
Counterintuitive: Did Samsung emerge a winner? - iProject
http://gigaom.com/2012/08/25/counterintuitive-did-samsung-emerge-a-winner/
======
m0nastic
This tea leaf reading continues to be ridiculous.

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!

~~~
wtvanhest
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.

~~~
m0nastic
That's actually why all of these articles aggravate me so much, because, I
agree, all of these things are true (which sort of points out how silly the
idea of a singular entity "winning" or "losing" is).

~~~
wtvanhest
Got it. I'm on the same page.

------
thought_alarm
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.

~~~
patrickaljord
> 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?

~~~
thought_alarm
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.

------
mrich
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.

~~~
Evbn
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.

------
w1ntermute
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.

~~~
pavedwalden
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.

~~~
w1ntermute
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.

~~~
jonhendry
Yeah, the bounce-back really bugs me in contexts like OS X's Finder. I think
I'd prefer some other kind of feedback.

------
esolyt
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.

~~~
Evbn
HTC killed itself with that Sense crap. Trying to innovate in software was
indeed their downfall.

------
vlad
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."

~~~
Evbn
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.

------
pedalpete
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.

~~~
pedalpete
I take it back, this article
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246s...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G)
(and submission <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4433011>) show that
gigaom was correct.

------
richbradshaw
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.

~~~
dustincoates
>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.

------
StavrosK
According to Betteridge, no.

------
bluedanieru
I don't know who won but I know who lost. It's you. You who own a mobile
phone. You lost.

~~~
skue
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.

~~~
drblast
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.

~~~
jonhendry
"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.

~~~
Evbn
That's a victory of the free market. Giving people what they want at a price
they can afford, not overpriced luxury.

