That is the longest non-answer I have ever seen. I am not sure what points you are even trying to make.
1) There was no need to clarify - you interpreted my statement as all things made by Apple.
2)A user interface includes two finger item sizing on the screen. Taking cues is different than ripping off patented features.
3)You stated "that Samsung has made a better product in the Samsung Galaxy S III" and based that belief on the amount of pre-order sales. I agree that pre-order sales are indicative of market interest but it is not proof of a better product.
4) If they did invest R&D dollars to make an improved product in the Galaxy III; then, as I suggested, perhaps they should have done that the first time around and saved themselves the cost of an IP trial and a $1 Billion settlement against them.
5) Your sarcasm comment (lol) I don't even know what you are trying to say?!
As to matching wits - please. First, try to put a coherent statement together and then keep the rambling passion out of it - the CAPS get tiring.
Apple has a 60+% share of the tablet market (notice I didn't say iPad market).
Your statement that "nothing was ripped off" "with the exception of user interface features" is so blatantly nonsensical it is hard to believe one would write it. It is the user interface features that make the iPad and iPhone innovative.
Pre-order sales are not indicative of a better product. Pre-order sales just reflect a single moment in time order; it doesn't even measure market share. As to your contention that the Galaxy S III product is both far superior and BETTER: wow, it is probably also smarter and more intelligent. That was a sarcastic remark of me being redundant by repeating myself.
As to my posting a biased comment, please - I was just pointing out that Samsung would have been better investing R&D dollars than ripping of a competitor.
Apple is not only effectively competing in the marketplace (60+% share) BUT they also just won an award of $1 Billion (straight to the bottom line) AND Apple will most likely get an injunction against Samsung meaning those products will soon be off the market. How can Samsung market a cheaper product than Apple - easy - rip off Apple features instead of investing R&D dollars to make an even better product.
Wonderful! Thank you Mr. Inman for hopefully encouraging Mr. Carreon to begin digging again. I was despondent when Mr. Carreon dropped the lawsuits - reading his ridiculous tirades was a great way to start each day with a laugh. C'mon Mr. Carreon, don't let Mr. Inman get the better of you; get back on your horse and take another shot at the windmill.
I check this site every day hoping to read another Carreon story. I love this guy and hope he never stops. Please Mr. Carreon, continue to carry on - I look forward to starting my day with a good laugh!
The flaw is not in the logic; it's taking the pricing example literally. Increased revenue (due to unit volume) is not an AUTOMATIC increase in profit. The cost savings of producing something in larger quantities may be (and usually is) less than the dollars given up due to discount pricing. Example A: Build 10 units for $1 each and sell each for $10 = profit of $90. Example B: Build 20 units for $0.75 and sell each for $3 = profit of $45. I am sure there are numerous scenarios that could also prove that the right mix of cost savings versus price discounting would result in higher profits. The point of my original comment is that we need to be careful in assuming that discounting will ALWAYS result in a better business model.
There is a big difference between revenue and profit. Selling at a discount can provide an increase in revenue but that does NOT automatically equate to an increase in profit. I can sell a lot more of watermelons at $1 each than I can at $3 BUT if they cost me $2 each I can't make up the difference by selling in volume.
Inventing a novel way to do/make something (for which you obtain a patent) and running a business successfully are two different things. Just because a company (Grail) has poor business execution does not mean that rights to their novel idea should be abandoned. If a company with savvy business expertise wants to capitalize on a good idea (that does not belong to them) then they should pay for it. Paying a royalty on a patented product/idea is not uncommon and has made many a inventor and company very wealthy. Unfortunately, a big company that tries to steal a novel idea form someone (especially when using their resources to just bury the inventor) is also not uncommon. That seems to be the case here - shame on Mitsubishi.
I believe that once something is purchased, it becomes the property of whomever bought it subject to whatever restrictions the seller placed on that purchase and which the buyer agreed to. Any subsequent use of the purchased item is solely the responsibility of the buyer. So, if the buyer decides to publish it (e.g. streams it on a site) free of charge then anyone should be able to watch it without repercussion. If the original seller has an issue with that - take it up with the person who originally bought the product. Those individuals who later watched the free streaming video did not agree to any restrictions with the original seller - they only watched content under the terms presented by the person making the content available to the: free and unrestricted. In the case of this discussion, the original seller presents a ridiculous argument by tyring to sue the fans (current or future) who watched a video provided by the original buyer. He wants to link the purchase agreement he made with the original buyer to automatically extended to everyone, everywhere. If the original seller has a beef with anyone it is with the original buyer and it should stop there. The future fan did not agree to anything with the seller and it should not be incumbent on the future fan to do the police work of the seller.
Because a person may be a customer is not relevant to how to address piracy. One has nothing to do with the other.
A) The issue is addressing piracy
B) The poor kid topic is raised under the guise of being relevant to piracy
C)The discussion on piracy is abandoned and we are now talking about not alienating potential future customers; that is a marketing discussion not a piracy discussion
The industry's current business model needs to be reworked and recent efforts to prevent piracy are draconian at best BUT the argument made by Mr Masnick is fallacious. The real issue is how to effectively address piracy, the Red Herring argument presented (poor college kid so its okay) is irrelevant and a distraction.