Counterintuitive: Did Samsung emerge a winner?(gigaom.com)
gigaom.com
Counterintuitive: Did Samsung emerge a winner?
http://gigaom.com/2012/08/25/counterintuitive-did-samsung-emerge-a-winner/
10 comments
As ridiculous as your list seems, it is all true.
When an industry expands rapidly, any company that enters and does a decent job will be an absolute winner. But, there will always be relative winners and losers over both the short and long term.
When an industry expands rapidly, any company that enters and does a decent job will be an absolute winner. But, there will always be relative winners and losers over both the short and long term.
I see you have an odd number of bullets. You seem to have left off the one explaining how the lawyers lost.
Oops, I misread that (I thought you were pointing out that I screwed up the numbering). The lawyers winning counteracts Google losing.
I think he was just subtly pointing out that the lawyers are the only ones who are clear winners.
12.) In a carefully orchestrated dance, both won.
http://stritar.net/Post/Did-Apple-and-Samsung-just-pull-the-...
11.) Governments who sell IPR won because more and more everyone thinks the path to success in IT must go through IP registration (of junk software patents in bulk) and (kangaroo court) IP litigation; moreover they can periodically raise fees without much pushback. Their main customers have loads of cash.
The result feels a bit like David vs. Goliath, but only because it pits one of the most talented and influential software and hardware firms against one of the least talented and least influential.
But it's important to remember first that Samsung is a massive, massive company. They are the largest smartphone manufacturer in the world, and made $6 billion in profit last quarter. It will take them two weeks to pay off the damages from the lawsuit.
Second, it's important to remember that Samsung deliberately and shamelessly copied Apple's products, and they have a reputation of doing just that to their competitors in the mobile industry. They were warned by Apple and by Google to stop what they were doing, and they ignored those warnings. That's how we got to this point.
Third, it's important to remember that Samsung is a terrible software company. Companies like Palm, RIM, Microsoft, and Apple have made real and important innovations and contributions that have moved the state of the art forward and have inspired countless new innovations. What the hell has Samsung done? I've been following the mobile software industry for over 10 years, and all Samsung is known for is selling other people's work and piggy-backing on others' brands.
Finally, I believe Samsung's inevitable fall from the top of the smartphone industry will come not as a result of this lawsuit but will instead be driven by the carriers, who still control most of the cards and have a long history of moving against manufacturers that become too big and assert too much power. Samsung will be replaced by another Android manufacturer, or perhaps even Nokia.
But it's important to remember first that Samsung is a massive, massive company. They are the largest smartphone manufacturer in the world, and made $6 billion in profit last quarter. It will take them two weeks to pay off the damages from the lawsuit.
Second, it's important to remember that Samsung deliberately and shamelessly copied Apple's products, and they have a reputation of doing just that to their competitors in the mobile industry. They were warned by Apple and by Google to stop what they were doing, and they ignored those warnings. That's how we got to this point.
Third, it's important to remember that Samsung is a terrible software company. Companies like Palm, RIM, Microsoft, and Apple have made real and important innovations and contributions that have moved the state of the art forward and have inspired countless new innovations. What the hell has Samsung done? I've been following the mobile software industry for over 10 years, and all Samsung is known for is selling other people's work and piggy-backing on others' brands.
Finally, I believe Samsung's inevitable fall from the top of the smartphone industry will come not as a result of this lawsuit but will instead be driven by the carriers, who still control most of the cards and have a long history of moving against manufacturers that become too big and assert too much power. Samsung will be replaced by another Android manufacturer, or perhaps even Nokia.
> They were warned by Apple and by Google to stop what they were doing, and they ignored those warnings.
You missed the part of the verdict where it says Google stock Android phone is infringing too. Also if Samsung is one of the less innovative and influential tech company, how come every iPhone is built with many Samsung parts including the retina screens?
You missed the part of the verdict where it says Google stock Android phone is infringing too. Also if Samsung is one of the less innovative and influential tech company, how come every iPhone is built with many Samsung parts including the retina screens?
We're talking about Samsung's hapless consumer product design, not their ability to manufacture LCD screens.
Furthermore, Samsung had every opportunity to stop this trial from getting as far as it did. They obviously didn't give a damn about the potential repercussions for other Android manufacturers or Android users.
Furthermore, Samsung had every opportunity to stop this trial from getting as far as it did. They obviously didn't give a damn about the potential repercussions for other Android manufacturers or Android users.
The only stock Google phone that was on the list was Nexus S 4G, the Sprint variant. All other variants have been upgraded to Android >4.0 which removes the infringing features.
If we're going to complain about "obvious" innovations, an LCD screen, but with higher resolution, surely qualifies.
>Samsung will be replaced by another Android manufacturer, or perhaps even Nokia
Nokia? The one that's focussing on Microsoft as an OS? Huh.
Seems way more likely that Motorola would be the more likely alternative to a Samsung successor seeing as they are owned by Google.
Nokia? The one that's focussing on Microsoft as an OS? Huh.
Seems way more likely that Motorola would be the more likely alternative to a Samsung successor seeing as they are owned by Google.
You had me until here:
>> or perhaps even Nokia.
I don't see a future for Nokia (or RIM) other than being acquired. They're both bleeding money and have no real rockstar products any more, but have big, big warchests of patents.
>> or perhaps even Nokia.
I don't see a future for Nokia (or RIM) other than being acquired. They're both bleeding money and have no real rockstar products any more, but have big, big warchests of patents.
> Samsung deliberately and shamelessly copied Apple's products
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if Samsung really copied from Apple, I'd have expected a lawsuit about copyright infringement, not about patents.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if Samsung really copied from Apple, I'd have expected a lawsuit about copyright infringement, not about patents.
It included trade dress[0] claims.
> Trade dress protection is intended to protect consumers from
> packaging or appearance of products that are designed to
> imitate other products; to prevent a consumer from buying
> one product under the belief that it is another.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
[1] http://variado.net/mobil/?p=27157At a ten feet distance.
Do you seriously believe that anyone actually bought a Galaxy Tab by mistake, thinking it was an iPad?
Do you seriously believe that anyone actually bought a Galaxy Tab by mistake, thinking it was an iPad?
When Samsung copies how Apple does something (that they've patented), it's a Patent infringement - which has the potential for more damages, so is generally preferred.
Copyright would apply if they had stolen or copied source code or original artwork and were using it verbatim.
Copyright would apply if they had stolen or copied source code or original artwork and were using it verbatim.
Samsung played it well. They knew that they would sooner or later lose in court against Apple because the Galaxy S was just too similar. But they were able to drag it out so long that they now have their third-generation high end phone S III on the market which is sufficiently distinct from the iPhone. They also introduced some evidence late in this trial which was disallowed, which seems amateurish. It was probably done on purpose so they have more grounds for appeal - and until that goes to trial they will be the dominant force in the market and all the models infringing can be phased out by new models without much cost.
The interesting question is how far Apple will go attacking core Android with their "obvious" patents.
The interesting question is how far Apple will go attacking core Android with their "obvious" patents.
They can't get an appeal hearing on the basis of their own mistakes, unless they claim their lawyers are incompetent to the level of malpractice.
The only positive thing I can see from this trial is that now Samsung has something to use against carriers who want to iPhone-ify Android phones in order to increase sales.
The only problem is if Apple can use this to get features removed from stock Android. However, Google was able to work around the universal search issue by modifying the code, and they replaced the bounceback behavior in scrolling with the "glow" thing, which (IMO) works just as well. So hopefully Google will be able to keep Android free of any patent issues (or maybe use the Motorola Mobility patents to force Apple into a cross-licensing deal).
So in the end, this may result in less meddling with the Android codebase by OEMs and carriers, something that all consumers will benefit from.
The only problem is if Apple can use this to get features removed from stock Android. However, Google was able to work around the universal search issue by modifying the code, and they replaced the bounceback behavior in scrolling with the "glow" thing, which (IMO) works just as well. So hopefully Google will be able to keep Android free of any patent issues (or maybe use the Motorola Mobility patents to force Apple into a cross-licensing deal).
So in the end, this may result in less meddling with the Android codebase by OEMs and carriers, something that all consumers will benefit from.
Oh, is THAT why they do the glow thing? I always hated it, and wished they'd used the much more 'tactile' bounce-back behavior. It didn't occur to me that they were legally barred from using a 'method to emulate physical resistance upon over-scrolling an interface' or something.
I like the glow thing because I like to pull down on the screen, as a tic, while reading a web page. With the bounceback feature, it would actually move the page, which was annoying. With glow instead, there are no reading problems.
Yeah, the bounce-back really bugs me in contexts like OS X's Finder. I think I'd prefer some other kind of feedback.
Samsung's success should not be attributed to the fact that they copied iPhone and iOS design to some extent. Samsung makes great hardware and they simply made the best Android phones. They benefited from the strength of Google/Android ecosystem. It is ridiculous to claim that HTC and others are not doing as good as Samsung because they haven't copied iPhone and iOS enough.
HTC killed itself with that Sense crap. Trying to innovate in software was indeed their downfall.
1) I don't know the value of Samsung's profit-margin on Apple hardware, but it may be possible for Samsung to pay the penalty with the money Apple will pay Samsung this year for the hardware in its iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Heck, Samsung probably built its modern factories thanks to the money and contracts coming from Apple.
Samsung's lineup of phones is poised to overtake the iPhone in sales, even if their appeal goes nowhere. Samsung's growth over the years has been amazing, and now that they can take advantage of the same economies of scale that Apple has, they should be able to come close to the same profit margins that Apple enjoys. They should also be able to take advantage of Google's R&D for the Android software (which no longer needs customization) while manufacturing its own hardware, thus spending much less money than Apple to develop each device.
2) Even better, Samsung now has a chance to create a tv commercial to frame the court ruling as a win:
"As you know, we recently sued Apple to protect American freedom of innovation. An independent jury found that Apple and Samsung devices are very similar in looks and features at a fraction of the price. So why not make your next device a Samsung device? Samsung."
Samsung's lineup of phones is poised to overtake the iPhone in sales, even if their appeal goes nowhere. Samsung's growth over the years has been amazing, and now that they can take advantage of the same economies of scale that Apple has, they should be able to come close to the same profit margins that Apple enjoys. They should also be able to take advantage of Google's R&D for the Android software (which no longer needs customization) while manufacturing its own hardware, thus spending much less money than Apple to develop each device.
2) Even better, Samsung now has a chance to create a tv commercial to frame the court ruling as a win:
"As you know, we recently sued Apple to protect American freedom of innovation. An independent jury found that Apple and Samsung devices are very similar in looks and features at a fraction of the price. So why not make your next device a Samsung device? Samsung."
That's Dells actual ad campaign. It doesn't work. If A mentions B, and everyone knows it is because B is better. Sociology 101.
I think this article is too focused on the bubble of the tech world. The average person doesn't think that deeply about Apple and Samsung. They don't think Samsung being associated with copying Apple in a lawsuit means Samsung makes products like Apple.
If you are a tech-geek, you'll know the difference, you'll have your own opinion on the case and the OS and hardware that you prefer.
If you are a tech-geek, you'll know the difference, you'll have your own opinion on the case and the OS and hardware that you prefer.
I take it back, this article https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246s... (and submission http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4433011) show that gigaom was correct.
I really don't think this is the case – I suspect that Android is already in normal people's minds as either the thing on their phone because they couldn't afford an iPhone, or they are completely unware of it. I doubt very much many normal people even know Samsung make mobile phones.
If anything, they will have just seen headlines saying that they owe Apple a billion dollars for copying them, so if anything they will go from not really thinking much about phones, to thinking that Samsung copy Apple.
Not exactly a win.
If anything, they will have just seen headlines saying that they owe Apple a billion dollars for copying them, so if anything they will go from not really thinking much about phones, to thinking that Samsung copy Apple.
Not exactly a win.
>because they couldn't afford an iPhone
Why is it that it's really hard for some to understand that people sometimes--maybe even most of the time--choose an Android phone because they prefer an Android phone? With some iPhone models selling at $49.99 and with iPhone being on nearly all of the major carriers, people aren't "settling" for an Android phone.
Why is it that it's really hard for some to understand that people sometimes--maybe even most of the time--choose an Android phone because they prefer an Android phone? With some iPhone models selling at $49.99 and with iPhone being on nearly all of the major carriers, people aren't "settling" for an Android phone.
It is too preposterous to say people buy Android because they can't afford iPhone or people are not aware of Android ecosystem. On contrary, Android has become omnipresent. Market has been swept by bigger phones. iPhone is getting bigger and iPad is getting a smaller screen size all because of Android.
According to Betteridge, no.
I don't know who won but I know who lost. It's you. You who own a mobile phone. You lost.
It will be interesting to see what products are released outside the US and how those compare with products designed for the US market.
The losers might be those living in a saturated market governed by absurd patents and an uncertain legal process where billions can depend on the uninformed opinion of a small group of people who can choose to ignore the advice of a judge.
The losers might be those living in a saturated market governed by absurd patents and an uncertain legal process where billions can depend on the uninformed opinion of a small group of people who can choose to ignore the advice of a judge.
I don't think the jury was really at fault, were they? They ruled that Samsung infringed on a few patents and they probably did. They infringed on patents that should never have been issued.
According to NPR yesterday, they also ruled on whether the infringed patents were valid. So yeah, that's the jury's fault.
"They infringed on patents that should never have been issued."
My point exactly.
My point exactly.
Do you really believe companies should have the freedom to clone successful products and flood the market with knock-offs?
Imagine if some up-and-coming auto maker started making cars that look exactly like (insert your favorite luxury brand here) - except it doesn't go as fast, the steering sucks, the upholstery has gaps, etc. And then imagine a bunch of consumers not only buying these cars, but naively insisting their car is actually better than that luxury brand they've never owned and ridiculing the owners of the luxury brand for being gullible fanbois for overpaying for "premium" quality that they don't (and probably can't) appreciate.
It's not that I'm a snob (I drive a rusty Subaru if you care), but I am glad we live in a place where good design and good engineering is valued and where companies unwilling to invest in design and R&D cannot simply steal the hard work of others.
Imagine if some up-and-coming auto maker started making cars that look exactly like (insert your favorite luxury brand here) - except it doesn't go as fast, the steering sucks, the upholstery has gaps, etc. And then imagine a bunch of consumers not only buying these cars, but naively insisting their car is actually better than that luxury brand they've never owned and ridiculing the owners of the luxury brand for being gullible fanbois for overpaying for "premium" quality that they don't (and probably can't) appreciate.
It's not that I'm a snob (I drive a rusty Subaru if you care), but I am glad we live in a place where good design and good engineering is valued and where companies unwilling to invest in design and R&D cannot simply steal the hard work of others.
Samsung phones are not exact copies of iPhones. Not even close. Your argument is "not even wrong"
Why would anyone care that someone else has purchased a cheap knock off of something he owned?
Unless, of course, the only reason to own it is status.
But I'd hesitate to equate a Samsung smart phone with a knock off Louis Vitton handbag, for example.
I don't really understand the undying adoration of Apple. The tech industry has always been a fast moving, ultra-competitive industry where blatant ripping off of features is expected. If my competitor has a new feature that people like, you can bet the farm that everyone else will implement that same thing and try to leap frog the others in the process.
Unless, of course, the only reason to own it is status.
But I'd hesitate to equate a Samsung smart phone with a knock off Louis Vitton handbag, for example.
I don't really understand the undying adoration of Apple. The tech industry has always been a fast moving, ultra-competitive industry where blatant ripping off of features is expected. If my competitor has a new feature that people like, you can bet the farm that everyone else will implement that same thing and try to leap frog the others in the process.
"Why would anyone care that someone else has purchased a cheap knock off of something he owned?"
It could lead the manufacturer of the original product to end support for it, or to even go out of business.
It could lead the manufacturer of the original product to end support for it, or to even go out of business.
That's a victory of the free market. Giving people what they want at a price they can afford, not overpriced luxury.
Because of the chilling effect on design or because there are less and less handset manufacturers? Or another reason? Please don't vaguebook me.
It could be bad news even for Apple users, since now Apple will increase the fraction of resources allocated to legal bullying (since it works) at the expense of making better phones.
I'm pretty sure Apple has enough cash to fund both the R&D and legal departments at 100%.
The first one. Patent law has run amok to the point there really isn't any distinguishable difference between the trolls and the legitimate businesses any more. If you can patent pinch-and-zoom you can patent anything.
Say what you will about patent abuses, a firm that is utilizing their patents is qualitatively different than some shitballs in a two person office in Houston suing for damages of a patent vultured at some tech company's bankruptcy proceedings.
Hey, they paid someone for those patents. Someone who would not have been paid anyway. Do the inventors not deserve compensation?
A windfall profits tax on transferred IP would be interesting, so IV and the like couldn't suck all the value out of the tech industry.
A windfall profits tax on transferred IP would be interesting, so IV and the like couldn't suck all the value out of the tech industry.
I think an "exercise or surrender" sort of clause would do wonders. Of course, the patent system is brutally complicated and rife with unintended consequences, so tinkering with it is pretty fraught. The world isn't a theorem to be proved, there's no right answer. We all have to learn to deal with ambiguity better.
So, based on the trial outcome:
1.) Apple won, because they established the validity of their patents and that Samsung was guilty of willful infringement of many of them.
2.) Samsung won, because the damages aren't so severe to have made their strategy of ape'ing the iPhone a bad decision, and now they get to be mentioned in the same conversations as the iPhone.
3.) "Companies that innovate" won, because the jury has reaffirmed the patent system to protect companies from being ripped off.
4.) "The technology industry" won, because now mobile phone manufacturers will be forced to differentiate their products, hopefully leading to better designs.
5.) Apple lost, because in spite of the ruling, they've pissed off the nerd community by behaving like the 500-pound gorilla that they've become, instead of the scrappy underdog people want to root for.
6.) Samsung lost, because they have to pay out a pretty sizable amount of money, and are now going to be referred to as "that company who copied the iPhone".
7.) Google lost, because this will cause problems for other Android manufacturers, and many consider this case to be a proxy war between Apple and Google.
8.) The industry in general lost, because patents are fundamentally icky, and this case reaffirms the strong-arm strategy that companies (Apple in particular) have been refining to artificially hamstring their competition.
9.) The justice system lost, because mere mortals aren't possibly intelligent enough to understand a patent lawsuit, because if they were, obviously they wouldn't think patents could ever be valid.
10.) Lawyers won, because everyone involved got a massive payday, and there'll be a lengthy appeals process.
Did I miss anyone?
Thanks media, your insightful commentary on this complicated issue has been super valuable!