Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Scariest Company in Tech

rvqs.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#21

Post by jallmann »

I don't think Samsung cares about software. They are primarily a manufacturing concern, and their lineup of branded phones and devices is just a way to eke out more value from that existing capacity.

Could be that manufacturing capacity is slack, or they need a technology demonstration for design firms that otherwise aren't moving quickly enough ("Hey, we have all this stuff, let's make something cool out of it!").

That'd explain why they were one of the first Android tablets out there, especially with Android not really being tablet-ready. That kind of risk could break a firm that had to outsource manufacturing. But Samsung already had all the hardware pieces; they just had to drop in the software.

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#22

Post by brianbreslin »

jdub wrote: post #12

There is one area in which Samsung is lacking: software. Unlike Apple or RIM, they are entirely dependent on Android. [...] That, however, could change completely if Samsung dominates the Android market like I think it will. Want to be even more scared? http://www.rasterman.com/index.php?page=News :-)

If samsung is building out their own os using it for only mobile phones seems myopic... Think about all the markets they play in

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#23

Post by naner »

jdub wrote: post #12

There is one area in which Samsung is lacking: software. Unlike Apple or RIM, they are entirely dependent on Android. [...] That, however, could change completely if Samsung dominates the Android market like I think it will. Want to be even more scared? http://www.rasterman.com/index.php?page=News :-)

Meh, hard to get excited over vaporware.

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#24

Post by SoftwareMaven »

Kylekramer wrote: post #7
SandB0x wrote: post #4

Just as in Mike Elgan's analysis of Nokia, it doesn't look like Samsung have any idea how to create a sensible range of products. There are 18 touch screen phones available in the UK (out of 75 phones in total): http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/mobile-devices/mobile-pho... If I were King of Samsung, this would be cut down to around three models. The model names would be consistent, recognisable, and the names would…

When your aim is ubiquity, 18 models of the same basic product is a positive, not a negative. Apple and Samsung are playing entirely different games. Apple is built on brand and large profit margins, Samsung on controlling the components and being everywhere. They are equally valid plans, but Apple's way is more likely to win fans.

But Apple is successfully training customers that it is nice to be able to shop a simple product line. People are tired of being confused, and Apple makes it trivial to not be confused.

Samsung's ubiquity game isn't going to work if the customers are sick of playing it.

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#25

Post by nl »

A vertically integrated manufacturer does not necessarily mean their costs will be dramatically lower than the competition.

For example, Apple doesn't do any manufacture themselves, and yet they have costs so much lower than the competition that they are able to define entire new markets in the time it takes for their competition to develop cost-competitive supplies.

This has happened three times now, firstly with the original iPods (Apple pre-signed huge contracts for those tiny hard drives, proved the market, and when competitors wanted in they had to wait for new sources to come online), the iPod touch (Apple pre-ordered a huge proportion of the worlds flash memory supply) and finally, most recently with the iPad.

Ever wonder why it's taken a year for anyone to build a 9"/10" iPad competitor? It's because no one can get capacitative touch screen in sufficient quantities. Even Samsung (which owns the factory!) had to make do with 7" screens.

Now, finally new factories are beginning to come online, which means that competitors can release their products. The problem for them is that Apple locked in much lower prices (because of their bigger purchasing power), which makes it hard to compete on price. This applies to Samsung as much as to anyone - they can't afford to drop Apple as a customer, but the capital costs of building a new factory means it costs them more to supply themselves (selling in smaller volume) than it does to supply Apple.

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#26

Post by nl »

nika wrote: post #16

I think it would be wise, as this article does, to not think about the phone market in terms of platforms (iOS, Android, RIM & WebOS) but in terms of manufacturers (Apple, HTC, Nokia, Samsung, etc.) If you look at it in those terms, there are two manufacturers that are vertically integrated- Apple and Samsung. Samsung is weak on software, and software is the critical component of this age (more important than flash,…

Apple isn't vertically integrated at all. As you note, they don't own any production facilities, and outsource all production. Almost the total opposite of Samsung, who so almost everything themselves.

I guess I'm a bit confused what you think vertically integrated means?

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#27

Post by azakai »

jdub wrote: post #12

There is one area in which Samsung is lacking: software. Unlike Apple or RIM, they are entirely dependent on Android. [...] That, however, could change completely if Samsung dominates the Android market like I think it will. Want to be even more scared? http://www.rasterman.com/index.php?page=News :-)

I don't get it, I thought Samsung Bada was not a secret project anymore?

http://www.bada.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bada_%28operating_system%29

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#28

Post by rsingel »

Samsung forks Android. Google refuses to license Google Android software to it. Goodbye Market, Gmail, Nav, etc.

Sorry, just don't see that happening.

Oh, and HTC's phones are so much better quality than the Samsung phones.

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#29

Post by mieses »

meterplech wrote: post #6
patrickgzill wrote: post #5

This is a first post, on a dead-stock Wordpress.com installation. Why should I bother to read about your views on Samsung when: 1. you show neither data nor other facts on which to base your opinion 2. you don't disclose anything about yourself? For all I know you could be a Samsung employee trying to increase the value of his stock benefits.

The great thing about the internet is that people can express their point of views. If the idea is a good and interesting one it will be discussed. Think of it as an anonymous letter to the editor if you need.

You both make good points but this blog post still smells like a cheap marketing stunt.

Re: The Scariest Company in Tech

#30

Post by ippisl »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #14

The OP's argument rests on the notion that Samsung could somehow make phones so compelling that they take over 80% of the market. I don't think they can do that on price alone. Their price advantage over LG, HTC, etc could be what... 10%? They need more of an advantage than that to have Microsoft-level dominance. And even though they have the price advantage over the other "premium" vendors, they are fighting a war o…

I don't think this is true when devices are being sold throught carriers. carriers would require decent quality , and 10% price reduction for carriers is a lot of money.
Post reply on HN