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.
ITC Rules in Favor of Apple, Older Samsung Products Facing Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, I refer to the fact that Samsung made more profits in last quarter than Apple.Is this the article -- Strategy Analytics: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/strategy-analytics-samsung-becomes-worlds-most-profitable-handset-vendor-in-q2-2013-217059871.html -- the one you're talking about?
Did you fail to read the Appleinsider article that thoroughly deconstructed that claim? As Dilger notes in that article:
We'll add you to the list of individuals who were snookered by that fundamentally flawed analysis.
Or were you talking about some other claim? References, please.
Aha. Do you realize: it's essentially meaningless to compare the profits of two companies? Apple and Samsung Electronics have overlap in only part of their business. Samsung has all sorts of electronics manufacturing; Apple has essentially none. On a financial basis, the two companies have vastly different capital investment.
The only reason a comparison between the companies is even remotely interesting is if you try to compare the part of the two businesses that are doing the same thing. That's what Strategy Analytics attempted in this article -- and what AppleInsider writer Daniel Dilger thoroughly deconstructed in this article.
Unfortunately, we have no evidence that you've ever read either article. We also have no evidence that you actually looked up the profitability of either company. As far as we can tell, you just heard about the Strategy Analytics article -- and started a pidgin reporting on their story. That's a spectacularly useless and uninformed commentary to inject into the discussion. Nobody cares about an Apple vs. Samsung comparison of profits -- nobody who thinks about financial results.
Exactly. The comparisons are meaningless. Any thinking person would realize they have no significance. Why are you talking about them?
You do realize: you've given no evidence that you even looked up the numbers you're talking about?
If someone made a competent comparison of the subset of each company's businesses, then it would be meaningful. Unfortunately, the comparison made was not competent.
You clearly failed to consider another alternative: those publications simply parroted the Strategy Analytics piece and failed to analyze the numbers themselves.
Indeed. We still have absolutely no evidence that you have read ANY of the articles you're commenting on. AFAICT, you have no interest whatsoever in a fact-based discussion.
If you had read the AppleInsider article, you would know that at least one of those publications updated their assessment after reading the AppleInsider analysis.
You present no evidence of reading the article and going through its arguments. I have, and I find the argument compelling. If you actually analyzed the evidence, you might become skeptical about the professionalism of those other publications.
Until you actually read those articles, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you.
So, dare I ask, what hard factual evidence do you have to back up those claims? What facts are at your disposal to state they are wrong, because you have provided no counter argument stating your right. All you have done is pick a random post and stated 'YOU'RE WRONG' with NO explanation at all as to why other than belittling the posters.
Well, if you want to put it his way, then by the same token you have no idea how much Apple sells because they report the same numbers as Samsung. Educate yourself by reading this article. Quote: "Apples sold numbers are really its shipment numbers, according to several prominent financial analysts who obsessively follow every word and number that emerges from Cupertino. "
You did not really think that WalMart, Target etc. who keep a lot of Apple products on their shelves report to Apple status of their inventories or did you?
Great point, except of course that Apple DOES report channel inventory. Care to try again?
----------
I have zero evidence because that is not my claim. My claim is that he has no idea how much Samsung sells. Can you dispute that?
Like I stated already, it's a pointless argument, and yes I did read that a PC magazine article agreed with Apple Insider and adjusted it's report, but that was one of several dozen.
Lol...so in order for you to believe Samsung's own numbers every other article must be retracted?
Last edited:
No.
The message is that companies who equivocate their FRAND patents with normal patents may be disappointed.
So if your questioning if I can dispute it, how are you capable of believing you can? Because if you can't then your posts are pointless and senseless. You are comparing yourself with me with that question.
What in the world are you talking about? It's not this difficult. No one, not me, not you, no one knows how much Samsung sells. Full stop. I claimed nothing more, and nothing less.
Getting better. So, Apple does have channel inventories as does Samsung. The main difference is that as a retailer by SEC rules Apple has to report sales. Samsung, not being a retailer, do not have to do it (and with the number and type of their retailers I doubt it would be possible to have exact numbers for their channel inventory). But that's not that important because unless you have a good [conspiracy] theory for where all the shipped Samsung devices disappear and how they manage to make higher profits than Apple this is a moot point.
Nice strawman. You and the other guy are good at that. At the end of the day you do not know how much Samsung sold. Creating strawmen and pretending I said something I didn't doesn't change that.
----------
Lol...you got me!
I wonder, if you break the numbers down, how many have their premium phones sold versus the thousands of other cheap ones they make.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/manufacturers/Samsung
----------
Because MR loves having people like this troll here. It brings traffic to the site and keeps the forums busy.
Engadget has updated it's report on this with a response issued by Samsung which is pretty funny:
We are disappointed that the ITC has issued an exclusion order based on two of Apple's patents. However, Apple has been prevented from trying to use its overbroad design patents to achieve a monopoly on rectangles and rounded corners. The proper focus for the smartphone industry is not a global war in the courts, but fair competition in the marketplace. Samsung will continue to launch many innovative products and we have already taken measures to ensure that our products will continue to be available in the United States.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/09/itc-bans-samsung-devices/
We are disappointed that the ITC has issued an exclusion order based on two of Apple's patents. However, Apple has been prevented from trying to use its overbroad design patents to achieve a monopoly on rectangles and rounded corners. The proper focus for the smartphone industry is not a global war in the courts, but fair competition in the marketplace. Samsung will continue to launch many innovative products and we have already taken measures to ensure that our products will continue to be available in the United States.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/09/itc-bans-samsung-devices/
Unless you state clearly why you think he should be joking or trolling then all you've done is make an unsubstantiated line of questioning designed to cast aspersion upon his statements.
How about you say why Samsung shouldn't be defending their patents (which it took US nepotism to overturn Samsung's win in the presidential review).
BTW I think that just about all tech patents are ********, especially software and design patents.
Last edited:
When you get caught time and time again for stealing, your statements will often be funny.
----------
Yes because obama made this decision.
How dare they steal those patented round corners! Wouldn't be funny if it wasn't true.
More ignorance from you. Sanmsung was never found guilty of stealing round corners. But but oh boy did they steal a whole ton of other stuff. 600 million dollars worth of stuff in fact.
As someone already stated, it's quite clear you have no interest in a fact based discussion and are just here to cry.
Earlier, you told us:
Yours is an example of an ad hominem circumstantial argument. As the Wikipedia notes, it is a fallacious argument: you are basing your argument on the identity of source rather than the facts and reasoning that the source presented. Do you now understand your error?
Now that you claim to have read Daniel Dilger's article, do you understand the flaws in the original Strategy Analytics article? Or do you have some specific issue with Dilger's facts and/or reasoning? I'm asking you to upgrade your argument to something other than innuendo...
The fact that ~ a dozen sources simply parroted the Strategy Analytics article is a sad commentary on the state of journalism in the industry. If you think about it, that kind of "endorsement" by repetition is simply another fallacious ad hominem circumstantial argument.
Not ignorant at all, Apple tried to patent round corners and claim Samsung stole them, Samsung counter claims Apple has stolen from them.
Both are heavily abusing a corrupt patent and courts system to win business advantages and market share, it seems to be their chosen method of business now. Shame but their we are.
At least they are keeping the lawyers employed I guess.
Built upon stolen TV tech since the 80's
Wow! I see a lot of dumb arguments about who has better sales, who sells more in phone or tablet categories and what seem to be, die-hard Samsung trolls saturating their comments all over the place, here in an All-about-Apple-Rumor website? Thats creepy and kooky, all wrapped up in one! The debate should be theft of apples innovation. Thats all Apple has is innovation. Samsung has component making dirt cheap, and has been picking apart rival electronics since the 70s. Just do an investigative search on their company and their product history, when they started replicating television sets. Its the foundation of copycat they have built upon and have been extremely successful. Pick it apart, build upon, repackage to look very similar to get consumers attention and sell it cheaper. Lets see how they can proceed when everyone is now on to them. Maybe they will have to actually invent something innovative that is not an expansion of something existing
Wow! I see a lot of dumb arguments about who has better sales, who sells more in phone or tablet categories and what seem to be, die-hard Samsung trolls saturating their comments all over the place, here in an All-about-Apple-Rumor website? Thats creepy and kooky, all wrapped up in one! The debate should be theft of apples innovation. Thats all Apple has is innovation. Samsung has component making dirt cheap, and has been picking apart rival electronics since the 70s. Just do an investigative search on their company and their product history, when they started replicating television sets. Its the foundation of copycat they have built upon and have been extremely successful. Pick it apart, build upon, repackage to look very similar to get consumers attention and sell it cheaper. Lets see how they can proceed when everyone is now on to them. Maybe they will have to actually invent something innovative that is not an expansion of something existing