Qualcomm and Intel Support Apple Against Samsung

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]You guys are ridiculous. Constantly trying to call Apples products overpriced, having as they do, the overall fastest CPU/GPU combination of any phone ever released, even 6 months after it came out. Yet the second anyone points out the obvious fact that Android phones are cheaper, you go on rants about how much you paid.You can't have it both ways. If your Android phone was more expensive than an iPhone, perhaps you're the one who bought an overpriced device. If it wasn't, then clearly throwing around figures like $700 and $800 (off contract) figures is irrelevant if the new iPhone costs more.As it happens, iPhone users earn, on average, more than Android users.And finally, the person who thought that $200 plus a contract was less than $800 without a contract needs to go back to school.[/citation]

Well, I never said that Androids are better than iPhones because they are cheaper. Many Androids are cheaper, but not the top models. For example, my Samsung Transform was free with a contract, but it has a mere fraction of the processing power of it's bigger brothers. With Apple, if you don't want to spend a lot on the iPhones, you are limited to the older models. iPhone users tend to make more money than android users? Well, that doesn't surprise me, because most Android users have cheaper Androids. My Samsung Transform, without a contract, was being sold for under $250 (I think it was going for about $200 or $175, but I don't remember. Either way, it was dirt cheap for a smart phone).

Honestly, none of these phones are worth the large prices they go for. It's all a very high profits thing and the prices are way over-inflated. Moving on, the iPhones before the 4S were generally weaker than Androids because new Androids jsut keep coming out with better and better hardware, but Apple only makes new iPhones with better hardware so often and besides the A5X chip, they had seriously been neglecting CPU performance for a while now.

[citation][nom]Alchemy69[/nom]Don't you think that Apple deserve to profit from their inventions? They invented the mobile phone, the tablet, the mp3 player and in a few years time they will have invented the television, too.[/citation]

I assume you're being sarcastic, but that joke is getting old and you might have been a little too subtle for some if you were being sarcastic.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]cmartin011[/nom]apples iphone will some day be left in the dust like many things that don't evolve with the times but capture couple of generations in a memory.[/citation]

The iPhones, as much as I don't like them, do evolve and adapt at least somewhat. For example, the latest iPhone, the 4S, has the best graphics of any mobile device as far as I know of (twice as fast as that Tegra 3 crap that Nvidia made, according to non-biased benchmarks. Yeah, Apple claims that it's four times faster, but it's actually only twice as fast). The iPhone 4S also has 4G wireless. Apple doesn't have as many phone models as Android, so some Androids can get the very newest features such as 4G when there isn't much 4G coverage or a 3D screen and both before Apple even says that they will use 4G or a 3D screen (just two examples, there are more).

Android, as another consequence of so many different models, has more choices and more chances to get a good deal. However, as another consequence, there is a lot of different hardware. Despite this, most of the Android market's fragmentation is caused by the OEMs not updating phones more than it is with the hardware.

[citation][nom]g00fysmiley[/nom]you live in an odd world where you think the apple has something that competes with Tegra3. apple makes an easy to use product, but state of the art tech isn't what they do... they do put nice displays on thier products, btu the hardware that drives them is not there... and you play in thier playground, there is no reason to charge as much as they do between memory capacities and the lack of expandable memory so you ahev to pay more for a bigger drive is pure profit driven... milk as much money from the apple users as possible, they'll happily pay it and respond liek you do statin ghtey hae the bes thing ever bacsue thats what you were told by the people who sold it to you[/citation]

Tegra has been an embarrassment for Android users because it's junk. The A5X chip from Apple is twice as fast as the Tegra 3. Apple claims four times as fast, but they aren't telling the truth.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]xmortisx[/nom]Um, I have friends that use Iphone and I make more then them (I use Android) so that whole "Iphone means I'm rich" crap stops right there. This is corporate greed at it's best, rather then improve your product these guys keep trying to put each other out of business. Honestly I rarly notice difference from phones in 2010 an now except some have higher resolution and a 2-300mhz faster cpu...Bring in quad core with 2GB ram and allow it to run some serious productivity applications then Im impressed.[/citation]

Some of the Androids have 50% (or more) faster CPUs than the iPhones that came out within the same month or few months (even if said Androids came out before the iPhone). Apple has had decent graphics for a while, but the Androids, for the most part, weren't slouching there either and often won. Androids also have better screens as you pointed out, but there are other differences. For example, if you are often in areas with 4G coverage, then until the iPhone 4S, you needed a Droid to get 4G connectivity on a smart phone. Androids also tend to have better cameras and more of them.

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]Are you referring to the legal case in question in which Samsung is trying to sue Apple? So you are disapproving of Samsung's actions?[/citation]

Samsung isn't the one suing Apple, Apple is suing Samsung... So I'm gonna go with he/she is disapproving of Apple's actions thus far, not Samsung's.

 

[freggo]

Pro Apple or Anti Apple...
Y'all realize that -unlike Samsung, Intel or Thosiba- Apple does not actually 'make' a darn thing but is totally at the mercy of 3rd party suppliers ! Why praise "their retina display" if they don't actually make it; or the cameras or the case or glass or...

Apple is nothing but a slick marketing company exporting US jobs to Asia.
So be proud to use you iWhatever device on US soil!

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]getreal[/nom]The good guys are the ones who invent their own stuff rather than blatantly stealing from the real innovators:[/citation]

[citation][nom]getreal[/nom]http/peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/c [...] esign.html[/citation]

Well, it does look like Samsung copied Apple way to much and should have expected litigation. Despite this, some of those trademarks are ridiculous (although not all of them).

Seriously, Apple has a trademark on having the color silver on the border of a phone? I could understand a basic design along the border and sides of the phone, but that's going a little overboard. The color black appearing above and below the rectangular mark and having the color black on the rounded corners? Except for the mark/logo thing, that's also going overboard.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Pro Apple or Anti Apple...Y'all realize that -unlike Samsung, Intel or Thosiba- Apple does not actually 'make' a darn thing but is totally at the mercy of 3rd party suppliers ! Why praise "their retina display" if they don't actually make it; or the cameras or the case or glass or...Apple is nothing but a slick marketing company exporting US jobs to Asia.So be proud to use you iWhatever device on US soil![/citation]

Well, a lot of (most?) of Apple's competitors actually make stuff. Qualcomm makes some of the processors, chipsets, and more for many Android smart phones. For example, the audio in my Samsung Transform was made by (or at least designed by, Qualcomm probably doesn't have fabs of their own) Qualcomm. Samsung makes most of the memory for many of the smart phones and computers, and until recently, even for the iPhones too. Apple really does design their products, just not the hardware that goes inside them. For example, Apple designs the cases.

Also, on the topic of the retina display, it isn't even much better than most other iPhone's displays. It simply has slightly higher pixel density than Apple's previous displays, but it doesn't even come close to many of the Android displays in pixel density nor quality in other measures.

Not to say that Apple is doing nearly as much as the other guys, but to say that they do nothing but marketing would be wrong.

 

[frank_drebin]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]I would not call Android users "poor". They drop $600 on the latest Android device - yes, outside of US you have to pay FULL PRICE for your new phone, it does NOT come with a rip-off contract. Money is not something us Android users are worried about... because those who REALLY don't want to buy anything can just install Android on their netbook. I did, since no existing tablet is good enough.[/citation]

yet they don't seem to get as many paid apps in Google Play ...

 

[artk2219]

[citation][nom]sublime2k[/nom]Likewise.[/citation]


You guys really dont know how anti competitive intel and apple really are do you?

 

[Tab54o]

This makes no sense to me. Samsung is a Qualcomm customer, and apple is a Samsung customer.

 

[Kami3k]

[citation][nom]frank_drebin[/nom]yet they don't seem to get as many paid apps in Google Play ...[/citation]

Because many are free and why pay for a app that I will stop using 5 minutes later?

 

[eddieroolz]

I wouldn't mind fighting against a company that derived most of their technologies from espionage of Western firms.

 

[ohim]

the patent system really needs an emergency rework ... this kind of lawsuits only benefit the deep pockets of lawyers and stalls evolution. I personally piss on apple / intel and any other corporation who tries to kill their competition trough lawsuits or other anticompetitive stuff

 

[kitsura]

I wouldn't mind fighting against a company that derived most of their technologies from espionage of Western firms.

I assume you are able to prove such an absurd statement.
Factually Samsung has one of the largest R&D budgets as well as one of the Largest patent portfolio's in the world.

What I am aware of is that most companies, Apple specifically has 'borrowed' other technology improved it and then patented the result. Something that should not be permitted, actually. As they did with touch screens, and what they are trying to do with mirco sim cards as examples.

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]You guys are ridiculous. Constantly trying to call Apples products overpriced, having as they do, the overall fastest CPU/GPU combination of any phone ever released, even 6 months after it came out. Yet the second anyone points out the obvious fact that Android phones are cheaper, you go on rants about how much you paid.You can't have it both ways. If your Android phone was more expensive than an iPhone, perhaps you're the one who bought an overpriced device. If it wasn't, then clearly throwing around figures like $700 and $800 (off contract) figures is irrelevant if the new iPhone costs more.As it happens, iPhone users earn, on average, more than Android users.And finally, the person who thought that $200 plus a contract was less than $800 without a contract needs to go back to school.[/citation]

iPhone users "on average" earn more than Android users? I'd like to see proof of that considering the number of people I see talking on iPhones while paying for their groceries with food stamps seems to greatly outnumber those I see talking on Android phones.

[citation][nom]artk2219[/nom]You guys really dont know how anti competitive intel and apple really are do you?[/citation]

No company actually wants competition.....

[citation][nom]Tab54o[/nom]This makes no sense to me. Samsung is a Qualcomm customer, and apple is a Samsung customer.[/citation]
They all buy from each other. Qualcomm buys from Samsung, Samsung buys from Qualcomm....Sony buys from both....as does Apple. It's the electronics industry version of a circle......

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]kitsura[/nom]I assume you are able to prove such an absurd statement.Factually Samsung has one of the largest R&D budgets as well as one of the Largest patent portfolio's in the world. What I am aware of is that most companies, Apple specifically has 'borrowed' other technology improved it and then patented the result. Something that should not be permitted, actually. As they did with touch screens, and what they are trying to do with mirco sim cards as examples.[/citation]
You forgot Apple's filing for a patent on "3D technology" that specifically requires patents for OLED screens....

 

[Guest]

At least there are cheap smartphones you can buy with android. That should be a plus not a negative. As for the who earns more is like comparing weeners for the weener challenged. Apple did not invent any of those products @Alchemy69 but they did take them and make them popular.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]artk2219[/nom]You guys really dont know how anti competitive intel and apple really are do you?[/citation]

Both Intel and Apple are anti-competitive, but Apple is worse and Intel would not go as far as to kill off AMD. Apple, however, would like to kill off their competitors without a second thought on the matter. Unlike Apple, Intel needs AMD around because they already have anti-trust lawsuits and such breathing down their neck.

Intel's at the point where if necessary, they would give AMD help to keep AMD running, even if it's paying AMD directly (Intel has done this before, and not always because they were sued for it) or even manufacturing some of AMD's chips (if it came to that, then Intel would be able to control their competitor perfectly, so it would be a win for Intel). Intel simply can't afford to not have AMD. However, Intel can afford to pay many OEMs and such to not use AMD processors and they make very gratuitous use of this tactic. So long as AMD has some market share, it's okay, because they are still competing.

Intel also likes to

Apple would love to have Samsung and the other Android related companies destroyed, so it's surprising to see Qualcomm helping them. Perhaps I missed something about some deal(s) between Qualcomm and Apple?

As for Intel, well, Apple is a huge profit for Intel. Where else are people willing to pay out so greatly for products with Intel processors in them, but Apple customers? It's not surprising for Intel to help out Apple. However, with Intel getting into the smart phone market by making x86 Androids, I'm curious to see how far this help will go. Maybe Intel has beef with Samsung?

It's funny, how this stuff is happening right now. It seems that so many companies are diversifying themselves so much that everyone is a competitor in at least one market. We have many of the companies that are even partners/customers of each other, but are also competing with each other at the same time too.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]iPhone users "on average" earn more than Android users? I'd like to see proof of that considering the number of people I see talking on iPhones while paying for their groceries with food stamps seems to greatly outnumber those I see talking on Android phones.No company actually wants competition.....They all buy from each other. Qualcomm buys from Samsung, Samsung buys from Qualcomm....Sony buys from both....as does Apple. It's the electronics industry version of a circle......[/citation]

Companies that don't have competition are companies waiting for an anti-trust lawsuit. If Apple successfully kills Android, then unless Windows Phone increases in market share or another player becomes more common, there may be some lawsuits from government/law enforcement agencies targeting Apple. However, this is less likely than Intel's dilemma because AMD is the only other supplier of common x86 CPUs left in the market. Via is not big enough to consider competition.

Apple would at least still have Windows Phone, Blackberry, and regular phones to contend with. Companies often do like competitors to avoid law problems. What they don't like in this context is good competition.

 

[free_radical]

[citation][nom]testerguy[/nom]You guys are ridiculous. Constantly trying to call Apples products overpriced, having as they do, the overall fastest CPU/GPU combination of any phone ever released, even 6 months after it came out. Yet the second anyone points out the obvious fact that Android phones are cheaper, you go on rants about how much you paid.You can't have it both ways. If your Android phone was more expensive than an iPhone, perhaps you're the one who bought an overpriced device. If it wasn't, then clearly throwing around figures like $700 and $800 (off contract) figures is irrelevant if the new iPhone costs more.As it happens, iPhone users earn, on average, more than Android users.And finally, the person who thought that $200 plus a contract was less than $800 without a contract needs to go back to school.[/citation]

What a bunch of horseshit... Troll much?

Out of all the stereotypes out there, this one takes the cake as being the most retarded. It appears that every other cashier at my local department store owns an iPhone. I own a Samsung Focus which I purchased for $160 new on Ebay because I do not want an overpriced data contract. What does that tell you about me then? And yet, I earn more than an average household in the U.S. Hell, my father's salary is six figures and he has owned the same crappy flip-phone for nearly 10 years now. I can go on with examples of how your "statistics" mean less than shit, at least in my personal experience.

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]willard[/nom]*looks at my $700 Android phone*Huh?[/citation]

His comment was off base but how can you guys complain about the iPhone being overpriced while looking at your $700 phone? Not clear on that.