Reminded me of this:
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here." Jesse M. Unruh
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 Sole Supplier for Retina Display in New iPad?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Reminded me of this:
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here." Jesse M. Unruh
The determination of what is positive or negative, is based on the point of view one has...
If you google any manufacturer with an issue, there is always going to be someone with that particular issue
As for TV, i still have a Samsung LCD TV that i bought back in 06 (waiting for the damn backlight to die before i replace it)
----------
Mostly due to cost and demand.
OLED TV has been around for quite a few years now
Does this mean ALL of the screens in the new iPad are Samsung made, or some of the early batches are LG/SHARP, i know which one id rather have.
Regardless of whether you agree or not, it's possible for someone to express a negative point of view and for that point of view to be seen as negative. If someone says "iPad and Android tablets are terrible", typically speaking that's not a positive statement, even if you agree with it.
I agree - but I believe the OP is referring to the fact that if someone posts on here something positive about anything non-Apple - they are "accused" (for lack of better word) of being anti-Apple, a hater, etc.
Also criticism isn't always negative. It's just criticism. It's in the interpretation. If I say the iPad is the most amazing device I just find it a little heavy to hold with one hand. Is that REALLY being negative? Semantically - I would say yes. But in actual tone and interpretation - not so much.
From what I've heard and also as the article says, the first batch of iPads will be all Samsung. Interestingly, it's also been said LG did produce screens but it failed to meet the quality requirements and were rejected.
In any case, the future new iPads will have display from others too.
Flat screen maker LG Display Co Ltd is supplying touch-screen panels for Apple Inc's new iPad, a source close to the matter said on Wednesday.
im sure LG is going to supply screen for the new ipads once it meets apple requirements..lots of demand for the new iPad not sure if Samsung can keep up with demand don't want to wait like a whole month for a order.
Got it. But let's be clear who's screwing who here. Apple has said that they want to destroy Android. So WHY are they dragging htc/samsung/motorola through the mud calling them slavish copycats etc etc when Apple could've simply sued Google directly?
There is about 50 Android Phone manufacturers out there. Why Apple is suing only Samsung?
Or is this patent-suing some kind of perverted theatre for masses and in the background they laugh on the way to the bank?
They got tons of free publicity with these patent suing campaigns every day.
Google Android was there before iPhone was introduced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Acquisition_by_Google
Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005, making Android Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc. Key employees of Android Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance
Here are all the firms Apple is actually trying to get out of business.
Apple will lose, miserably.
Which has nothing to do with why Apple sued Microsoft back in the 80s.
Some context: The lawsuit happened back in 1988 and that was before the current concept of "Windows PC" was coined. It was just a PC, or an IBM compatible. Not to mention Dell wasn't even around yet. The lawsuit was Apple's attempt to mainly curtail Microsoft's sales of Windows as a separate retail product.
Interestingly enough HP was sued but only because they had their own GUI software called NewWave running on top of Windows, nothing to do with hardware.
You can find more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
Yes good luck with that.
Look at the Open Handset Alliance list and do you seriously think that small company like Apple can win all those? lol yeah right... There is FoxConn, Google, China Telecom, LG, Samsung, Acer....
GOOD LUCK TO APPLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz1LsXwATig lol this much Chinese care about some US patents
Business. Every Time.
Yep. Business makes strange bedfellows. Politics makes hypocritical ones.
Last edited:
So far, OLED, AMOLED+, SuperAMOLED+, etc. are *just about* keeping up with the equivalent state-of-the-art LCD technologies. They show a lot of promise, but they only have one advantage over the LCDs so far, and even that isn't a huge difference in practical terms.
You've listed all of the areas where OLED tech has the *potential* to surpass LCD tech. So far, the only place where it has a consistently measurable advantage over it's LCD equivalent is in it's black levels. Yes, OLED is a technology with a *lot* of potential, but it hasn't yet overcome the 'old-busted' LCD technologies.
Yes, it's very likely that Apple will move to OLED tech for its displays *eventually*. It's unlikely to happen, though, until OLED tech actually surpasses LCD tech in it's capabilities. It's gotten close, but those near-equivalent OLED displays are more expensive, and can't yet be produced in nearly as high volumes as the corresponding LCD displays. In the mean time, Apple has 'kept up' just fine using LCDs which still have advantages over the current-gen OLEDs. Obviously, I can't actually know when the change-over will happen, but based on the way the two technologies have progressed over the past few years I suspect it'll be sometime between 3-5 years from now.
Last edited:
I'll freely admit that I probably couldn't tell you which manufacturer made which after a brief examination, but I'll bet that I could probably tell which sets were made by the same manufacturer, and which ones weren't.
On the other hand, given months to study two *very* similar models of different brands, even given identical screen-sizes and aspect ratios, I could almost certainly tell them apart at a measly 20'. (Not even the 10' that Samsung's lead attorney was given.)
You see, I recently bought a new TV. Based on the constraints of price, size, required inputs, and other factors, we ended up choosing a mid- to low-end RCA set. I can tell you that an RCA set looked much more like another RCA set than a Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, or any other brand. (Even ignoring the imprints.)
A lawyer who is entrusted with arguing that your product is *not* too similar looking to a competitor's product should be able to distinguish the two of them from the opposite side of the court room, much less 4-5 steps away. If a lawyer, focused on such a case, with all the time in the world to learn even the most *minute* distinguishing features between your product and your competitor's, can't reliably do that from such a short distance, you're going to have limited luck convincing the court that the two products aren't confusingly similar to the average shopper who *doesn't* have that sort of time, motivation or access.
I'm actually curious about the redesign they did. I've only seen small, thumbnail-sized, pictures of it, so I can't really say whether *I* think it moved out of the confusingly similar space, but apparently at least one judge has said it did. Does anybody have any links to good pictures of the revised design?
Is there more than one model of 'Asus Transformer Prime' out there? I'm asking, because ASUS's own page for it says it has a 1280x800 display. It also points out that it only gets the rated 18 hours when it has the keyboard attached.Asus only rates it at 12 hours without the keyboard, which is good, but I'm not familiar enough with Asus's rated vs. actual battery life ratios to know how that actually compares to the iPad's 10 hours under normal usage patterns. From past experience, Apple's numbers tend to be pretty much spot-on, though they have been *low* a few times. (I'll point out that nothing prevents someone from creating the same piece of equipment for an iPad. In fact, think I've seen more than one case which does the same thing. I know of more than one case which includes a keyboard with it's own battery, I'm just not certain whether or not that battery powers more than just the keyboard off hand.)
I did find a comparison though, which reports that the actual battery life of the Transformer Prime is reported to fall between 7-10 hours. (Certainly nothing wrong with that, if those are the sans-keyboard numbers.)
On the other hand, if you meant the Transformer Prime Infinity, then your screen resolution is correct, but it's difficult to say that it "is way much better than any iPad out there", simply because pricing and availability hasn't been announced yet. If you don't know when it's going to be *available*, it's hard to say that it *is* better than anything. It might be, but who knows? It could be delayed until the *next* iPad is released, stranger things have happened in the world of tablets. Or it could be priced more in line with a MacBook Air, with a $1k starting price, which puts it in a different market segment than the iPad.
----------
He didn't say that Apple provided the largest part of Samsung's revenue. He said, the "largest part of Samsung's revenue comes from its position as a parts supplier". If, however, Samsung were to go out of its way to renege on a contract with it's largest customer (Apple) in order to get an edge in the market, it would *not* sit well with it's other customers, and many of them would move to other (more stable) suppliers. Then, of course, there's the issues of contract penalties were Samsung to do something as stupid as to intentionally fail to fulfill it's contractual obligations. Then there's the lawsuits related to abuse of market position as a supplier to harm a competitor in another market.
Basically, it makes no sense for either Apple *or* Samsung to drop the supplier relationship they have at the moment. A sudden change on Samsung's part would hurt Apple more in the short-term, but could potentially *ruin* Samsung in the long run, so it's incredibly unlikely to happen even if there were some other, rational motivation.
----------
See my prior post for a response to this...
----------
Quick! Which one of these is the positive statement, and which one is the negative?
A) Product X is amazing! I didn't know what I was missing until I saw it in the store, but I can't imagine buying another x without its features. The guy who designed it is incredible!
B) Product X sucks! I can't believe that crappy company would release such a lousy piece of cruft! Whoever designed it should be shot in the head!
Who knows, perhaps the lawyer (who is apparently famous for winning cases like this) wasn't wearing her glasses. Certainly another lawyer behind her immediately identified which was which.
As it turned out, it didn't matter anyway. The judge denied Apple's motion to block the Samsung tablet.
Here's why: the Samsung lawyers were NOT arguing that there was no similarity. On the contrary, they were arguing that the claimed design factors were functional, obvious to one skilled in the art of design, and had been shown before in both the 1994 Knight-Ridder future tablet video and in an actual 2002 HP Tablet. In other words, they claimed that Apple's design patent was invalid.
The judge agreed that the Apple patent contained major elements (rounded corners, flat front, thin side view) from those previous designs.
Actually, on that point the judge agreed with Samsung that a tablet buyer will be looking closer at its features, not just buying because "they look the same".
The law does not protect fools. Courts expect buyers who spend more than a few dollars to actually exercise common sense when buying a product. E,g. just because a Hyundai looks like a Mercedes or Lexus from some viewpoints, does not make it one of those cars, and the law will not help someone who thinks it does.
So the upshot was: the judge agreed that they looked very similar, but Apple had not made a good enough argument that their design patent would not be invalidated during trial. Furthermore, Apple was not suffering irreparable harm due to Samsung tablet sales. Therefore no preliminary injunction was allowed.
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz1LsXwATig lol this much Chinese care about some US patents
Haha - I'm not sure I should be laughing
I wasn't criticizing anyone actually, just responding to an earlier comment that suggested that Samsung could really screw with Apple if it wanted to, and I was pointing out that such an action would be mutually detrimental, and therefore not in Samsung's interest.