much as I love my iPod touch, I'd prefer to be using my Zune HD. The interface is just that much better.
 
Ha, ha, ha, he, he, he!

That was a very good one!

-1 from me.

If people legally HAD to buy something that sucked to prevent Apple from having a 'monopoly', Democracy would go down the crapper. The iPod was no monopoly. There were all sorts of alternatives, but nobody wanted them. Look at the tablet market of today.
 
if u look at a samsung tablet and think it's an ipad you are an idiot.
if you look at a samsung phone and think it's an iphone you are an idiot.


other than vibrant colors they look nothing alike. open the samsung app drawer and yeah its a wall of apps but i don't believe apple has a patent on wall of apps.

apple did not invent or innovate the rectangle shape either especially considering samsung tabs have usb ports.

apple products are glass and metal, sammy's glass and durable plastic...they don't even have the same shapes...

apple is scared of competition point blank. trying to ban every other competitors product is a fear induced move not even microsoft tried to ban competitors ...

stop the damn litigation and let competition decide, let users decide.
 
To me it's obvious that Samsung is trying to copy Apple. They're even taunting Apple about it with their product naming.

Apple is suing because they feel Samsung is creeping on their 'Look and feel' with the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Samsung Galaxy S. Where have we heard 'Look and feel' before in an Apple lawsuit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#GEM_.22look_and_feel.22_suit
Right. So this happened years ago. But what does it have to do with Samsung?
1302085170-dien-thoai-Samsung-gem-6.jpg

Ahhhh... Look at that interface... The phone itself doesn't look anything like an iPhone, but that interface is the same as that of the Samsung Galaxy S that Apple was suing over earlier this year, plus this is a phone that is nearly impossible to find in the United States... I wonder why?
 
I was also upset with Apple practicaly much monopolized the market with the iPod, simply because I think competition is in the best interests of the consumer.
Well, when all of the consumers want the iPod, what are you going to do? The problem was not anything Apple did; the problem was the horrible design of the competition.
I've been using portable audio players since 2004, and in that time I've had the opportunity to own a Creative Zen Vision:M which I still feel to this day was quite superior to the iPod it competed with (and cheaper too).
The device itself may have been fine - even better than the iPod in some ways - but using WMP (or whatever shareware-quality jukebox program they included in the box) is why this and similar iPod competitors crashed in the marketplace. (I had a creative nomad ii before I had an iPod, so I remember those days). People wanted a device that it was easy to put music on. ITunes (particularly in those less bloated days) was vastly superior to anything else out there - that's the main reason no one could seriously challenge it. (That, and horrible missteps like Atrac from the one company that could have challenged Apple, maybe.) The audiophile market for these devices has always been tiny; no one (statistically) cared much about flac, or ogg, or any other oddball formats. They just wanted an easy way to carry all of their music with them.
Also, I absolutely love my Zune HD. Sure its not as full featured/supported as my iPod touch, but its very noticeably lighter and I think its interface just plain owns iOS' and has helped firmly convinced me to eventually drop my Android phone in favor of a Windows Phone once my contract is up.
I think that the Zune was a really good product, and that it could have been the iPod if it had come first. But as it was, it came to market *way* too late (Xmas 2006!), still didn't have a jukebox programs as good as iTunes, and, compounding this, made some very bad initial marketing decisions (remember "Welcome to the Social?" - no one with any basis in reality would have made that useless feature the keystone of their advertising campaign).
The iPod is a great product and I love my iPod Touch, but there have been great, cheaper, and in my opinion superior products out there in the past that have been overlooked because of the power of the Apple brand.
It's not the power of the Apple brand. The power of the Apple brand was pretty diluted in 2001. It's because Apple gave people products that were absolutely superior in ways that mattered to 80% of people, even if they were inferior in ways that only mattered to 20%.
I'm sad Microsoft bowed out with the Zune HD and I'm said that the potential for great alternative players is greatly limited by the apparent lack of a market for them.

Just to offer you a detailed perspective on that so that it can make sense.

I think more and more people are using their phones as mp3 players, so there's not a lot of space at the upper end.

I do think that Apple is weak in the sub $100 market, though - while there is a lot to like about the shuffle, there is also a lot not to like about a device that holds 500 songs and doesn't have a screen.
 
Oh Samsung what a useless designing department you must have. You could not even make it a different color. Really is this the best you can do.
 
I disagree. As I've said, there has been a least one portable music player out there in the past that I feel is superior to the iPod it competed with (read: I don't think it was a better product).

I cannot blame Apple for making a product that sells, but I do not like the idea of the Apple iPod brand being so powerful that it severely limits the market for other players that may be cheaper and better. That is what is stopping other companies from doing the same. It stopped Microsoft didn't it? And as I've tried to imply, as much as I love my iPod touch, I'd prefer to be using my Zune HD. The interface is just that much better.

Actually, better product is subjective, I should say better ideas as the iTunes store was just as important in gaining the iPod popularity.

but I do not like the idea of the Apple iPod brand being so powerful that it severely limits the market for other players that may be cheaper and better.

Powerful I believe is not the right word, it was more popular.

So the popularity of the iPod is stopping other companies from selling more portable music players? Well of course it is, better come up with something equally as popular I guess, that's called competition.

So perhaps we should not allow all the good athletes to compete in any sports as it would be unfair to all the not as good athletes to lose.

It stopped Microsoft didn't it?

Microsoft is an entirely different ball of wax and not the same thing as what Apple is doing.

Microsoft used its market share dominance to hamper competition. Just look what it did to Netscape. You could not even uninstall Internet Explorer at one point.

At least now, Microsoft comes up with its own ideas instead of cloning someone else.
 
if u look at a samsung tablet and think it's an ipad you are an idiot.
if you look at a samsung phone and think it's an iphone you are an idiot.


other than vibrant colors they look nothing alike. open the samsung app drawer and yeah its a wall of apps but i don't believe apple has a patent on wall of apps.

apple did not invent or innovate the rectangle shape either especially considering samsung tabs have usb ports.

apple products are glass and metal, sammy's glass and durable plastic...they don't even have the same shapes...

apple is scared of competition point blank. trying to ban every other competitors product is a fear induced move not even microsoft tried to ban competitors ...

stop the damn litigation and let competition decide, let users decide.

Oh come off it. If it were as silly and simple as you make it out to be the lawsuits wouldn't have taken off (and Apple wouldn't be winning some of them).

And the users have already decided. Samsung's newest smartphones were getting spanked by the 2yr old 3GS. Their presence in the tablet market is minimal. Galaxy Tabs are available in plenty of other markets and they aren't flying off the shelves.

Get over this Apple is stifling competition nonsense. If you want a non-Apple product then go buy one.
 
To me it's obvious that Samsung is trying to copy Apple. They're even taunting Apple about it with their product naming.

Apple is suing because they feel Samsung is creeping on their 'Look and feel' with the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Samsung Galaxy S. Where have we heard 'Look and feel' before in an Apple lawsuit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#GEM_.22look_and_feel.22_suit
Right. So this happened years ago. But what does it have to do with Samsung?
Image
Ahhhh... Look at that interface... The phone itself doesn't look anything like an iPhone, but that interface is the same as that of the Samsung Galaxy S that Apple was suing over earlier this year, plus this is a phone that is nearly impossible to find in the United States... I wonder why?


that's with the app drawer open... with the drawer closed it looks nothing like an iphone
 
Originally Posted by Daws001 View Post
Samsung's newest smartphones were getting spanked by the 2yr old 3GS.


How come Samsung sold more smartphones in Q3 2011 vs Apple then ?

Facts, let's ignore them !

One quarter?!? Need to expand it out a bit. iPhone 4S was released after the report came out. Everyone was waiting for the next iphone release. Lets wait till the next quarterly report to see if it retains that position.

You can't really get a reliable data off of a small period of time. iPhone still outsells any Samsung phone, at least for now.
 
Oh come off it. If it were as silly and simple as you make it out to be the lawsuits wouldn't have taken off (and Apple wouldn't be winning some of them).

And the users have already decided. Samsung's newest smartphones were getting spanked by the 2yr old 3GS. Their presence in the tablet market is minimal. Galaxy Tabs are available in plenty of other markets and they aren't flying off the shelves.

Get over this Apple is stifling competition nonsense. If you want a non-Apple product then go buy one.

actually galaxy's are selling out all over the world and are big in korea where apple is not gaining traction samsung even won an injunction in korea but chose not to seek a ban on apple products so they could compete.

apple on the other hand is terrified of any form of competition. jobs hated competition according to his book and viewed damn near everything as a rip of apple even things apple didn't create.

samsung is the one of the reasons android is leading iphone right now thats y apple is seeking bans to try to sue android to death.

it's a pathetic, childish scared tactic...if you're a leader like apple claims, why fear competition? just compete if you keep the lead cool if you don't accept it gracefully and stop being a coward in the face of a challenge.

rim could probably sue everyone for ip infringement and win and ban everyone since their ip library is the biggest instead they compete even when they are losing, ibm could also but they license their ip's. moto can ban apple in germany right now but they haven't made that move even tho everyone knows apple would seek to get them banned.

apple is like the insecure girlfriend who's scared her boyfriend is gonna see someone prettier and leave... these lawsuits are pure cowardice in the face of a challenge.

if samsung isn't a threat to the mighty apple why seek to legally kill them?
 
Shipped more smartphones*

Quarter after quarter increases of shipments indicate sales. Unless they're really over stuffing channels and channel partners are letting them do it. :rolleyes:

----------

Not to mention the number of models Samsung has vs Apple. I'd actually be surprised if any single Samsung model outsold any single iPhone model.

Irrelevant. If Apple had more models, it wouldn't necessarily translate into more unit sales as people would diversify their purchases accross the line-up.
 
Oh Samsung what a useless designing department you must have. You could not even make it a different color. Really is this the best you can do.

Why should they have to make it a different colour in the first place? Does apple own the colour black?

As for the average consumer not know what product is made by which company... This happens all the time. Take a bunch of tvs, remove the logos, and ask people whether they are lg, sony, panasonic, etc. Take a bunch of laptops, remove the logos and ask people to tell you whether they are gateway, acer, MSI, or asus (some such as sony do look different). That guy over there, is her using a acer laptop or an asus? Likely you won't know unless you get up to closely look or see the logo. Many products that serve similar functions look alike.

The problem is that apple has gone about distinguishing itself with is designs while other companies have distinguished themselves with their products performance, features, etc. However, as most people know, it is really hard, if not impossible to create another minimalist design for a tablet that is ascetically pleasing. Black and rectangular cannot be patented.
 
It's not the power of the Apple brand. The power of the Apple brand was pretty diluted in 2001. It's because Apple gave people products that were absolutely superior in ways that mattered to 80% of people, even if they were inferior in ways that only mattered to 20%.

That's a very clever way to put it. Nice.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.