I don't believe it. They might do many things, but the kind of illegal and despicable actions Microsoft took are not in Apple's DNA. You can't make an equivalence there. Bill Gates had a personality that others do not.
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.
Samsung is all about the Options in the tablet market.
- Thread starter DanteMann
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't believe it. They might do many things, but the kind of illegal and despicable actions Microsoft took are not in Apple's DNA. You can't make an equivalence there. Bill Gates had a personality that others do not.
It wasn't just Bill Gates. It is corporations in general. Intel is much more admired than Microsoft with much less despicable CEOs at the helm but they performed similar actions like strong-arming suppliers and illegal kickbacks. I can give you several other examples throughout tech. Microsoft just happened to be the most visible.
I don't trust any one company to always do the right thing. I trust the free market to do that.
Its highly unlikely you'll ever again see anything like the Wintel monopoly exist in the mainstream computer business.
The Microsoft-Wintel model arose at a unique period in the history of technology. The worldwide market for PC's was, but current standards, miniscule.
A Wintel-like monopoly wouldn't arise today for a number of reasons: For one thing, with computer devices selling in the hundreds of millions per year, even a secondary-tier operating system player with 5-10% marketshare means tens of millions of potential users. Secondly, the web itself makes operating system and processor fundamentally less important.
Lastly, the mechanisms for producing and distributing software itself have become vastly more efficient. The sort of onject-orientated programming tools available now simply were out there in 1985. And its much easier to distribute software now (via the web and App Stores) - rather than having to persuade retailers to stock your shrink-wrapped boxes.
You don't trust monopolies, you don't trust companies but some how you trust the free market? As AT&T and T-Mobile recently demonstrated companies would rather merge and increase profits than deal with the free market. It's only with the government stepping in and preventing a market from being free of regulations that competition exists.
Personally, I don't have to, "trust" anything. I just enjoy the products I buy.
Don't bother. If you don't believe that Apple will eventually be evil, then you must be a diehard fanboy who drinks the Apple koolaid. (at least, according to posters here.)
Um, I'm not sure exactly where I read it, but I do believe that one of higher ups at Samsung some time ago specifically said that they an planned this massive tablet onslaught from the get-go. This was before the iPad 2 and just a few months after the iPad 1. So, I'm saying that these tablets were planned internally for a while and it isn't Samsung's feeble attempt to "find something that sticks." This was their plan all along.
Unlike people, who might have complex motivations, corporations have a clear mandate. Corporations are obligated to maximize profit. Sometimes their interests coincide with those of the consumer and/or nation. Sometimes they don't.
They are neither evil nor good, and we deceive ourselves when we take the legal fiction that corporations are "persons" (a US presidential candidate recently demonstrated that he buys into this) and apply concepts of "good" and "evil" to them. A group of shareholders doesn't think or act like an individual person. Neither does a nation. There are no evil empires.
In concrete terms, Google (for instance) famously declares that it can make money without doing evil. I think people can be forgiven for thinking this makes Google "good," especially when they conflate open-source, Android, and Google all together. Obviously, "evil" is quite open to interpretation, as people interested in Google's troubling relationship with China in the past will agree. Apple doesn't even pretend to be "good." Neither does Samsung.
What does this mean for us? Apple isn't evil. Neither is Samsung. Instead of treating them like people, I think that as consumers we need to be very wary of situations in which multi-national corporations dominate a market (as Apple does with the tablet), because it is unlikely that consumers or workers will ultimately benefit from such an arrangement. Don't buy into the hype, and whenever you can, support individuals, companies, laws, and politicians that seek to introduce more players (competition) into markets.
They are neither evil nor good, and we deceive ourselves when we take the legal fiction that corporations are "persons" (a US presidential candidate recently demonstrated that he buys into this) and apply concepts of "good" and "evil" to them. A group of shareholders doesn't think or act like an individual person. Neither does a nation. There are no evil empires.
In concrete terms, Google (for instance) famously declares that it can make money without doing evil. I think people can be forgiven for thinking this makes Google "good," especially when they conflate open-source, Android, and Google all together. Obviously, "evil" is quite open to interpretation, as people interested in Google's troubling relationship with China in the past will agree. Apple doesn't even pretend to be "good." Neither does Samsung.
What does this mean for us? Apple isn't evil. Neither is Samsung. Instead of treating them like people, I think that as consumers we need to be very wary of situations in which multi-national corporations dominate a market (as Apple does with the tablet), because it is unlikely that consumers or workers will ultimately benefit from such an arrangement. Don't buy into the hype, and whenever you can, support individuals, companies, laws, and politicians that seek to introduce more players (competition) into markets.
That's the point, they had a plan to make a tablet onslaught in order to find something that sticks.
Samsung seems like the kind of company that doesn't care what they produce (Android/Bada), they will make anything and see what the market wants. Great if you buy a product of theirs that sticks. Not so good if you guess wrong and Samsung moves on.
And I think that's exactly why they will ultimately fail. They aren't in touch with what the market wants. They don't know what will or will not appeal to people. So they are essentially just throwing **** at the wall, and hoping something sticks. Doesn't sound like a company that I want any part of.
I think very few companies are actually motivated by "evil" - or indeed anything other than a desire to make good profits.
The problem, however, is that very often a company's desire to make money leaves its customers with bad products - just as surely as if the makers HAD been "evil."
Look at all the people who "fell for" HP's marketing spiel regarding the TouchPad. Early adopters bought that device thinking that there was going to be this huge ecosystem of Apps and accessories, etc. Instead of which - they found themselves abandoned, with an essentially "dead" product just a few weeks after they bought it.
And that is a tremendous uphill battle Samsung is going to continue to face. By continuously "throwing new products against the wall" it is losing credibility with consumers. Why should anyone pay full retail for the Galaxy Tab they introduce today, when you can see their history littered with failed/abandoned Tablets?
Samsung knows what people want, right after Apple announces it. Remember in March when Samsung first saw the iPad 2 and made the comments about how they had to go back to the drawing boardon the 10.1? And then low and behold a near exact copy of the iPad 2 is released, complete with 30 pin connector, 1 home button, slim design and no extra ports. Coincidence?
Evil is such a heavy term. The results of HP's strategy were unfortunate for consumers. They were unfortunate for workers at HP as well. But, they were unintentional (as far as I can tell) and unpredictable (as everything in the future is).
Apple has established itself as a company that releases well-vetted products that it generally supports long after the original sale has been concluded by providing excellent customer service and many free software updates designed to extend the life of their products. That is neither evil nor good. It is a business strategy that seems to be paying off. They certainly earned my business.
Samsung has chosen a different route. They have only been in the tech game for about two decades now, and while they have established a reputation for making quality products, they target a wider spectrum of consumers with generically designed products. Fortunately, they don't have the OS support nightmare that HP has taken on, and they do a good job of supporting their products, so you are fine if you buy into them.
I don't understand this spaghetti wall argument everyone here is throwing around. So what if Samsung abandons the tablet market tomorrow? Android is still there. You still have your tablet. It will work until you are ready to update. The only change is that you won't get to enjoy the next iteration in their product line. No real loss. Certainly no evil repercussions for customers.
In short, Samsung is not HP. It makes hardware, and it does a good job of it. You risk nothing by purchasing a Tab over an Asus or some other Android device. The issue isn't Samsung. It's Android. Until people (like myself) are convinced that the apps are there, the support by developers is there, and the hardware is there, we aren't likely to invest in that ecosystem (even though I do have a couple of Android phones). I've had wonderful experiences with Apple iOS developers who have listened to my issues, fixed the bugs, and put out timely updates to their products. I am neutral about Android at the moment. So far, it seems kind of messy...
Sammy did pretty much the same thing, upon seeing the original iPhone. Their fall 2006 lineup was similar to the Nokia feature phones at the time. Their 2007 Q2 lineup was suddenly iPhone-esque. I'll post pictures, if I can find them.
Another well-reasoned post, Palpatine. Just a couple of points to support that argument.
As you noted in a previous post, there is a tendency to envision corporations as human beings. In the case of the TouchPad, "HP" didn't abandon "its" customers. A new management team took over HP after the announcement of the TouchPad. That team set what turned out to be impossible development schedules and introductory sales targets for the TouchPad. It was simply a business "HP" (meaning its current management) doesn't want to be in. That's too bad for customers but customers are not HP's constituency; shareholders are. Sometimes satisfying customers is a way to satisfy shareholders; sometimes not. If it comes down to a choice, rational corporate management will satisfy shareholders. And that applies as much to Apple as to HP and any other major corporation.
As far as Samsung is concerned, I purchased a Samsung HD TV about five years ago that utilizes Texas Instruments DLP (Digital Light Processing) technology. Samsung has now "abandoned" that technology. Remarkably, my TV continues to function perfectly and when I recently needed a part replaced, a technician showed up at my house and replaced the part in about 20 minutes.
The "downside," of course, is that I no longer own the latest, greatest high definition TV available in the marketplace. As I walk down the street my neighbors point at me, laugh, and whisper behind my back. When my friends come to my home I must cover the TV with a blanket to prevent their snide remarks. It's a terrible burden. If my TV didn't work so well I'd toss it out so I wouldn't be known far and wide as that guy who doesn't have an Apple TV.
lol. thanks for the kind words. right back at ya. as you said, the hp fiasco was an ugly confluence of factors. not so much about the customers as it was about management. too bad, because i know a lot of people were looking forward to their operating system.
personally, i kind of doubt there is much room out there for more operating systems (besides ios and android), and i am not terribly surprised by what happened (despite some hype on tech blogs), but i'm trying to keep an open mind about windows 8.
hardware is important, and i don't mean to slight it, but google has to step up its game with android. i am by no means experienced with android, but speaking from the smartphone perspective, apps are buggy and not as well maintained. but, worst of all, i can't find much that plays friendly with my osx stuff.
Evil is such a strong word. I don't ever expect Apple to be evil. However, without competition, Apple could very well rest on its laurels. As Apple an customer, I'm glad that Samsung and Google are pushing Apple to keep up with features and hardware specs as soon as possible.
Your point about the TV is a good one. But I think it only goes to show the difference between most consumer products, and those that are subject to "Network Effects" - such as Tablets.
Your Samsung TV will continue to wrk just fine so long as new programs are broadcast that it is capable of displaying. In other words, pretty much indefinitely, or until the TV itself wears out.
But Tablets (like any primarily computing device) are different: Their consumer-value chain is directly effected by the number of programs (ie. Apps) they can run. And a "dead" Operating System (and to a lesser extent a "dead" Tablet format) is going to be inherently limited. Once developers stop creating new Apps for it, it is frozen in time. Its not just Apps either. Its the whole eco-system of accessories (screen protectors, cases, speaker docks, etc.) that surrounds them.
And this is where Apple has done a tremendous job: They make sure that they build, nourish, and protect the "eco-system" that surrounds their products. And with the value-chain of the Apple iOS "ecosystem" built in - competing Tablets, from Samsung, HP, RIM, Asus, or anyone else, has a huge disadvantage to over come. In order to compete against the iPad, they must not merely equal Apple's technical specs - they need to far surpass them.
Barring any unforseen technical breakthrough in screen, processor, memory, or Operating System technology - this is going to be all but impossible to achieve in the next eighteen to twenty four months. By which time the Tablet battle is going to be pretty much over.
I disagree. If Android can supply and market itself as the place to go for productivity and games (it would only take a handful at first), then that would be a necessary first step.
Then, if someone can make an Android tablet that roughly equals the iPad (even if it is just the iPad 2), AND they can sell it considerably cheaper, then I think they will do well.
In terms of hardware, the problem (in my opinion) is that tablets have roughly matched the iPad in terms of specs, but no one has yet produced an inexpensive Android tablet. At any rate, without solid OS and app support, the tablets just look like hunks of plastic and glass to me. By the way, I am very doubtful that anyone will be able to surpass apple's designs for a while to come, and specs are dependent on manufacturers everyone uses, so that isn't a very easy road to tread.
Last edited:
I like Samsung products a lot but they have gone mental recently with the amount of phones and tablets they are releasing.
That's what's so great about choice. Something for all. Not everyone is a slim bodied and/or media consumer type.
In this case, I've seen a lot of comments from people with large fingers, who are excited about finding a phone that fits them.
Reviews have also commented on how useful the pen and custom backgrounds, such as grid paper, could be for professionals.
In this case, I've seen a lot of comments from people with large fingers, who are excited about finding a phone that fits them.
Reviews have also commented on how useful the pen and custom backgrounds, such as grid paper, could be for professionals.
And how is that going to happen?
Lets start with "productivity."
The biggest criticism levelled at the iPad is that there isn't an App that is 100% compatible with Microsoft Office. The only way THAT is going to happen is if Microsoft makes it, which seems unlikely. And I think the chances of Microsoft releasing an Android-tablet Office suite are located somewhere between "no" and "Hell No!"
Lets also just say, very clearly, that Android's boasting about "multitasking" and "Flash" are pretty much worthless when it comes to productivity. Your ability to watch a Flash video while simultaneously updating your Facebook status isn't likely to win many friends in the Corporate MIS department.
Gaming? It strikes me as even less likely that Android will make a serious impression in Tablet gaming. Why? Too many different screen sizes and resolutions to start with; although fragmentation is part of the problem overall.
Then we get into the "Wild West" nature of Android's App marketplace. Why would any developer devote resources to creating a great paid Game, when two weeks later there will be two dozen rip-off copies up and running? Or when Android users in general have shown a marked antipathy to paying for content. Or when there is a universe of 50 million iPad owners (each running an identical OS, on an identical sized screen) ready and waiting?
And then we come to Android itself. Is Google going to spend the couple of hundred million it would take on Ice Cream Sandwich, or Baked Alaska, or whatever version they finally settle on? When Google is going to have to battle legal challenges to the very foundations of Android?
Even if Google wanted to make Android better than iOS, I don't think they could.
You may be right. After all, the portable PC battle was pretty much over with the introduction of the Osborne.
lol
i don't know. you make good points, and the fact that google still remains messy like this supports your prediction. as i said, if google can improve the android experience, then the tablet manufacturers will fare a lot better. after all, most of us aren't terribly concerned about which square piece of glass and plastic we use as long as it is enjoyable, and that depends heavily on the os.
apple actually has a number of fabulous productivity apps without microsoft. you don't need microsoft. you need developers. as an android user, i would be happy to pay for a good app, but so far the quality is too spotty (in my experience).
maybe you are correct about android being unable to shape up. if so, then it won't matter how good the hardware is, right? in other words, rather than focusing on any perceived problems with samsung, we ought to be looking at the very real problems that plague the os.