Samsung Copies Google AdMob / AdSense

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by Consultant, Jan 9, 2012.

  1. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #1
  2. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #2
    I wasn't aware that Google invented banner advertising.
     
  3. Consultant thread starter macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #3
    Apple did not invent XYZ either.

    But who is the current leader in online advertising if not Google?
     
  4. ChazUK macrumors 603

    ChazUK

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Location:
    Essex (UK)
    #4
    So if a certain company enters the TV market, will there be a post titled "Apple copies Samsung"?
     
  5. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #5
    That may well be true... but there are so many finite ways of doing something before it is considered copying.

    Mobile advertising has its limits, so does form factor. Although blatanly doing so is beyond me. AT least trying to incorporate something new is fine.
     
  6. *LTD* macrumors G4

    *LTD*

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #6
    Is Samsung drawing a line in the sand?

    Samsung seems to want to go their own way. A move toward vertical integration. But how will this affect their relationship with Google? Will it even have an affect? A few observers (including Gassée below) postulate a conflict between Google and Samsung. At some point, we are told that Samsung's interests and Google's interests will clash.

    One factor seems to be Samsung's recent success and distancing from the rest of the Android pack, which seems to have precipitated what appears to be the beginnings of a move toward vertical integration (using an "open" OS?), while the other seems to be Google's own plans with Motorola, which some believe to be their own move toward vertical integration.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/01/08/samsung-vs-google/

    Samsung vs. Google
    January 8, 2012 - 11:04 pm | Edited by Jean-Louis Gassée

    Android is a huge success. Google bought Andy Rubin’s company in 2005 and turned it into a smartphone operating system giant, with more than 50% of the global market and 700,000 activations a day this past December.

    Perhaps, as Steve Jobs seemed to think, it was Eric Schmidt’s position on Apple’s Board of Directors that infected Google with an itch to enter the smartphone OS market. Or maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin simply recognized the Next Big Thing when they saw it. (As Page points out, the company had begun Android development a year before Schmidt joined the Apple Board.)

    Regardless of the “authenticity” of Google’s smartphone impulse, it’s the execution of the idea, the integration of Android into Google’s top-level strategy where the product really shines. Android improves quickly; the “free and open” platform is popular with developers and, perhaps even more so, with handset makers who no longer have to create their own software, a task they’re culturally ill-suited to perform. And everyone loves being associated with a technically competent winner. (I might be a little biased in my regard for the Android engineering team: Comrades from a previous OS war work there.)

    For the past three years, Android has experienced a kind of free space expansion: The platform has grown without hitting obstacles. I’m not ignoring the IP wars, they’re real and the outcome(s) are still unclear, but these fights haven’t slowed Android’s triumphant march.

    As we enter 2012, however, it seems the game may be changing. Looking at last week’s numbers for Motorola, HTC, and Samsung, we see a different picture. Instead of the old “there’s more than enough room for every Android handset maker to be a winner”, we have a three-horse’s-length leader, Samsung, while Motorola and HTC lag behind.

    From October to December of last year, a.k.a. Q4CY11, Samsung is said to have shipped 35 million smartphones, taking it to the number one spot worldwide. Citing “competitive reasons”, Samsung no longer makes its sales/shipment numbers public, so we have to rely on ‘‘independent” observers to tally up the score. Having worked in the high-tech industry for decades, I’ve seen how this information game is played: firm XYZ sells its “research” to manufacturer W…and ends up as its mouthpiece. I’d love to follow the money, but these private firms don’t have to reveal who their clients are and how much they pay for their services. (For a more detailed discussion of these shenanigans, read an excellent piece by The Guardian’s Charles Arthur: Dear Samsung: could we have some clarity on your phone sales figures now? Another possible bias: The Guardian re-publishes the Monday Note on its site.)

    But even if we “de-propagandize” the numbers, Samsung is clearly the number one Android handset maker, and, just as clearly, it’s taking large chunks of market share from the other two leading players: Motorola and HTC both announced lower than expected Q4CY11 numbers. HTC’s unit volume was 10 million units, down from 13.2 million in Q3; Motorola got 10.5 million units in Q4, down from 11.6 million in Q3.

    This leaves us with the potential for an interesting face-off. Not Samsung vs Motorola/HTC, but…Samsung vs. Google. As Erik Sherman observes in his CBS MoneyWatch post, since Samsung ships close to 55% of all Android phones, the company could be in a position to twist Google’s arm. If last quarter’s trend continues — if Motorola and HTC lose even more ground — Samsung’s bargaining position will become even stronger.

    But what is Samsung’s ‘‘bargaining position’’? What could they want? Perhaps more search referral money (the $$ flowing when Google’s search engine is used on a smartphone), earlier access to Android releases, a share of advertising revenue…

    Will Google let Samsung gain the upper hand? Not likely, or at least not for long. There’s Motorola, about to become a fully-owned but “independent” Google subsidiary. A Googorola vertically-integrated smartphone line could counterbalance Samsung’s influence.

    And so it would be Samsung’s move…and they wouldn’t be defenseless. Consider the Kindle Fire example: Just like Amazon picked the Android lock, Samsung could grab the Android Open Source code and create its own unlicensed but fully legal smartphone OS and still benefit from a portion of Android apps, or it could build its own app store the way Amazon did. Samsung is already showing related inclinations with its Music Hub and its iMessage competitor.

    Samsung is a tough, determined fighter and won’t let Google dictate its future. The same can be said of Google.

    This is going to be interesting.
     
  7. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Its unbelievable that any of this stuff is counted as copying. What do people have against Samsung? They're not going to destroy your precious Apple and Apple are not going to destroy them. Let them do what they want.

    I have yet to see anything that is blatantly ripped off that Samsung have created.
     
  8. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #8
    Of course not. It's only copying when other companies do it. Just like how it wasn't copying when Apple entered the smartphone market, it wasn't copying when Apple entered the mobile advertising market, and it wasn't copying when Apple entered the tablet market - long after their competitors had done the same.
     
  9. *LTD* macrumors G4

    *LTD*

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #9
    What tablet market? The "tablet market" that existed prior to January 2010 was a complete joke.
     
  10. dgree03 macrumors 65816

    dgree03

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #10
    Whether it was a joke or not is not relevant. Wasn't there a table market before the ipad? Wasn't there a smartphone market before the iPhone.

    You never really answer questions, and when you don't have anything clever to say you resort to casing off something as insignificant(When it really is significant).
     
  11. wonderspark macrumors 68040

    wonderspark

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Location:
    Oregon
    #11
    Everybody wants their team to win. *LTD*'s team is Apple. It means F-all in reality, but in their world, it's everything.

    Ever see a small child drop an ice cream cone, and slip into an emotional melt-down? Same thing.
     
  12. *LTD* macrumors G4

    *LTD*

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    "Reality" in consumer tech is becoming increasingly Apple-defined. The facts tend to have a pro-Apple bias these days.

    Move outside of the Apple ecosystem, and you'll start tripping over this evidence almost everywhere you step. Most of the industry initiatives, product directions and announcements are responses to Apple, or anticipation of what Apple might do in the future.

    This is unprecedented, at least in recent memory. That a single company has this much power and influence (without any evidence that this situation will change anytime soon.)

    My support of this is incidental. Whether or not I support what's going on doesn't fundamentally change what's going on.
     
  13. wonderspark macrumors 68040

    wonderspark

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Location:
    Oregon
    #13
    I reside in all ecosystems, and they're all great at what they do best. Move outside the Apple ecosystem with your eyes open, and you'll start tripping over this evidence everywhere you step.

    There are things my android phone does better than my iPhone does, and vice versa. There are things my Mac does better than my PC does, and vice versa. The difference is that I don't care about what other people use or think about what I use. I use everything, and am happy with all of it until something fails.

    My most recent disappointment is iTunes Match. Despite having correct versions of songs on my Mac in iTunes, the "matched" version that plays on my iPhone is a "clean" version that annoys me. Strike two came with iTunes only providing email support, which has gone unanswered after two emails so far. In this case, Audiogalaxy is better than iTunes for being 1. free and 2. streams to my iPhone, android (or any other capable device) the *correct* versions of my music every single time. Will I lead a million man march into Cupertino against Apple because iTunes Match is clearly having some problems? No. I just stop using it, get my $25 refunded, and use what works. When Apple fixes the problems, I might try it again.

    I was annoyed with the internet browser on my android, but then I installed Firefox on it, and that ended my only complaint against it.

    I'm happy with all my products, and you're happy with all of yours, so we all win! :)
     
  14. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #14
    Oh please. Microsoft released the Kinect with voice recognition well before Apple announced Siri. Heck, Microsoft put voice recognition in cars, the 360, and their phone well before Apple "invented" Siri.

    Windows 7 was driven by reaction to Windows Vista, NOT OS X. Windows 8 is a new runtime, something that people have been clamoring for, for years. Again, not in any way related to Apple. Heck, Windows Phone 7, necessitated by the iPhone, is an anti-Apple reaction.

    Most phones that look like an iPhone or sorts, but again, the tech to make full screen, capacative touch screens didn't really exist before '07.

    I'll give you tablets, but that's only 1 example. Ultra-books could be a responce to the Macbook Air. Can you come up with a 3rd?
     

Share This Page