301–310 of 372 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, its going to set innovating in the mobile space back even farther. While Apple outlines every decision meticulously for planned obsolescence, Google and others take a more throw something out there, see if it works and run with it approach. With both strongly competing it pushes the entire industry forward faster.
It's easy to argue that they aren't competing. Apple innovates in their sphere of innovation, their competitors copy them and produce cheap knock-offs attempting to cash in Apple's R&D. It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price. It would be competition if Google tried to out-do Apple, but they don't. Samsung doesn't compete with Apple eith…
My goodness. Samsung designs may imitate Apple's to some debatable extent, but they're not labeling their products with an Apple logo. The way I see it, TV makers imitate each others' designs and features all the time, and so do car makers and fridge makers.
> It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price.
Your generalisation is extreme. Surely Samsung, HTC, Sony, LG, etc. do innovate (with reference to their legacy in the wider field of electronics)?
And they are certainly competing. The very definition of competition is to sell a product that is a close substitute for another. Your assertion seems to make innovation the only thing that matters for competition, which it isn't.
Society would be better off generally if competition (of all forms) increased in more markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has done a good job of persuading people that this case was about protecting innovation and about Samsung's specific alleged infringements of their patents. But this is nothing more than a smoke screen for their ongoing proxy war on Android. They've refused to compete with Android on price, features, and form factors and the market has punished them for it. Expect more attacks on Android seeking ridiculous dama…
Apart from the specifics of this or any other court case involving Apple attacking Samsung, I find the desire to defend Samsung odd. Obviously they copied Apple as much as they felt they could get away with. They did this because it was a very conservative way to make a lot of money. This isn't an admirable strategy. It's annoying. It's precisely the strategy that major movie studios use to give us one boring, risk-f…
Yeah; I like Nintendo, too. Oh, wait: were you talking about another singular company?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, its going to set innovating in the mobile space back even farther. While Apple outlines every decision meticulously for planned obsolescence, Google and others take a more throw something out there, see if it works and run with it approach. With both strongly competing it pushes the entire industry forward faster.
It's easy to argue that they aren't competing. Apple innovates in their sphere of innovation, their competitors copy them and produce cheap knock-offs attempting to cash in Apple's R&D. It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price. It would be competition if Google tried to out-do Apple, but they don't. Samsung doesn't compete with Apple eith…
When I bought my Samsung Galaxy SII, it was about the same price as an iPhone.
> It would be competition if Google tried to out-do Apple, but they don't.
That's your personal opinion. I personally prefer Android to iOS and so do many people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, that old canard. "No time to explain, but you're wrong." Please feel free to respond to my post and tell me exactly how I misinterpreted that claim.
A claim is not a series of tubes... Seriously, though, people on HN, etc, read claims far more broadly than a court would. They tend to see "rubber band effect" and think Apple patented all rubber band effects. Claims start out broadly, and are narrowed by additional elements of the claim. "A rubber band effect THAT: a)... b)... c)..." You can't just ignore (a), (b), (c) because they narrow the boundaries of the clai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to argue that they aren't competing. Apple innovates in their sphere of innovation, their competitors copy them and produce cheap knock-offs attempting to cash in Apple's R&D. It's not competition when one company does ALL the innovation and other companies just copy them and try to win on price. It would be competition if Google tried to out-do Apple, but they don't. Samsung doesn't compete with Apple eith…
> Samsung doesn't compete with Apple either. They are more similar to counterfeiters who sell black-market Oakley, Nike, and Prada stuff in alleyways. My goodness. Samsung designs may imitate Apple's to some debatable extent, but they're not labeling their products with an Apple logo. The way I see it, TV makers imitate each others' designs and features all the time, and so do car makers and fridge makers. > It's not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which companies would you give as examples of "eat your way up the value chain"?
Microsoft (against IBM, DEC, Novell, SCO (the original, Microsoft's own spawn). Sun, against IBM and AT&T. Red Hat, against Sun. Salesforce against bespoke business solutions. Google Apps against Microsoft Office. Gmail against MS Exchange. More generally, read/refer to Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the market has punished [Apple] for it You're serious? They take 73% of the profit in smartphone market, with Samsung at the second place (26%) and HTC, third (1%), their stock is booming, they have more money in the bank than all of their competitors combined (they can buy Samsung, HTC and Dell and shut them down and still have a few billion dollars left). I'd call that reward, not punishment. http://www.asymco.co…
This is what I don't get: people applaud Apple for their massive profit margins when in reality it just shows how they're screwing the consumer. Does nobody care about the betterment of the general public -us!?- around here? By buying products with huge profit margins you're spending money on features that you're not getting. And THAT is why I refuse to buy Apple products.
That is one of the more ridiculous reasons for not buying Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when did profit become the one and true metric? This is like wondering whether you'd be better off running a grocery store rather than a software business. Profit is the only metric. The idea that this notion started with Apple is strange.
Looking at only the earnings reports and comparing profits is meaningless. If you follow the Gruber link it shows that Amazon's net profit is only $7M. That does not mean Amazon is having trouble making any money. It's that it's costs of expanding are swallowing the profits. Apple has a ton of cash in the bank lying around because they don't see a need for using it. Directly comparing the numbers makes no sense whats…
Your argument is invalid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They take 73% of the profit in smartphone market I chuckle every time I hear this. How much profit of the web server market does Microsoft take with IIS vs. the free alternatives like Apache and Nginx? Who wins in the Server OS market of Windows Server vs. Linux/BSD? Who dominates the web dev tools market of Visual Studio vs. Eclipse/etc. ? The same arguments you make can be made against the above too. The idea of p…
Say company X sells 200 phones and makes $1000 profit. Company Y sells 150 phones and makes $10,000 profit. In this case we are comparing apples with apples. So it is a valid metric of comparison. In the same reasoning, if company Z sells 200 phones and loses money then obviously that is bad and company Z could potentially go bankrupt.