But I digress. This post has it wrong. What he supposedly overheard in a Starbucks wasn't caused by the Apple v. Samsung ruling but was a direct result of what Samsung had been trying to do all along.
Cars and computers all look pretty similar, but people manage to distinguish them. The only difference between cars, computers and mobile devices is that mobile devices were only just invented in our lifetime. We have had the experience of seeing none of them, then only one brand, then finally more brands. Cars and computers? We were born (most of us) into the reality of them already existing. With all of the different brands and models.
Trust me, once mobile devices have been around for a person's entire lifetime, that person would laugh at this lawsuit just as much as we today would laugh at a lawsuit based on 'damages' incurred from mistaking a Ford for a Honda, or for mistaking a 50" LG Plasma for a 48" Sony LCD. Mobile devices seem different because they are new. That's not Samgsung's fault..
Long time ago I had an ibook g4. Supposedly it was very nice back then, and very pricey too. However, after playing with it sometime, it just looked cute. Overpriced and cute. Apple products are a jail that looks very nice, but its a jail anyway.
Now I have an IPad (don't remember the generation) because my job. It is still overly priced and cute. Oh, and a jail. Is this what you are supposed to get for paying a high price?
Guess I'll never "get it". For me, it's just stylish and pricey stuff, that locks you in. Paying to give up your freedom... go figure.
OSX on the other hand isn't a jail. You can install whatever you want. It's a computer. In fact I prefer Apple's jail to Microsoft's jail and pay more because I get a better experience and have found no substitute. Can I customize the OS? Fuck no! But if I wanted to then I wouldn't buy Apple because I know what I'm getting into before I buy. As a developer there isn't anything I can do on another platform that I can't on OS X. In fact, because its based on BSD I get the best of the Unix world and Apple's world. And Apple's world, or jail as you call it, is beautiful, well designed, has better font rendering, it's fast, it makes the right assumptions about my use, and so one. So I can't hack the kernel. So what? I don't need or want to. That's kind of why I bought an Apple to begin with.
Philosophies about freedom, free software, or really any philosophies or beliefs do not apply here. That argument is just a red herring. The value of the machine is in its substitutes. My Macs don't have any substitutes. There's not a single PC out there that can match the quality, beauty, and experience of my Macs. But not everyone uses them like I do so I can understand if others don't believe they're valuable. But as far as Samsung goes, what they did was basically try to trick people into thinking that they'll get the Apple experience on a Samsung just because they look alike.
And just so everyone knows, at my job I work 8+ hours a day on a Windows7 PC. I've had an Android phone. I also have a Linux laptop. I love my Linux box but it still doesn't hold a candle to my MacBook Air. This isn't about fashion. It's about people finding a product so impressive that they truly love it. I own a lot of stuff but very few of my possessions are as valuable to me as my Macs. Call me a fanboy. I don't give a shit. That argument is a lame copout. People see people like me being truly impressed with something, they don't get it, then they write it off as fanboyism. It's just a meaningless argument meant to explain something people don't understand. A lot like how people ascribe religious significants to events they don't understand. No, that's not hyperbole. It's just like that.
As long as your credit card is on file with apple.
You might be surprised what happens to 'your' computer after an attempted purchase fails for any reason. You won't be able to update or install any software from the app-store anymore. This includes updates for and re-downloads of apps that you have 'bought'.
There's nothing stopping me from downloading and installing any app I want from whatever source I want on my Mac. Everyone all of the sudden thinks that the Mac App Store is the final nail in the iOSification coffin but it isn't. It's just a good idea for people totally unlike us and those people actually get a far better experience than any "free" system because of it. But again, no one is forced to go through the app store to download applications.
Honestly, I haven't even set Mountain Lion to let me download anything unrestricted. I set it to the medium setting where it'll give me a warning before installing non-app store apps and I like it that way. I like being reminded that what I'm about to install hasn't been vetted by Apple. That's fine with me. I just control+click it and run it the first time and I'm never bothered again. Sure, I could set it so I get no hassles but I like the feature.
When it comes down to it, I know what I'm getting into. I'm not so completely risk averse that I refuse to use something because some worst case scenario or edge case might happen at some point down the road to me.
Please clarify this. I don't feel more restricted with my MacBook Pro than I did with my old Lenovo-laptop. In what way was it a jail to you?
It may sound like a small point, but the feeling that I didn't own my iPhone is a big reason I prefer Android.
I am starting to get pretty tired of hearing that the products I use every day for professional work are toys, that I gave up my freedom to use them and worship Apple etc etc.
If something else comes along that's new and better, I'll use that.
He comments first about the laptops. About laptops before the Mac App Store even...
I know why you think that, but you're missing that there is a completely legitimate app distribution mechanism outside the AppStore.
You can install (and distribute) whatever apps you want for iOS devices, and users can download them from the web and install them on the device. And I'm not talking about jailbreaking.
You can turn off the network- put the device in airport mode- and they still run. These aren't links to web apps running on the web, they are full apps.
Apple only curates what goes on in the App Store. Apps distributed outside the App Store are not curated. Apple built this platform for apps specifically so it wouldn't have to curate them.
Its just that once the App Store came out, everyone switched to writing native apps (And at the time, writing native apps are what people were clamoring for) that that native app distirbution model won out.
It's also still supported by Apple, and each year at WWDC they have a couple sessions talking about it.
I know it fits some people's ideology better to believe that Apple will only let you run apps approved by Apple on your device, but it simply isn't true.
Further, if you want native apps of arbitrary origin, you can join the developer program and run whatever native apps you want.
But Apple has always allowed this other distribution mechanism. These apps can't spread malware and so there is no need to regulate them. Since native apps can, they need to be curated, hence the AppStore.
It would be one thing (though still unfortunate) if the App store monopoly were used only for quality control, but instances where politics were at play really left a bad taste in my mouth. Grooveshark, Google Voice, and Opera mobile come to mind as projects that if I am remembering correctly were blocked or delayed for political reasons. They all require a native environment that's richer than HTML apps can provide, to my knowledge.
Wow. I had no idea. I found a detailed HOWTO http://matt.might.net/articles/how-to-native-iphone-ipad-app...
If you want to run these native apps outside of the simulator, you need to pay $99/year, though..
I don't want to be a jerk or offend "alberich", but I strongly disagree with him.
edit: besides, things don't look much better nowdays, eh?
I have node, redis, mysql, couchdb, mongodb, autoconf/automake/cmake, ffmpeg, erlang, git, hg, gnuplot, groovy, memchaced, lua, lynx, lib* (a million of them), nmap, rabbitmq, phantomjs, postgresql, siege, httpd, squid, spidermonkey, coffee-script, mit-scheme,pcre, lkgconfig, mosh, HTTPie, python, ruby, cairo, pango, x11 installed on my OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion (among other tools that I've forgot or don't use regularly). And I'm not even a "pro" user - just a regular developer.
But your requirements clearly differs from mine. Because you don't find them "useful". It's okay, not all of us use the same tools. But I'm sure the majority of developers use the aforementioned tools, and care less about kernel programming or other things that can't be done on a MacBook as efficiently as on ThinkPads (although Torvalds uses an Air).
It's like buying a hardcover book and complaining that you couldn't get it to be any other book. They're not selling iOS devices as hobbyist machines for tinkerers. You buy an iPhone to be an iPhone, an iPad to be an iPad. That's not a bad thing, it's an attribute of the product you bought as much as its price and processor.
Sure they do. I can run both Linux and Windows without virtualization, and Apple even supports the latter officially through the Boot Camp-application.
Zirro: that is good to know. I wish it was the same with the IPad. Owning your hardware, in the sense that you can install alternative stuff on it, is very important for me.
pooriaazimi: the point was about the power to install anything, including a different OS. If it is like Zirro said, it is sure a big improvement on the desktop/laptop category. Sadly the IPad doesn't offer you the freedom for using anything that is not from Apple. I don't care much about it, because the IPad isn't mine anyways. I just wouldn't buy it if I had to choose (Android's devices look much more open).
ps. I'm sorry if I offended some people, it was not my intention. cheers :)
What's your point, exactly?
Even tech-savvy people buy iOS devices knowing that they are restricted in this way, and reap the benefits.
with my Ibook I couldn't install other OS on working conditions because Apple wouldn't just open the specs, so there wasn't really other OSs to install. It is also not really an option to install other OSs on the IPad. And it costs a lot of money, that makes a big diference. You pay to be locked in to Apple.
Then when Samsung comes around and offers almost the same features, people start to worry that their overly priced stuff will not be so special anymore, and act like Samsung's products are just a poorly made ripoff.
It was years ago so I don't recall the details but it was definitely possible and not terribly difficult.
If you want a challenge, try installing Arch on an 12" PowerBook G4. I spent three days one winter break in college getting that on there.
The only time in the Mac's history that Apple wasn't working to make sure it could run Unix was 1984-1987ish before they released their flavor of Unix.
Part of what's happening here is that people who don't deal with this stuff frequently (and don't have the background that we do) don't understand tech products. People go to WalMart and pick out the cheapest tablet and then will return it a few days later when they discover it is not an iPad.
Look at articles about the Surface tablet. When they talk about possible pricing it's always "Do they dare price it more expensive than an iPad or do they undercut the iPad and lose money?"
Clearly the iPad price isn't inflated.
Look at the on-contract and off-contract prices of iPhones. Compare to say, Galaxy S3. Or the new Droid. Or the new Evo.
Clearly the iPhone price isn't inflated.
Want a consumer-line notebook? Apples consumer notebooks are the Air line. Find a good competitor, say the ASUS Zenbook UX31E. It's about $950, vs $1200 for the Air. That is a big price difference. And the machines look an awful lot alike.
But the Air has a faster processer, faster RAM, faster SSD and faster graphics (3000 series vs 4000 series Intel). The Asus has 1600x900 vs the Air's 1440x900.
The Air also comes bundled with software that's all written by Apple as first-class companions to OSX. The bundled software on PCs is almost universally mocked and either ignored or uninstalled.
Their Pro line is more expensive, yes. But the products I listed above make a large majority of Apple's sales and profits. And the people that actually have bought a Pro line seldom complain. They seldom think they didn't get value, that they didn't get their monies worth.
I get it, there are certain people who see a Mercedes as a car, like any other. They see, well, the Mercedes has a 2.5L engine, a Kia has a 2.5L engine. The Mercedes has 8 air bags, so does a Ford Focus. The Mercedes has.... you get my point. For those people, certainly, a Mercedes doesn't sound right for you.
But you're ignorant if you don't see the value others see in it, and it's not just vanity or shallow brand obsession. You may not weigh that value as heavily in your life as they do, but any honest person has to at least acknowledge it.
But I secretly agree. But please ignore that last sentence.
I'm writing this post after the FOURTH group of Starbucks patrons...
That's starting to suggest a trend.
What's next? Am I stealing music if I put it in a CD player and it makes a 25ms buffer copy while I'm playing?
Fair Use is an important principle. We can't structure our laws to work against Fair Use, or dig ourselves into the absolutely braindead position that exercising your fair use rights of software, music, etc - should be regarded as piracy.
To do that is to be a total shithead.
In practice it seems to lead to this, which is worse since it breaks the flow without solving the issue.
But ignoring the trackpad, pitting a full screen OSX VM under optimal but real-world conditions against native OSX, I would still bet anyone could tell the difference.
"And it really is just the same. See, it even runs OS X!"
Agreed that it's not the same experience. Very slow/laggy.
Imagine a teenage that could not differentiate between and iPod and some other thing "that is the same".
Yeah, because normal people know how to install a VM, do a grep and an ssh....but they could not differentiate from a computer witch battery last 3 hours instead of 8, or weights double, or is made in real aluminum(and not plastic with metallic paint) or it is actually cheaper than the competence.
This man is wet dreaming.
I bought a retina iPad because at the time I was in the market, it was the best tablet available. If I were going to get one today, it would be a close call between the iPad and the galaxy note 10.1. As far as phones go, Apple has neglected the trend towards larger screens. For a power user, the Iphone's tiny screen is unacceptable. I recently purchased a Galaxy Nexus, and it's easily the best phone I've ever used, at a better price than an off contract iPhone.
edit: Ah, I see. Reading a lot. I actually read all of Guns, Germs, and Steel on my iPhone 4S earlier this year, and probably do an hour or two of reading on it a day in total.
It's not necessarily an ideal experience, but it certainly isn't terrible. I'm looking forward to the rumored 4" screen on the upcoming The New iPhone, but I think that 4.5" and 5" are both way too big.
The impression I get is that most larger screens out there today don't pack in larger pixels, but instead just use bigger pixels. Ultimately, I'm more interested in the quality of the text than I am the total number of lines I can see at one time. For instance, before I got the retina screen-equipped iPad this year, I actually preferred reading on the iPhone to the iPad by a wide margin.
Reply to your edit: The fact that Android phones have low pixel density is absolutely wrong. That used to be the case. But now they have both larger screens and more pixels. Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S3, HTC One X, Xperia S all have 1280x720 screens and are all 300+ ppi.
I browse the web on my phone constantly. I still wouldn't rather a bigger screen at the expense of all the other benefits of a compact phone like one handed usage.
I resent the implication that I'm not a power user or I don't really browse the web just because I prefer a smaller screen on my phone.
If so, your choice would be a personal preference that has nothing to do with functionality, unless for some reasons your hands are too small to use a larger device with ease. From an objective standpoint, a phone with a larger screen is easier to type on, better suited to displaying videos, and more capable of displaying a variety of text-based documents (powerpoint, technical manuals, web pages.) The only drawbacks of having a larger phone are that: A) some users have smaller hands than others, and B) it takes up more space.
> If so, your choice would be a personal preference that has nothing to do with functionality...
Really? Would you say the same thing to someone buying a small car over an SUV? That the SUV is always a better ride, the only reason you would ever want something smaller is "personal preference"?
I doubt it. We can all see the benefits in a small sleek car over a clunky SUV but even though the benefits of a smaller phone are basically the same, they're lost on us. More efficient on fuel, more compact and easy to wield, speedier, sportier, overall a much nicer product.
Bigger wheels and a bigger car don't make a better drive. Likewise a bigger frame and bigger screen don't necessarily make for a better phone experience, unless that's what you're looking for.
Large smartphones provide numerous enhancements in certain use cases, which can't really be debated. All else being equal, a large screen is better at displaying videos, documents, photos, books, and websites. Provided the phone remains reasonably small (the Galaxy Note is pushing it, but it's an extreme example), most people won't experience any significant drawbacks to having a larger phone. Most of the large screen phones are about an inch and a quarter larger than the iPhone's at most, so it's not like we are talking about a jump from a 5 ounce device to one that weighs two pounds. As I stated before, the only reason other than personal preference that one might have to stick with a smaller screen, would be if that particular user's hands were too small to use the phone comfortably.
I don't want this to turn into a typical iPhone vs Android forum dicussion, so I'm not really going to say anything else. But browsing on a high-end Android phone (like Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S3, One X, Xperia S) will be significantly faster than iPhone 4S. Your friend's Android device was probably pre-ICS and/or a low-end device.
From what I understand, most iPhone users here have not tried the recent high-end Android phones and are still thinking about the old days of Android, when it had choppy scrolling and a UI which kept stuttering.
I agree, but I can't let this stand as implied fact.
> But browsing on a high-end Android phone (like Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S3, One X, Xperia S) will be significantly faster than iPhone 4S.
My comparison was to a Galaxy Nexus running Chrome. Is it fast? Yes. I personally don't find it as fast and responsive as a 4S though. Just throwing power at Android doesn't solve the responsiveness issues it still has in ICS.
I read a lot on my phone. Bigger screen = more words on the screen.
I do constantly see people using those Galaxy Notes with the S Pen and two hands at all times. Seems like a big step backwards to me. Not only can I do everything a phone with a bigger screen can do, but I can do it with one hand.
I'll admit I have slightly large hands, but I can use a Galaxy Nexus just fine 1-handed.
That is exactly what I'm talking about. People will buy it, because on paper it has even more checkboxes than the iPad, but then it just isn't going to work.
The retail price of a ThinkPad may be kind of high, but normally x220s and x230s are on sale for 700-800, and they are awesome machines.
Why would you think everyone will hate it? (or even that they will have the same opinion, whatever it may be)
Or did you want to agree with me - that some people will choose one product and others choose the other one?
Many mass market consumers will be more than happy to get a slightly poorer experience if they can save half their money. But, if these people just switched from an iPhone or iPad, its likely that they were a year or two in and the performance started degrading. Applications build for the latest hardware crash, the battery has been abused enough that it lasts less than a day. The stark contrast at the switch will tell them Samsung is better.
Only its like saying your yugo is better than my mercedes, when the difference in price is $100. It's silly.
Hm, let's see. You could probably say I am a PC fanatic. "Personal Computer". I don't really care if the PC is from Samsung, Dell, Lenovo or Apple. I don't think Windows is amazing. It's ok as long as it is supported by much 3rd party software. I personally would chose linux anytime I am not forced by some proprietary (quasi-) monopoly software to use a specific operating system.
> I still can't understand how these people think, and how they judge quality, I think for some people, mediocre is good enough.
I happen to use an android phone. It has some annoying bugs:
A touchscreen that is activated in a pocket while receiving a call will sometimes behave very erratically. Sometimes (once every few months I get kernel panics , I think caused by the proprietary graphics drivers. But still the inconveniences are not that big that I would use some completely proprietary and locked down smartphone. If you think android phones are "mediocre" then maybe you are looking for the wrong qualities. Try comparing them with software freedom in mind and tell me how again the devices running android lose vs apple devices.
 http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=24118 (I don't use the galaxy nexus but it seems similar enough)
OK. Every app worth getting for an Android device, I can get via the iOS App Store. Everything that requires a rooted or unlocked Android device, I can get via jailbreaking.
I'm not an OS developer so I'm not going to be contributing patches back to AOSP. The vast majority of Android devices are bootloader-locked so they aren't free or open at all, no more than a jailbroken iOS device.
In practice, it seems about the same. You need to root, unlock or jailbreak the device to install things that the manufacturer doesn't want you to. Before that, you're locked in. After that, you have total software freedom.
Unless you're actively contributing patches back to AOSP, I don't see how the difference in "software freedom" actually matters in practice.
And also, you dont have to contribute patches back to aosp to appreciate software freedom. How about building and running your own kernel on your phone. Is that something you would be interested in? Most Android phones can do that.
No, I'm interested in browsing the web, reading and sometimes replying to my email, checking my calendar, doing online banking, finding restaurants via Yelp, reading my Instapaper queue, checking my RSS feeds, reading and replying on Twitter, listening to and downloading new podcasts I subscribe to, occasionally reading ebooks, listening to my own music and Internet radio, getting turn by turn navigation and sometimes walking or transit directions, and checking in on Foursquare.
In other words, I want a smartphone. Ideally, I want one that works without dorking around with a damn kernel recompile. Android phones can absolutely do all of those things (without damn kernel recompiles). And, darned if iPhones can't just as easily.
In practice, applications aren't lock-in. Data is lock-in. What Apple can do to piss me off is locking in my data, which is a potentially grave concern with iCloud. But just about everything I mentioned above is stuff that would take me about a day to migrate from iOS to Android or vice-versa, because nearly all of it involves open data formats.
Being able to put a new kernel on your phone? Sure, it could be fun. But when push comes to shove, the best thing a smartphone can do for me is to make its inner workings as invisible as possible. When I want to spend time cursing at a Unix shell prompt, that's why I have Arch Linux. Not on my phone.
You named three companies, all listed only started doing it recently and only with high profile devices. The vast, VAST majority of Android devices are bootloader locked, because there are so many of them. Most of them aren't the high end Android phones that get all the attention.
> Besides, even if an Android phone is bootloader locked, you can actually do more on it than on an iphone.
Depending on the device you can enable installation of non-market APKs. Non-market APKs worth installing almost always require a root unless you're just pirating applications. That's about it.
> How about building and running your own kernel on your phone. Is that something you would be interested in? Most Android phones can do that.
I would personally throw that in the category of having an interest in OS development. Less of a niche than those who can contribute back to AOSP, still quite a small group. Also, not "most". Just those select high end devices with unlocked boot loaders.
You didn't though, you said "software freedom" and in practice iOS provides plenty of software freedom. It just doesn't reach the unrealistic standard of the FSF.
Neither does Android frankly, but at least with AOSP it's closer.
Would you not like the idea "it means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art"?
If those people don't require any of the things that make a "Samsung iPad" different than the Apple one, then fine, go save a few bucks, but don't chose it because you just assume that it's all the same.
Check Apple's earnings later to see who was right.
I can't make this stuff up
Here in Uruguay they definitely will - and it is Samsung phones which sell the most, by far (we're very price sensitive which is a nicer word for poor :P ).
And indeed, Apple's products are iconic, but these are normal people we're talking about. I wouldn't put it past them.
So while we're all aghast at what's going on here it could be quite likely that a lot of people have sympathy with Apple...rightly or wrongly.
A little later, as more and more people I knew gravitated towards the Galaxies, I realized the flaw in this thinking - the average user doesn't know that the iPhone is geared towards him/her, and is a much better fit for someone who doesn't want to tinker with their phone. Only techies know this.
The average user wants to buy a phone that they can put apps on. As far as they're concerned, the iPhone and the Galaxy is the same product, only with a vastly different price structure.
Even the local carrier's sales representatives try to move customers away from iPhones and iPads towards Android devices because 'most apps are free and they're just the same as the ones on the iPad/iPhone'.
I see that the title has been changed at least twice since the joke.
EDIT: Maybe it was Samsung I'm thinking of. Evidently they have done stuff like that before (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110325/12360313633/samsun...). Netflix has done this too (http://www.avclub.com/articles/netflix-apologizes-for-hiring...).
Not really news, and I doubt its going to affect sales for now. Eventually they'll have to reinvent themselves if they want to stay cool, though. (Like Sony Walkman failed to do so as a brand)
Seriously, who's going to read "Samsung owes Apple $1B for patent infringement" and come away thinking that Apple is the bad guy? There are perfectly valid answers to that -- people concerned about the terrible state of patent law in the US, open source advocates, Hacker News readers -- but "average consumers" is not in that set of valid answers.
In practice what this means is that by Christmas Samsung has a bunch of new phones out that don't violate Apple's trade dress patents and everyone who is not a nerd mostly forgets about this. Samsung may lose on appeal, they may not, but a year from now they'll still be the #1 phone maker in the world and they will have phones that are more distinctive than they have now.
Or they will have phones that all look like Nokia's.
edit: not to mention that the value of OS X is part of tw cost of MacBooks; running it in a VM on another OS is common, but unfair to portray to random people as a legitimate action as evidence that Apple is ripping peons off.
However, don't discount the other side of the price argument. For some people price will be an important factor - however, as the iPod showed, it's not necessarily the main consideration for all consumers.
I had a discussion about a year ago with someone from Samsung - "look", he said, "the problem is this: our phones cost basically the same to make as Apple's phones, but the average consumer thinks that the iPhone is worth more than a Galaxy". Samsung would probably quite like to charge as much for a Galaxy S3 as Apple do for an iPhone 4S. In some markets and territories this actually happens.
I'd say people who upvote before they read are part of the problem but I'm more concerned that many people did read and still upvoted it.
Now Apple has called attention to how similar Samsung products are and people ARE going to make this connection no matter what.
Even if Apple gets an injunction, do you think customers will still be willing to pay that premium over Apple products? They will at least start questioning their choices.
In this consumerist society we might as well see riots and protests so Apple lowers the prices or the govt cancels the injunctions.
apparently this is exactly what Gigaom was referring to earlier today. I didn't think people would care, but apparently they do, don't understand, and Apple is paying the price.
What would have happened had Samsung won??
Maybe now, but if Samsung has to pay a billion-dollar fine, the prices will be more comparable -- assuming that Samsung isn't also ordered to stop building machines so much like Apple's.
The sense of the article is that the lawsuit outcome favors Samsung -- that Apple is outing Samsung's units as being similar to Apple's but less money. This only works if Samsung's business isn't crippled by fines and cease-and-desist orders.
Also after a few months it tricks me into G+ again, nope, still no value for me.
Fortunately, Google+ pages still show up rarely on HN.
Trusted brand, cheaper than iPad (I'm assuming for the WinRT ones) range of styles from different manufacturers, a (possibly limited) version of Office...
What's more, it's not even fair. Indeed, the entire point of this trial was for Apple to make a case that consumers are confused in America. So you can't really accept the verdict of this case and then say this is implausible or "Americans are stupid." If Apple is right, then Samsung has engaged in deliberate deception. If Samsung is right, then it's not unreasonable to ask if Apple actually has been overcharging people off on phones dictated by basic design principles.
For Apple, it's all about controlling the minds of consumers. And controlling their access to information about the devices.
For Samsung, it's less about that and more about plain old lack of interoperability: proprietary plugs, crappy Windows proprietary "install" software that was written hastily, and other little annoyances, stuff that will only work with Samsung. Like every other Asian manufacturer for as long as I can remember. (But at least companies like Samsung make SSD's and other components that can be used in any device. They keep companies like Apple afloat. Can Apple make its own components? Not as cost-effectively as Samsung.)
The result is always the same: the consumer overpays for these cheap electronics and gets next to zero customer service. It's "take it or leave it".
Showing a random Starbucks customer OSX in a virtual machine? Priceless.
If they only knew what their iPhones, iPads, "iOS" and "OSX" were really made of. They might never care. But they do care about overpaying.
But they keep coming back to Starbucks, and they buy subsidised cellphones, with two-year plans.
And they think they care about overpaying.
Starbucks has forced other coffee shops (assuming there were any- in many cities they wasn't anything comparable to Starbucks in recent times) out of the picture. Are Starbucks customers faced with an abundance of choice of which coffee shop to visit? Or is Starbucks front and center, the "default choice"?
Maybe things have changed but in the past there were no unsubsidised cellphones available to US customers. Are US consumers wanting a cellphone now having to decide whether to buy a subsidised (locked) or unsubsidised cellphone? Maybe things are changing.
In many other countries the phones are not locked.
When someone in the US goes to buy a touchscreen tablet, how much choice of other alternatives will they have?
You do know that other companies beside Samsung make components and thinking that Samsung is keeping Apple afloat is pure and utter delusion.
I also know that thinking Apple would be able to stay afloat if they did not use manufacturers in Asia, such as Samsung, is "utter delusion". Is that what you're suggesting?