Samsung Galaxy S III sales to top 10 million
- Thread starter far2000
- Start date
Yaz
Autotechnik Ace
- Messages
- 5,338
KA, from what I remember, Google was rumored to be working on a phone way before the iPhone showed up (this was around 2005).
My only beef with Android is the skins and all the bloatware carriers and cell phone makers (I'm looking at you HTC and Samsung) put on the vanilla Android version Google produces. But from what I see in ICS and JB, Android is on a roll. And now that Motorola is owned by Google, Apple better watch out.
My only beef with Android is the skins and all the bloatware carriers and cell phone makers (I'm looking at you HTC and Samsung) put on the vanilla Android version Google produces. But from what I see in ICS and JB, Android is on a roll. And now that Motorola is owned by Google, Apple better watch out.
- Messages
- 7,139
Yaz, actually it still does make sense, because the whole point of Jobs'/Apple's litigation against Google's "slavish ripoff" was that certain people who were trusted by Apple and privy to their information of the iPhone in its earliest stages (Google's ex-CEO who was on Apple's board at the time), "quit" and then did something unforseen for a company like Google.... not to mention how ridiculously close it looked/looks to IOS.
Did anyone follow Google's developer conference which of course, they piggybacked off of Apple's 2 weeks ago (even their conferences are late
)? Even Google's biggest advocates, I'm noticing, couldn't help but notice the ENTIRE thing was a copycat production, front to back. Google's has waged a war with every major technology company with second rate iterations (Tablet to go after the Kindle Fire, previously Google+ to go after Facebook, Google Play which is an iTunes wannabee, their many attempts at Microsoft, etc.) by imitating them. It's very apparent that Google's strategy is to wait until somebody else does the R&D and innovates, and then piggyback off them and build off of their platforms, with a few technical enhancements here or there (easy when your R&D costs might be down). They make NO money on Android sales, or their upcoming Nexus tablet. NONE! They afford to price them so low because they don't have to spend much to create them, as they take their ideas off of others, then modify. Also, one of the rare things that they do better than anybody (Search, their origins), generates enough revenue for them to give away their software to others for mere market share, and no profit.
As for Motorola. In fact it has weighed heavily on the stock and has investors quite freaked. The reason that Android sells more than any other software.... is because they give it to everybody, it's the "generic phone for every phone", you're basically given it for free, and most people who use it don't even know what "Android" really is. If Google decides to make hardware, then they've lost all their contracts with all the hardware who they supply to, and have to now compete against iPhone, Samsung, HTC, etc. It would be a big step for them and can drain their pockets fast, if it doesn't work out.
In fact, rumors have already started surfacing that Samsung, as they become a more serious hardware player in the Smartphone market, are making a pre-emptive strike, and MIGHT be starting to develop their own software (i.e hire someone to supply them), which would be very bad news for Google.
Google does some good things, but I feel that they're the leech in everyone's backside, because they leach off of everyone's backside. There probably isn't a more hated company in the tech industry.... not because of competition, but because of copying. Not to mention, the major lawsuits they have out on privacy issues that could be a huge impending disaster for them.
One thing that Google has a lot of catching up to do in, is Apple's brand value, and consumer sentiment. Google is known as a bloated company who puts out a lot of crap, within some great products and segment leaders (Search, Maps, Gmail), diving into everyone's field. Apple's brand value is made up by doing the opposite of what Google does. And due to that, there's this:
The search giant has also watched its brand equity drop. For a number of years, including 2010, Google ranked at the top of Millward Brown's annual BrandZ Most Valuable Global Brands study, measuring, among other things, consumer opinion. Last year, Google fell to second place, and this year dropped to third. It's not a major slide, but still telling.
Did anyone follow Google's developer conference which of course, they piggybacked off of Apple's 2 weeks ago (even their conferences are late
)? Even Google's biggest advocates, I'm noticing, couldn't help but notice the ENTIRE thing was a copycat production, front to back. Google's has waged a war with every major technology company with second rate iterations (Tablet to go after the Kindle Fire, previously Google+ to go after Facebook, Google Play which is an iTunes wannabee, their many attempts at Microsoft, etc.) by imitating them. It's very apparent that Google's strategy is to wait until somebody else does the R&D and innovates, and then piggyback off them and build off of their platforms, with a few technical enhancements here or there (easy when your R&D costs might be down). They make NO money on Android sales, or their upcoming Nexus tablet. NONE! They afford to price them so low because they don't have to spend much to create them, as they take their ideas off of others, then modify. Also, one of the rare things that they do better than anybody (Search, their origins), generates enough revenue for them to give away their software to others for mere market share, and no profit.As for Motorola. In fact it has weighed heavily on the stock and has investors quite freaked. The reason that Android sells more than any other software.... is because they give it to everybody, it's the "generic phone for every phone", you're basically given it for free, and most people who use it don't even know what "Android" really is. If Google decides to make hardware, then they've lost all their contracts with all the hardware who they supply to, and have to now compete against iPhone, Samsung, HTC, etc. It would be a big step for them and can drain their pockets fast, if it doesn't work out.
In fact, rumors have already started surfacing that Samsung, as they become a more serious hardware player in the Smartphone market, are making a pre-emptive strike, and MIGHT be starting to develop their own software (i.e hire someone to supply them), which would be very bad news for Google.
Google does some good things, but I feel that they're the leech in everyone's backside, because they leach off of everyone's backside. There probably isn't a more hated company in the tech industry.... not because of competition, but because of copying. Not to mention, the major lawsuits they have out on privacy issues that could be a huge impending disaster for them.
One thing that Google has a lot of catching up to do in, is Apple's brand value, and consumer sentiment. Google is known as a bloated company who puts out a lot of crap, within some great products and segment leaders (Search, Maps, Gmail), diving into everyone's field. Apple's brand value is made up by doing the opposite of what Google does. And due to that, there's this:
The search giant has also watched its brand equity drop. For a number of years, including 2010, Google ranked at the top of Millward Brown's annual BrandZ Most Valuable Global Brands study, measuring, among other things, consumer opinion. Last year, Google fell to second place, and this year dropped to third. It's not a major slide, but still telling.
- Messages
- 7,139
And then there's this. Not ONE thing that isn't copying what someone else did, late to the game! This is not the way to build brand identity or cachet status that they so desperately and vehemently strive for by reading Apple's playbook so closely.
Google unveils an ecosystem designed to rival Apple's
By Philip Elmer-DeWitt June 27, 2012: 5:53 PM ET
The highlights of the two hour-plus presentation:
The dramatic highlight: The live-streamed video of Google Glass-wearing stuntmen performing a variety of death-defying feats: skydivers jumping out of a passing plane to land on the roof of the Moscone West; cyclists leaping from building to building via bicycle ramps; mountain climbers rappelling down the side of the conference center.
Almost lost in the hoopla is the fact that except for its lead in Android phone sales, Google is playing catch-up on almost every front. Google Play and the Nexus Q, in particular, are coming in late. Microsoft (MSFT) has a huge installed base of multi-media players in its XBox 360 and Apple has a decade-long head start with iTunes.
Analysts wasted no time comparing Google's offerings to Apple's:
Google unveils an ecosystem designed to rival Apple's
By Philip Elmer-DeWitt June 27, 2012: 5:53 PM ET
- 7
Google Glass-wearing skydivers getting ready to jump. Photo: The Verge
FORTUNE -- In a jam-packed keynote that included a long list of significant software announcements, a box full of free hardware and a live-streamed skydive onto the roof of Moscone West, Google (GOOG) unveiled its strongest challenge yet to Apple's (AAPL) computing and entertainment ecosystem.The highlights of the two hour-plus presentation:
- Google Play, a rebranding of Android Market in which 600,000 apps have been enhanced with movies, TV shows, books and magazines to compete with Apple's iTunes.
- The Nexus Q, a $299 bowling ball-shaped media player that plugs into a TV, connects wirelessly to speakers and serves as a gateway to the content on Google Play. Can be controlled party-style by several Android devices simultaneously.
- Nexus 7, a 7-inch $199 tablet built for Google by Asus that looks (and is priced) more like the Amazon (AMZN) Kindle Fire than an Apple iPad. Comes with Google Chrome built-in.
- Jelly Bean (A.K.A. Android 4.1) enhanced with Siri-like voice controls and dictation, an improved photo-sharing feature called Google Beam, improved search and navigation, and a bottom-up performance upgrade called Project Butter.
- Google Glass, the company's futuristic computer-in-an-eyeglass-frame, which will be available for sale to developers in early 2013 for $1,500.
The Nexus Q
The biggest crowd pleaser: The announcement that all 6,000 attendees will be getting a free Nexus Galaxy phone, a Nexus 7 tablet and a Nexus Q media player.The dramatic highlight: The live-streamed video of Google Glass-wearing stuntmen performing a variety of death-defying feats: skydivers jumping out of a passing plane to land on the roof of the Moscone West; cyclists leaping from building to building via bicycle ramps; mountain climbers rappelling down the side of the conference center.
Almost lost in the hoopla is the fact that except for its lead in Android phone sales, Google is playing catch-up on almost every front. Google Play and the Nexus Q, in particular, are coming in late. Microsoft (MSFT) has a huge installed base of multi-media players in its XBox 360 and Apple has a decade-long head start with iTunes.
Analysts wasted no time comparing Google's offerings to Apple's:
"In our view," wrote Topeka's Brian White in a quick note to clients, "Apple's ecosystem still remains the best in the mobile device world with over 650,000 apps in total and 225,000 apps that are native to the iPad. This compares to 600,000 apps in total for Google and an insignificant amount that are native for tablets. Apple already has 400 million accounts on the App Store with more than 30 billion App downloads, while 125 million users have registered for iCloud."
From Forrester's James McQuivey: "Learning a lesson from Amazon, Google can see that the only way to beat the premium-worthy iPad is to go for the millions of customers who are ready for smaller and cheaper tablets and then grow those customers into more Android powered devices and, more importantly, Google-powered services like Google Play and whatever paid video experience YouTube will likely create. That range of services will be the secret to stitching together this rag-tag fleet of Android gadgets into a platform that can compete with Apple for minutes of user's attention rather than premium device dollars."
"The $199 tablet price point as well as improved content availability could draw some consumers to the Android ecosystem," wrote ISI's Brian Marshall. "We believe GOOG is making meaningful improvements to its ecosystem/Android and that the $199 price point could help GOOG gain some traction in tablets. However, we believe AAPL remains well ahead and are comfortable with our iPad estimates (e.g., 64mil in CY12, 80mil in CY13)."
Sterne Agee's Shaw Wu: "We find [the Nexus 7's] $199 price point aggressive, on par with Kindle Fire, and will likely compete most against AMZN, MSFT, RIMM, HPQ, and unfortunately its Android partners including Samsung, DELL, HTC, Lenovo, Acer, etc. AAPL could see competitive pressure as well but we believe likely least impacted given its unique structural and strategic advantages."
Ovum's Jan Dawson: "The Nexus Q home media device is on paper very similar to the Apple TV launched in 2007 - $299 for a device that streams content from the cloud and attaches to a TV and other home media devices. The problem is that the current Apple TV sells for $99 and does far more, including mirroring smartphone and tablet screens. Google's decision to manufacturer the device in the US may turn out to be a self-defeating PR move, given that it's the most logical reason for the inflated $299 price point. Even the Apple TV, of course, doesn't sell very well, so there's little hope for Google's latest venture into the home entertainment space at three times the price."
- Messages
- 14,877
- Name
- Derek
Apple pays $60 million in iPad trademark dispute, makes peace with Proview
By Sean Buckleyposted Jul 2nd 2012 1:05AM
Earlier this year, iPads were flying off the shelves in China -- but not for the expected reasons. The slates were being removed from stores following an injunction granted to Shenzhen Proview Technology, a local firm that had laid claim to the iPad trademark. The injunction would later be rebuffed by a Shanghai court, resuming tablet sales while the dispute raged on. Today, Apple and Proview have come to a resolution, putting $60 million in Proview's coffers and the matter to rest.
Feeling lost? Let us catch you up. Way back at the turn of the century, Proview's Taiwan branch registered the "iPad" trademark for its Internet Personal Access Device -- an all-in-one PC that wasn't unlike Apple's own iMac. Later on, Apple would purchase the worldwide rights to the name from the Taiwan branch, which presumably included Shenzhen Proview Technology's claim -- though the Chinese vice minister for the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) would later declareProview the trademark's rightful owner. Fast forward to today, and the two firms are finally settling.
According to The New York Times, Proview had originally sought as much as $400 million, but has agreed to settle for a lesser amount to help it pay its debts. Either way, Apple seems to have already transferred the sum, according to the Guangdong High People's Court, apparently eager to put the dispute behind them.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/02/apple-pays-60-million-in-ipad-trademark-settlement/
- Messages
- 7,139
Proview used China's mafioso like court system to bully Apple into settling that name. Apple got the name fair and square. Of course, a BK'd Proview thought that Apple's riches could save them, so the Chinese courts complied.
Starting up a "dummy company" to purchase a name is fair play, as you have those who will try and tax you immensely if they know you have money (unfair, in my opinion). It's like having a Mercedes and a car wash charges you double of what they would if you had a Toyota (yes, a car wash once actually told me that!). Maybe if I would have put a Toyota badge on my car and then the car wash found out later, they could come after me for "their share"?
Starting up a "dummy company" to purchase a name is fair play, as you have those who will try and tax you immensely if they know you have money (unfair, in my opinion). It's like having a Mercedes and a car wash charges you double of what they would if you had a Toyota (yes, a car wash once actually told me that!). Maybe if I would have put a Toyota badge on my car and then the car wash found out later, they could come after me for "their share"?
DreamWeaaver
Fuel Gauge Fan
- Messages
- 74
Samsung for Work and iPhone for private? Well you use one for making money and other for luxury.
DreamWeaaver
Fuel Gauge Fan
- Messages
- 74
I already you know have a certain bias but everybody is entitled to their own opinions and I will try my best to refrain from provocation because I am frankly annoyed with your attitude. BTW, I am more than willing to argue with you in Kia/Hyundai vs VW/Audi or Samsung vs Apple. Like Monster said, Apple DOES buy it's processors and stuff from Samsung...and No company is guilt-free of being copycats...that includes both Apple and Samsung. Now, if you really want to see practical results, why don't you go on the internet and see what the real world thinks of Apple vs Samsung?
http://jalopnik.com/5844809/watch-volkswagens-ceo-complain-about-hyundais-superior-interior
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/01/samsung-is-the-new-king-of-mobile/
http://www.euronews.com/2012/04/27/samsung-ousts-nokia-as-new-king-of-mobile/
I personally liked Nokia a lot but unfortunately they have been replaced gradually by of course, Apple and Samsung :/
I do wish Scandinavian potency in the tech sector the very best in the future! Finland, Sweden, etc.
- Messages
- 7,139
Bringing real world results into it won't do much good to prove your case against Apple. Their sales, clean margins, and highest rate customer satisfaction speak for themselves. The iPhone is the ONLY phone that could be on the same chassis for 2 years, and still be a leading seller, not to mention, still have the best tactile quality of any other phone being released. Once iPhone 5 is out, that "king of mobile" stuff won't hold much salt, I'm sure.
Simply put, Samsung wouldn't have the Galaxy if they didn't have the iPhone to copy, nor would they have those Tablet's they keep throwing at the walls, etc. I'm not denying the capabilities or resources of Samsung, but they're spread very wide, and frankly don't have the focus of Apple in that specific world of "gadgets", which is why they typically follow Apple's lead. Apple has won some big patent cases against Samsung recently, so I'm certainly not the only one noticing this.
Even as recently as Apple's intro of Siri. Samsung does what? Of course, they introduce their "own version of Siri". It might even work better than Apple's version.... why wouldn't it? They let Apple innovate the marketplace, then they one up and follow. I'm still waiting on seeing how Siri out of beta form will turn out.
Simply put, Samsung wouldn't have the Galaxy if they didn't have the iPhone to copy, nor would they have those Tablet's they keep throwing at the walls, etc. I'm not denying the capabilities or resources of Samsung, but they're spread very wide, and frankly don't have the focus of Apple in that specific world of "gadgets", which is why they typically follow Apple's lead. Apple has won some big patent cases against Samsung recently, so I'm certainly not the only one noticing this.
Even as recently as Apple's intro of Siri. Samsung does what? Of course, they introduce their "own version of Siri". It might even work better than Apple's version.... why wouldn't it? They let Apple innovate the marketplace, then they one up and follow. I'm still waiting on seeing how Siri out of beta form will turn out.
- Messages
- 14,877
- Name
- Derek
Perhaps it is because Apple has a better marketing department and managed to convince many that the iphone is the easiest phone to use. I know a lot of less technically minded people who bought the iphone because everyone else has one as well, it has become a fashion accessory. For me I prefer better hardware specification over better 'tactile' quality.
Simply put, Apple won't exist if Steve Jobs was not 'inspired' by Xerox's idea of using a mouse to navigate through a computer. Also, a personal tablet was introduced by Microsoft in 2002, well before the introduction of the ipad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC . Samsung is and always has been a manufacturer of household appliances and electrical goods, it isn't a company like Apple which is only involved in the computing business. Which cases has Apple successfully ban the sale of Samsung products? They failed to ban the sales of the Galaxy Tab, or any galaxy phones, at least it is the case in Australia and in Asia.
I was really hoping that you won't bring this up because you are saying what the marketing department at Apple wants you to say. Apple bought Siri in 2010 (not much innovation there) dumb it down a bit, not my words, here read this
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...ticises-virtual-assistant-20120618-20iw3.html
Siri is a gimmick used to distract people from realising that the iphone 4S was technically behind the competition even when it was launched. Also, Siri uses Wolfram Alpha to search for answers, and no that wasn't 'invented' by Apple either. When you accuse Samsung of introducing their voice command/search function, you probably didn't realise that Samsung has a voice command function called Vlingo, which was available with the Galaxy S2 since last year, and android phones have voice recognition capabilities since android 2.2 back in 2010. Apple also ripped off Android's idea of using a drag down notification bar to inform users of various important information, you don't see Google going ape sh*t with the lawyers.
Apple takes existing or emerging technologies and repackages, and they have an effective marketing department to really hammer their message across the market. Either way, there will always be people who will buy Apple products no matter what, same goes with Android fans.
- Messages
- 7,139
Apple's simplicity of use shouldn't be held against them. It was their winning formula that convinced so many against the complicated and fickle PC's. Their simplicity is what keeps so many attached to them, and the formula that EVERYBODY has been emulating them on.
Apple hasn't "innovated" every product they've put out, however in most cases, they've innovated the market. Samsung getting the memo about the computing business, Android releasing an IOS clone, etc., these wouldn't have happened if it weren't for Apple's genius in revolutionizing the way a business is run and operated. Apple's marketing is one of their brilliant points that is incredibly emulated as well (look at Android's recent commercials after their "butch" ads before, talk about trying out the Apple formula), however, they have the products and performance to back it all up.
Apple won two big patent cases against Samsung this very week. Every little bit counts right now, as this is a new world for Judges, laws, etc., and Apple is doing what it can to protect its innovations, rightfully so. There are some patent laws out against Apple as well, but they absolutely pale in comparison to Apple's cases against others.
Apple buying Siri and putting it out there doesn't diminish what it represented. Apple didn't have to create it from scratch and use their own Search engine for it to be an innovative feature.... in fact, that would have been bad business.... Part of Apple's business model is to let others work for them to help create their vision, and it's absolutely remarkably sound. Siri isn't a simple voice control, and although its beta period's been a little hit or miss, it IS a great feature, and many do get great benefit from it. Siri's more intelligent form of voice communication IS being emulated by Samsung, Google, etc. with their own iterations.
Apple hasn't "innovated" every product they've put out, however in most cases, they've innovated the market. Samsung getting the memo about the computing business, Android releasing an IOS clone, etc., these wouldn't have happened if it weren't for Apple's genius in revolutionizing the way a business is run and operated. Apple's marketing is one of their brilliant points that is incredibly emulated as well (look at Android's recent commercials after their "butch" ads before, talk about trying out the Apple formula), however, they have the products and performance to back it all up.
Apple won two big patent cases against Samsung this very week. Every little bit counts right now, as this is a new world for Judges, laws, etc., and Apple is doing what it can to protect its innovations, rightfully so. There are some patent laws out against Apple as well, but they absolutely pale in comparison to Apple's cases against others.
Apple buying Siri and putting it out there doesn't diminish what it represented. Apple didn't have to create it from scratch and use their own Search engine for it to be an innovative feature.... in fact, that would have been bad business.... Part of Apple's business model is to let others work for them to help create their vision, and it's absolutely remarkably sound. Siri isn't a simple voice control, and although its beta period's been a little hit or miss, it IS a great feature, and many do get great benefit from it. Siri's more intelligent form of voice communication IS being emulated by Samsung, Google, etc. with their own iterations.
- Messages
- 14,877
- Name
- Derek
Agree.
Will have to get back to you on that one.
When it comes down to the core, Siri is a voice command program, it is just more flexible with the way people input the command, and Wolfram alpha is a different from Google, it actually gives you an answer based on the list of data in its collection, instead of giving you a list of relevant links like Google.
DreamWeaaver
Fuel Gauge Fan
- Messages
- 74
I agree with a lot of what "Monster" has said. He seems to be more subtle on this matter and knows a great deal more. I'm not a Tech savvy or anything either.
I'm not Anti-Apple at all....I mean, who doesn't like dazzling fancy appearels that break so easily
It seems Samsung is going off strong JUST AS Apple...but apparently they surpassed them in phone sales. I wish both Apple and Samsung the best of luck. Apple does seem to have the more appealing advertisement but like Monster said Apple does have a lot of it's root from Samsung, as it gets its equiment and processors from them. I only prefer Samsung slightly over Apple because although Apple products look more fancy and luxurious, the quality is lesser and it breaks more easily.
I'm not Anti-Apple at all....I mean, who doesn't like dazzling fancy appearels that break so easily
It seems Samsung is going off strong JUST AS Apple...but apparently they surpassed them in phone sales. I wish both Apple and Samsung the best of luck. Apple does seem to have the more appealing advertisement but like Monster said Apple does have a lot of it's root from Samsung, as it gets its equiment and processors from them. I only prefer Samsung slightly over Apple because although Apple products look more fancy and luxurious, the quality is lesser and it breaks more easily.
- Messages
- 7,139
DreamWeaver: I've found that Apple products are incredibly reliable. I have Mac Pro's that are used all day every day, used to the highest intensity, been dropped from very high platforms, are running on very low remaining memory, years old, and work perfectly. I know people who have RUN OVER their Mac Pro's with their large cars and the things still worked.
As for the iPhone, any reason that it would "break easily" would be because it uses an all glass casing, which puts it head and shoulders above any of its competitors in all out hardware quality. The fact that glass breaks easier than plastic does, is a worthwhile chance to take for a higher quality product that is more expensive to make (glass/aluminum costs more than plastic). Also, for a glass product, the iPhone/iPad are extremely impressive in durability. Another revolutionary way of how Apple has changed the consumer market in terms of what we expect from hardware products.
When it comes to Apple, we not only have a company to point to when the words "revolutionary" and "innovative", and "obsessive quality" come into play all so often, but we have faces and names. Steve Jobs, we all know this mans characteristics, and we all know that this guy was a one of a kind, love him or hate him. The way that Apple has redefined so many things about so many things, is because of this character. As for Apple's revolutionary approach to industrial design, we have Jony Ive, who may be the most revered and regarded Designers of our time. Gordon Wagener, BMW designers, etc. all cite Apple and Jon Ive as leading inspirations in everything from exterior, interior, and tech design in their cars.
Samsung is an incredible company on their own, one of the many reasons that make this so obvious is because Apple CHOOSES them to help fill their obsessive vision. However, I don't like how they've run their business in respect to how Apple has run theirs, and I don't think their products in Apple's forte of business hold a candle to Apple's for the most part.
As for Samsung selling more phones, that's not of much impact to Apple. Firstly, from what I understand, the way Samsung and Apple report sold phones are different (Samsung for every phone either made or shipped, and Apple for how many actually sold to customers). Also, Samsung sells some POS low end phones (I saw some recently) that are worth less than a Pizza lunch. Just like Honda sell more than M-B, because they have a difference business model and are geared much more toward large selections and mass market.
Oh, and as for the "accessory" aspect. That's another genius point of Apple. Just like with cars, sure we can all get from point A to point B in anything, but why not have it look good? Why not have it say something about our tastes and maybe personalities? Apple introduced with aspect with untouchable "tactile" quality and design into the Computing and Mobile business.
As for the iPhone, any reason that it would "break easily" would be because it uses an all glass casing, which puts it head and shoulders above any of its competitors in all out hardware quality. The fact that glass breaks easier than plastic does, is a worthwhile chance to take for a higher quality product that is more expensive to make (glass/aluminum costs more than plastic). Also, for a glass product, the iPhone/iPad are extremely impressive in durability. Another revolutionary way of how Apple has changed the consumer market in terms of what we expect from hardware products.
When it comes to Apple, we not only have a company to point to when the words "revolutionary" and "innovative", and "obsessive quality" come into play all so often, but we have faces and names. Steve Jobs, we all know this mans characteristics, and we all know that this guy was a one of a kind, love him or hate him. The way that Apple has redefined so many things about so many things, is because of this character. As for Apple's revolutionary approach to industrial design, we have Jony Ive, who may be the most revered and regarded Designers of our time. Gordon Wagener, BMW designers, etc. all cite Apple and Jon Ive as leading inspirations in everything from exterior, interior, and tech design in their cars.
Samsung is an incredible company on their own, one of the many reasons that make this so obvious is because Apple CHOOSES them to help fill their obsessive vision. However, I don't like how they've run their business in respect to how Apple has run theirs, and I don't think their products in Apple's forte of business hold a candle to Apple's for the most part.
As for Samsung selling more phones, that's not of much impact to Apple. Firstly, from what I understand, the way Samsung and Apple report sold phones are different (Samsung for every phone either made or shipped, and Apple for how many actually sold to customers). Also, Samsung sells some POS low end phones (I saw some recently) that are worth less than a Pizza lunch. Just like Honda sell more than M-B, because they have a difference business model and are geared much more toward large selections and mass market.
Oh, and as for the "accessory" aspect. That's another genius point of Apple. Just like with cars, sure we can all get from point A to point B in anything, but why not have it look good? Why not have it say something about our tastes and maybe personalities? Apple introduced with aspect with untouchable "tactile" quality and design into the Computing and Mobile business.
- Messages
- 7,139
And monster accused me of turning this into Apple vs Google. K-A, bro, by now we all now no body will switch because of a post. No matter how long it is
Regards
Not trying to get anyone to switch, just stating my views.
DreamWeaaver
Fuel Gauge Fan
- Messages
- 74
Interesting assessment. I see both pros and cons of Apple and Samsung. Obviously I prefer Samsung while you prefer Apple...but the saying is true...numbers don't lie 
Peace.
Peace.
- Messages
- 7,139
If that's the case, then Apple is clearly the winner. Makes more money than all its competitors put together, profit margins anyone else would kill for, a 2 year old phone that still is the is the segment leader in sales (Galaxy S III sales still yet to be determined, but will be easily outsold by iPhone 5 to say the least), etc. If you want to compare mobile sales of each, you have to compare the iPhone to a specific Samsung, as iPhone is Apple's only phone, while Samsung has a bunch. Let's not forget, unspoken numbers of "cachet factor" which is a byproduct of hardware build quality and style not to mention utter brand leanness and focus (Samsung makes household appliances, which is why hard as they try, they'll never be able to match Apple's perceived focus and "it factor".
Otherwise, I agree.
Otherwise, I agree.
