Using principles doesn't justify blatantly copying design applications, no. And none of your examples show any evidence of that.
Pinch-to-zoom DOES blatantly copy a specific design application. Hence the ruling.
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 Working to Keep Design Dispute Separate from Component Contracts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Using principles doesn't justify blatantly copying design applications, no. And none of your examples show any evidence of that.
Pinch-to-zoom DOES blatantly copy a specific design application. Hence the ruling.
Let's see for 2011 Samsung Heavy Industries total sales were just over $11B USD. That's going to buy Apple how? Based on the Forbes 2000 list I fail to see how Samsung could buy one Apple let alone two.
I'm not sure how you equate net sales to company value.
you might want to try taking some economic and accounting classes.
Well JP Morgan's total assets are over $2 trillion so going by your logic they could buy lots of Apple's, right?
Well JP Morgan's total assets are over $2 trillion so going by your logic they could buy lots of Apple's, right?
I'd buy a JP Morgan Pro laptop. Sounds great!
Actually, no I wouldn't.
a pevious comment was: "if Samsung sells like 5 ships in their shipyard they could buy Apple". The total sales last year for Samsung's shipping business was $11B. The market value of Samsung Heavy Industries is around $8B. Explain to me how that buys Apple.
a pevious comment was: "if Samsung sells like 5 ships in their shipyard they could buy Apple". The total sales last year for Samsung's shipping business was $11B. The market value of Samsung Heavy Industries is around $8B. Explain to me how that buys Apple.
it doesn't.
I never said Samsung could buy apple.
just you can't use 1 years net sales as a determining factor of how much a company is worth, nor how much liquid able assets are available should they wish to attempt to purchase another company.
You are vastly superior to I, I bow to thee.
----------
You also need to let Jesus into your heart.
And you're still failing to recognise that buying a company isn't the same as buying a footballer in the transfer market. The money is somewhat irrelevant. Companies don't buy other companies just because they can afford them. They have to be able to support and maintain them to ensure they are profitable. Apple are not likely to buy anyone unless they believe it's a good fit for their own corporate vision.
I never suggested you did.
. I understand what you're saying but the notion (again not put forth by you) that Samsung could buy two Apple's is ridiculous.
i'm not saying thats untrue either
We're on the same page. i dont think either company has the capability of buying either company.
I was just more on the dispell myth of throwing around sales numbers that a lot of people here are doing as indication of how powerful a company is that was all I was getting at with the 11b comment.
sorry for misunderstandin
i'm not saying thats untrue either
We're on the same page. i dont think either company has the capability of buying either company.
I was just more on the dispell myth of throwing around sales numbers that a lot of people here are doing as indication of how powerful a company is that was all I was getting at with the 11b comment.
sorry for misunderstandin
No problem, you have a valid argument and it all makes for good conversation.
Apple & Samsung are both very smart companies. They currently rely on each other with near equality. As a supplier Apple needs Samsung, and Samsung has expanded years ago to accomodate the large orders that Apple requests.
This is easily (if not simple) to resolve and both parties have an equal interest in doing so.
It's a shame this war was started. It's burning up time, energy, and focus.
This is easily (if not simple) to resolve and both parties have an equal interest in doing so.
It's a shame this war was started. It's burning up time, energy, and focus.
Ah they, ohhh do tell.
I thought they used Intel CPU's, Nvidea or AMD Graphics, Samsung Memory, Samsung or LG etc screens, Sony camera units?
I think Apple make the case top put it all in. and Customise Linux to run on it.
Um, I'm not sure I understand that correctly, but are you suggesting that Apple just make the case and throw assorted hardware and a UNIX based OS in?
In which case, you'd possibly be technically correct (ignoring the huge steps forward Apple have made with custom battery components and the like, but let's not get dragged down with facts), but you miss the entire point. Apple sell hardware and an OS that millions of people have decided that they prefer to use over any alternative. There's quite a leap from your almost illegible statement to that.
Last edited:
The CPUs for the iPhone, iPad and such are designed by Apple. They start with an ARM design, then revamp everything from that. Quite a bit of the "Glue" circuitry, battery management and such for their laptops are created by Apple. While the CPU/GPU silicone for the Mac line comes from Intel, AMD, Nvidia and such, quite a bit of the design is tailored by Apple. They use custom motherboards with custom circuitry and custom chips on most of their computers.
Memory, is a commodity (other than the iStuff, that is built into the Apple designed CPUs.) Screens and Cameras are built by third party vendors, largely to Apple designs.
Making their own chips is expensive and hard. Owning a chip manufacturing plant isn't about propping up a building in China and getting cheap unskilled workers and then cranking out chips. In fact, Samsung's fab is in Austin instead of China isn't because they're trying to bring jobs to the US. It's because unskilled workers can't run a chip fab.
It takes billions of dollars of equipment, which then needs to be continually updated for billions of dollars. The workers are highly specialized and educated. Even doing a test run of a chip costs half a million dollars if you know what you're doing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_fabrication_plant)
"IC production facilities are expensive to build and maintain. Unless they can be kept at nearly full utilization, they will become a drain on the finances of the company that owns them. The foundry model uses two methods to avoid these costs: Fabless companies avoid costs by not owning such facilities. Merchant foundries, on the other hand, find work from the worldwide pool of fabless companies, and by careful scheduling, pricing, and contracting keep their plants at full utilization." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundry_model)
When it comes to chips, there's a clear split between chip design and chip fabrication. Many companies design their own chips and send them off to foundries to get them manufactured. Even well known brands such as AMD, nVidia, etc.
Few companies have their own manufacturing capabilities. Intel, Samsung, and IBM come to mind. AMD used to, and they spun them off as GlobalFoundries.
In the wikipedia entry, you might want to check out how big of a difference TSMC's revenue is compared to Samsung's foundries are.
It'd be an awful decision for Apple to build their own fab.
Apple to Samsung:
Don't worry about the 1 billion dollars. You can give us a fixed price for the next 5 years on your semiconductors.
Not that simple. Also good businesses don't base their decisions on emotions.
No argument here!
Not necessarily; Component price increases would be one (of several) reasons for APPLE to source elsewhere. Though SAMSUNG components are generally regarded as 'high quality', they're not the only guys in town and therefore market forces dictate that SS MUST remain competitive in their component pricing. And let's not kid ourselves, in spite of all the goings-on THIS IS A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT where both companies need each other. And let's not get into an argument about who needs who more. SAMSUNG is not dumb enough to price themselves out of the market.
That may have been one of AT&T's conditions at the time, who knows?
Let's not forget APPLE was the new kid on the block in 2007 and they NEEDED a major cell phone provider to enter this 'new' market. That the subsidies were so huge by 2007 standards of course didn't help. They may very well have had no choice but to agree on several years of AT&T exclusivity. In their wildest dreams they most likely didn't expect the almost instant success of the initial iPHONE or they would have bargained for two years max.