It's a failure for Apple who have had a 3 year head start over Samsung, yet the S3 managed to outsell the iPhone, and now the S4 is selling very well...
It didn't, but don't let that get in the way of your argument.
Apples infringement analysis focuses on Google functionality that Samsung incorporates into its devices, Apple said in the filing. The two Siri-related patents are infringed by the Google Now search application on the Galaxy S4, according to Apple.
What's this supposed to mean then? The implementation of Google Now is the same on all Android devices, it's part of Android 4.2 and has nothing to do with Samsung directly with regards to its implementation...
Why have they only highlighted Samsung and not every other Android OEM using Google Now on their devices, as the implementation is identical across any Android device? If Samsung is infringing the patents, then that also means Sony, HTC, Motorola, Asus, LG etc and Google themselves are infringing the patents....
The lawsuit specifically mentions "Samsung's implementation of Google Now" as infringing the patents, but as I just stated, Samsung's implementation is identical to the implementation across all Android devices. Thus my point still stands as to why Apple have only targeted Samsung. I know there is an existing lawsuit between the two companies, but why then has Apple not launched separate action against other Android OEMs as they surely would be infringing on these same alleged patents?
It just seems like bullying tactics from Apple once again and an attempt to stifle the competition, all this legal action is making Apple come across as desperate.
But it did, so it will be used in my argument. The S3 did outsell the iPhone at one stage, therefore the statement can stand unchallenged.
Your statement was misleading though. To say "the S3 outsold the iPhone" implies total sales, not a single quarter that was unrepresentative of the overall picture. But then, you already knew that.
It didn't, but don't let that get in the way of your argument.
I would like to see the sales figures for both phones. From the last press release I read the s3 had sold 30-40 million units. In the last quarter Apple sold 37 million iPhones and the quarter before they sold more (can't remember the figure). So since the iPhone 5 was release Apple have sold at least 80 million iPhones, however they don't breakdown sales for individual models. I would imagine that the iPhone 5 has sold more units than the S3, although I'd like to see some figures for both phones so I could get an accurate picture. Nonetheless the s3 has done well and I don't support Apple's law suits. On another note it seems that the HTC one despite all its delays and distribution problems has sold 5 million in one month which is excellent. I wonder how Apple will respond baring in mind that Apple settled with HTC last year.
It's a failure for Apple who have had a 3 year head start over Samsung, yet the S3 managed to outsell the iPhone, and now the S4 is selling very well...
It's very dubious that Apple has singled out and roped Samsung AND the S4 into a lawsuit about Google Now. A decision no-one has tried to defend yet. I wonder why.
I'm still confused about a few things.
1. From Wiki:
Samsung released their first digital handset back in 1996. In 1999, Samsung secured the number one position in the worldwide CDMA market where it accounted for more than 50% of market share.
How does this equate to Apple having "a 3 year head start over Apple".
2. I don't really understand why the iPhone 5 is a failure, but the S4 is a runaway success.
3. I didn't think the S3 had outsold the iPhone 5. Or even the 4S.
4. I didn't think they had singles out the S4, but had simply added it to existing lawsuits.
The Galaxy S was a modest success. It was probably flew under Apples radar. So it does in fact back up my theory nicely actually.
iPhone 5 sales while not a failure by any means, but they haven't been as big as Apple had hoped for.
Sorry, I thought you were linking the lawsuits to more recent, higher, faster sales.
Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the lawsuits, they started as early as 2010, against more than just Samsung. So I'm not convinced the sole motivation for the suits is competition.
Obviously? Care to explain the true reasons then for it?
I was only agreeing with you.
I don't need to explain the true reasons (in any great detail) to know as well as you do that its obviously not as simple as you suggested.
But off the top of my head:
1. I'm not sure Apple have run out of ideas. For the least few years all we hear each year is the lame, lazy journalism about how the new iPhone is "evolution, not revolution" etc. And yet, put an iPhone 5 next to iPhone 3GS, and its world's apart.
And yes - that applies equally to the S4. For whatever reason, people's expectations have become wholly unrealistic.
2. Again, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the lawsuits, its pretty difficult to dispute that smartphones, since the iPhone came out, have largely aped the iPhone.
Sorry, I thought you were linking the lawsuits to more recent, higher, faster sales.
Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the lawsuits, they started as early as 2010, against more than just Samsung. So I'm not convinced the sole motivation for the suits is competition.
Samsung released their first digital handset back in 1996. In 1999, Samsung secured the number one position in the worldwide CDMA market where it accounted for more than 50% of market share.
How does this equate to Apple having "a 3 year head start over Apple".
2. I don't really understand why the iPhone 5 is a failure, but the S4 is a runaway success.
3. I didn't think the S3 had outsold the iPhone 5. Or even the 4S.
4. I didn't think they had singles out the S4, but had simply added it to existing lawsuits.
I would like to think common sense prevails in this instance. Apple created the modern smartphone market in 2007. A market which Samsung did not fully enter until 2010 with the Galaxy S. Comparing a Samsung phone from 1996 to an Apple one in 2007 is illogical. It's not the same market. It would be like saying a company producing propeller planes in the 1940s had a head start over Boeing producing jet planes now and thus should be selling more then Boeing. It's not the same market.
With that being taken into account, for the iPhone which was a former market leader holding over 70% of the market, these sales are not something to be celebrated as it indicates that they have suffered a massive drop in popularity.
As I said previously, the S3 did outsell the iPhone at one stage. If Apple is going to sue Samsung over its Google Now implementation, it would be logical for Apple to sue other Android OEMs seeing as though the implementation of Google Now is identical on all Android devices, thus if Apple's motive behind this was truly to protect their IP, then that would have been an expected move from them. Evidently, I don't think that is their motive behind this lawsuit.
I would like to think common sense prevails in this instance. Apple created the modern smartphone market in 2007. A market which Samsung did not fully enter until 2010 with the Galaxy S. Comparing a Samsung phone from 1996 to an Apple one in 2007 is illogical. It's not the same market. It would be like saying a company producing propeller planes in the 1940s had a head start over Boeing producing jet planes now and thus should be selling more then Boeing. It's not the same market.
With that being taken into account, for the iPhone which was a former market leader holding over 70% of the market, these sales are not something to be celebrated as it indicates that they have suffered a massive drop in popularity.
As I said previously, the S3 did outsell the iPhone at one stage. If Apple is going to sue Samsung over its Google Now implementation, it would be logical for Apple to sue other Android OEMs seeing as though the implementation of Google Now is identical on all Android devices, thus if Apple's motive behind this was truly to protect their IP, then that would have been an expected move from them. Evidently, I don't think that is their motive behind this lawsuit.
I didn't compare a phone from 1996 to the iPhone. I pointed out that as Samsung had been successfully making mobile phones since the 90s and earlier, its absurd to say that Apple had a head start over Samsung.
I think its slightly misleading to suggest that the smartphone market is some sort of radical new market. Its really just a natural progression of the mobile phone market.
It seems that people want it all ways. On the one hand Apple didn't invent the smartphone market, because there had been other smartphones before it.
And on the other, Apple did invent it, allowing people to argue that they had some sort of head start.
Market share does not equal popularity. As you said yourself, for a while there was far less competition than there is now. Market share may have fallen simply due to more competition and choice.
But it seems difficult to argue that popularity has fallen, when sales continue to increase.
As for the outselling, I think that's a great bit of spin, if you're literally only taking sales from one three month period. I think most people would normally look at overall sales.
I didn't think they had singled out the S4, but had simply added it to existing suits.
I'd suggest that the difference in perception comes from iphones traditionally having a massive first weekend but then quickly tailing off (hence apple joyously quoting first weekend sales), and the Galaxies being more consistent sales (though no doubt some fall off as well).
So you can't quote "iphone had 5 million sales in 3 days" and use that to extrapolate that iphone then probably sold 10 million in 6 days, versus the S4's 10 million in 1 month.
what you'd need to see is sales over time for both models.
I'd suggest that the difference in perception comes from iphones traditionally having a massive first weekend but then quickly tailing off (hence apple joyously quoting first weekend sales), and the Galaxies being more consistent sales (though no doubt some fall off as well).
So you can't quote "iphone had 5 million sales in 3 days" and use that to extrapolate that iphone then probably sold 10 million in 6 days, versus the S4's 10 million in 1 month.
what you'd need to see is sales over time for both models.
I don't think anyone is inferring that the iPhone had 10 million sales in six days.
I don't know how many it sold in a month, but if it sold 5m in three days, and in total it outsold the S3, then it seems likely that it would have sold as many in the first month as the S4 has.
And again, I should stress that the exact figures, or who sold most isn't really the point. The point is why broadly similar sales are reported with wildly different spin between the two companies.
Well lets see the opening analogy of melons is not relevant in the discussion between apple and samsung is it for obvious reasons, the whole premise of the article is based upon that. Lumping all android OEMs together gives a skewed and misleading interpretation of the last few years.
You will notice that the article is about smartphone market share but strangely to demonstrate a specific point they switch conveniently to tablets.
Whilst profitability is very important to dismiss market share in this manner is rather foolish. often companies will sacrifice profits for increase in market share this is often good business practice. Any company doing so takes sales from their competitors and increase market and brand awareness, there is of course the amount of time this can be sustained granted.
However more importantly as said none of this applies in relation to samsung. The crux of the many many articles they so readily dismiss is that samsung market share has risen year on year likewise profits have risen year on year. This is currently not true for apple. Taking a snap shot of the current apple position in relation to the market can make things look healthy but this is not how business operates.
The most important factor not mentioned in that article is market trend which is moving towards android/samsung and away from apple. It is all well and good making good profits on your product but pointless if you only end up selling one per year.
Whilst profitability is very important to dismiss market share in this manner is rather foolish. often companies will sacrifice profits for increase in market share this is often good business practice. Any company doing so takes sales from their competitors and increase market and brand awareness, there is of course the amount of time this can be sustained granted.
But I see Apple as like Mercedes - looking for profit whilst market share is not an important. Samsung are more like Ford, high volume, large market share.
It's like comparing Apples to Watermelons - too different companies looking at different markets and both doing very well in their own ways.
I think it was skewed out as Apple came first and took a huge chunk of the market but they were never going to keep it all to themselves.
The article argues that market share, and market share alone, is not a reliable indicator of a company's health.
Apple's profits have been rising year on year.
I would have thought for any company's health, profit would be more important than market share.
Who know what will happen in the future, but when you say something like "but pointless if you only end up selling one per year" doesn't seem applicable if its supposed to be in reference to Apple, as long as both iPhone sales and profits continue to increase.
I don't see how there is a trend away from Apple, as long as Apple sales continue to grow. And also, recent reports suggest that more Android users plan to switch to Apple than the other way around.
To stress again that this isn't a pissing contest. I just think any suggestion that Apple is on some sort of wane are greatly exaggerated and a little premature.
Comments
It didn't, but don't let that get in the way of your argument.
http://www.macworld.com/article/2039503/apple-says-samsungs-galaxy-s4-infringes-on-five-patents.html
What's this supposed to mean then? The implementation of Google Now is the same on all Android devices, it's part of Android 4.2 and has nothing to do with Samsung directly with regards to its implementation...
Why have they only highlighted Samsung and not every other Android OEM using Google Now on their devices, as the implementation is identical across any Android device? If Samsung is infringing the patents, then that also means Sony, HTC, Motorola, Asus, LG etc and Google themselves are infringing the patents....
The lawsuit specifically mentions "Samsung's implementation of Google Now" as infringing the patents, but as I just stated, Samsung's implementation is identical to the implementation across all Android devices. Thus my point still stands as to why Apple have only targeted Samsung. I know there is an existing lawsuit between the two companies, but why then has Apple not launched separate action against other Android OEMs as they surely would be infringing on these same alleged patents?
It just seems like bullying tactics from Apple once again and an attempt to stifle the competition, all this legal action is making Apple come across as desperate.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/samsung-galaxy-s3-outsells-iphone-for-first-time-50009715/
But it did, so it will be used in my argument. The S3 did outsell the iPhone at one stage, therefore the statement can stand unchallenged.
Obviously? Care to explain the true reasons then for it?
Your statement was misleading though. To say "the S3 outsold the iPhone" implies total sales, not a single quarter that was unrepresentative of the overall picture. But then, you already knew that.
I would like to see the sales figures for both phones. From the last press release I read the s3 had sold 30-40 million units. In the last quarter Apple sold 37 million iPhones and the quarter before they sold more (can't remember the figure). So since the iPhone 5 was release Apple have sold at least 80 million iPhones, however they don't breakdown sales for individual models. I would imagine that the iPhone 5 has sold more units than the S3, although I'd like to see some figures for both phones so I could get an accurate picture. Nonetheless the s3 has done well and I don't support Apple's law suits. On another note it seems that the HTC one despite all its delays and distribution problems has sold 5 million in one month which is excellent. I wonder how Apple will respond baring in mind that Apple settled with HTC last year.
I'm still confused about a few things.
1. From Wiki:
Samsung released their first digital handset back in 1996. In 1999, Samsung secured the number one position in the worldwide CDMA market where it accounted for more than 50% of market share.
How does this equate to Apple having "a 3 year head start over Apple".
2. I don't really understand why the iPhone 5 is a failure, but the S4 is a runaway success.
3. I didn't think the S3 had outsold the iPhone 5. Or even the 4S.
4. I didn't think they had singles out the S4, but had simply added it to existing lawsuits.
Sorry, I thought you were linking the lawsuits to more recent, higher, faster sales.
Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the lawsuits, they started as early as 2010, against more than just Samsung. So I'm not convinced the sole motivation for the suits is competition.
I was only agreeing with you.
I don't need to explain the true reasons (in any great detail) to know as well as you do that its obviously not as simple as you suggested.
But off the top of my head:
1. I'm not sure Apple have run out of ideas. For the least few years all we hear each year is the lame, lazy journalism about how the new iPhone is "evolution, not revolution" etc. And yet, put an iPhone 5 next to iPhone 3GS, and its world's apart.
And yes - that applies equally to the S4. For whatever reason, people's expectations have become wholly unrealistic.
2. Again, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the lawsuits, its pretty difficult to dispute that smartphones, since the iPhone came out, have largely aped the iPhone.
Apple are losing market share to Android.
Samsung are the number 1 Android manufacturer.
Steve Jobs declared a holy war against Android.
I would like to think common sense prevails in this instance. Apple created the modern smartphone market in 2007. A market which Samsung did not fully enter until 2010 with the Galaxy S. Comparing a Samsung phone from 1996 to an Apple one in 2007 is illogical. It's not the same market. It would be like saying a company producing propeller planes in the 1940s had a head start over Boeing producing jet planes now and thus should be selling more then Boeing. It's not the same market.
With that being taken into account, for the iPhone which was a former market leader holding over 70% of the market, these sales are not something to be celebrated as it indicates that they have suffered a massive drop in popularity.
As I said previously, the S3 did outsell the iPhone at one stage. If Apple is going to sue Samsung over its Google Now implementation, it would be logical for Apple to sue other Android OEMs seeing as though the implementation of Google Now is identical on all Android devices, thus if Apple's motive behind this was truly to protect their IP, then that would have been an expected move from them. Evidently, I don't think that is their motive behind this lawsuit.
I didn't compare a phone from 1996 to the iPhone. I pointed out that as Samsung had been successfully making mobile phones since the 90s and earlier, its absurd to say that Apple had a head start over Samsung.
I think its slightly misleading to suggest that the smartphone market is some sort of radical new market. Its really just a natural progression of the mobile phone market.
It seems that people want it all ways. On the one hand Apple didn't invent the smartphone market, because there had been other smartphones before it.
And on the other, Apple did invent it, allowing people to argue that they had some sort of head start.
Market share does not equal popularity. As you said yourself, for a while there was far less competition than there is now. Market share may have fallen simply due to more competition and choice.
But it seems difficult to argue that popularity has fallen, when sales continue to increase.
As for the outselling, I think that's a great bit of spin, if you're literally only taking sales from one three month period. I think most people would normally look at overall sales.
I didn't think they had singled out the S4, but had simply added it to existing suits.
Yes.
Yes.
Not literally.
And I'm pretty sure the reason he gave (rightly or wrongly) was that he felt Apple IP was being stolen.
Apple are losing market share to Samsung. The other android OEM's aren't doing much and aren't really a threat to Apple at this point in time.
I have read some reaching nonsense in my time but that one is probably the best yet
Apple losing market share to its biggest rival, apple profit margins falling is presented as good thing for them :eek:
The idea that market share, and market share alone, can act as an indicator of a companies health doesn't sound like nonsense to me.
I'd suggest that the difference in perception comes from iphones traditionally having a massive first weekend but then quickly tailing off (hence apple joyously quoting first weekend sales), and the Galaxies being more consistent sales (though no doubt some fall off as well).
So you can't quote "iphone had 5 million sales in 3 days" and use that to extrapolate that iphone then probably sold 10 million in 6 days, versus the S4's 10 million in 1 month.
what you'd need to see is sales over time for both models.
You mean you can't read your own link and determine that for yourself? you actually think that whole story is logical do you and makes perfect sense?
I don't think its nonsense.
You do think its nonsense.
No, I can't determine why you think its nonsense.
Yes, it makes perfect sense that market share, and market share alone, is not a reliable indicator of a company's health.
If you could explain why you disagree with that and think its nonsense, that might help the discussion along.
Up to you.
I don't think anyone is inferring that the iPhone had 10 million sales in six days.
I don't know how many it sold in a month, but if it sold 5m in three days, and in total it outsold the S3, then it seems likely that it would have sold as many in the first month as the S4 has.
And again, I should stress that the exact figures, or who sold most isn't really the point. The point is why broadly similar sales are reported with wildly different spin between the two companies.
You will notice that the article is about smartphone market share but strangely to demonstrate a specific point they switch conveniently to tablets.
Whilst profitability is very important to dismiss market share in this manner is rather foolish. often companies will sacrifice profits for increase in market share this is often good business practice. Any company doing so takes sales from their competitors and increase market and brand awareness, there is of course the amount of time this can be sustained granted.
However more importantly as said none of this applies in relation to samsung. The crux of the many many articles they so readily dismiss is that samsung market share has risen year on year likewise profits have risen year on year. This is currently not true for apple. Taking a snap shot of the current apple position in relation to the market can make things look healthy but this is not how business operates.
The most important factor not mentioned in that article is market trend which is moving towards android/samsung and away from apple. It is all well and good making good profits on your product but pointless if you only end up selling one per year.
But I see Apple as like Mercedes - looking for profit whilst market share is not an important. Samsung are more like Ford, high volume, large market share.
It's like comparing Apples to Watermelons - too different companies looking at different markets and both doing very well in their own ways.
I think it was skewed out as Apple came first and took a huge chunk of the market but they were never going to keep it all to themselves.
The article does not dismiss market share.
The article argues that market share, and market share alone, is not a reliable indicator of a company's health.
Apple's profits have been rising year on year.
I would have thought for any company's health, profit would be more important than market share.
Who know what will happen in the future, but when you say something like "but pointless if you only end up selling one per year" doesn't seem applicable if its supposed to be in reference to Apple, as long as both iPhone sales and profits continue to increase.
I don't see how there is a trend away from Apple, as long as Apple sales continue to grow. And also, recent reports suggest that more Android users plan to switch to Apple than the other way around.
Article link
To stress again that this isn't a pissing contest. I just think any suggestion that Apple is on some sort of wane are greatly exaggerated and a little premature.