Other I would have expected this from Apple

[Shanghaichica]

Samsung’s inability to mass produce enough OLED panels is probably also the reason why Apple could not have them in their devices earlier. Nobody sells enough for Apple’s scale.

Samsung can make as many oled panels as Apple want and have been able to for years. Samsung could also make as many chips and batteries as Apple wanted. Apple just didn’t want to use Oled in their devices. Tim Cook said a few years ago that Apple felt that the current Oled technology at the time had limitations. Regardless of what Tim said Apple are always slow to adopt new technologies try usually wait for it to mature before putting it in their devices.
[doublepost=1532205273][/doublepost]

Luckily a court settled this argument a while ago, right?

Doesn’t change the fact that Apple was in the past able to bundle technologies in its products like no other competitor.

iPod, iTunes, iPhone were disruptive arrivals and won customers immediately.

A US court yes. Most of the cases Apple brought in other countries against Samsung were thrown out. In the UK Apple were caught out lying and had to run adverts stating that Samsung did not infringe their parents.

https://www.theverge.com/2012/10/18/3520356/apple-loses-uk-appeal-must-run-adverts/in/2297513

https://www.theverge.com/2012/11/10/3627542/apple-samsung-fees-false-apology


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.la...tent-suits-20120302-story.html?outputType=amp

 

[Grimham]

Apart from the AR emojis, the court case is referring to things from 8 years ago. You are implying that Samsung are constantly copying Apple, even in recent times.

And you brought up many things from years ago yourself. Enough said.

 

[FFR]

No Samsung were not even the first to do portrait mode. Other android OEMs had software based solutions. It doesn’t matter if people liked them or not and considering that Samsung have sold millions of phones with curved screens and minimal bezels over the years I’d say some people did like them. Remember when Samsung brought out the S6 and S6 edge. The S6 was flat and cheaper yet it was the curved S6 edge that sold more just because of the way it looked. Look at the sharp Aquos crystal phone from 2014. That predates all of these bezeless phones.
[doublepost=1532193763][/doublepost]
Yes according to him Samsung and all the other android OEMs copied Apple with portrait mode

Lets be honest neither have Apple. Let’s look at the iPhone X. Bezeless Oled displays, been done before. The notch was first done on the essential phone. Wireless charging, fast charging, water resistance. All done before by android OEMs.

Face ID is another type of facial recognition. The idea of using your face to unlock things has been around on android and windows for years. Is Face ID the best solution? Yes it is but let’s not forget they bought another company that had already developed the technology. Just as they bought the companies that made Touch ID and Siri.

I’m not saying that the iPhone X isn’t a great phone because it is but it’s not really all that innovative.

Actually Apple applied for the patent on the iPhone X and the notch in 2016. Way before anyone even heard of the essential phone or it’s notch.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...and-carplay-with-turn-by-turn-navigation.html

Regarding Face ID; no android oem had a 3D facial recognition solution. There is a huge difference between 3D and 2d facial recognition.

Sort of like capacitive fingerprint readers vs the POS Motorola had on thier atrix, the one where you had to keep swiping at the perfect angle. It was terrible, hardly worked band Motorola never really used it on another phone.

The capacitive fingerprint reader and 3D Touch with the dedicated security enclave in the Ax processor is secure and works the other implementation not so much.

If 2d facial recognition were any good Samsung wouldn’t be augmenting it with an iris scan, or releasing a 3D version with the s10.

 

[Grimham]

Samsung can make as many oled panels as Apple want and have been able to for years. Samsung could also make as many chips and batteries as Apple wanted. Apple just didn’t want to use Oled in their devices. Tim Cook said a few years ago that Apple felt that the current Oled technology at the time had limitations. Regardless of what Tim said Apple are always slow to adopt new technologies try usually wait for it to mature before putting it in their devices.
[doublepost=1532205273][/doublepost]
A US court yes. Most of the cases Apple brought in other countries against Samsung were thrown out. In the UK Apple were caught out lying and had to run adverts stating that Samsung did not infringe their parents.

https://www.theverge.com/2012/10/18/3520356/apple-loses-uk-appeal-must-run-adverts/in/2297513

https://www.theverge.com/2012/11/10/3627542/apple-samsung-fees-false-apology


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-german-court-dismisses-two-apple-vs-samsung-patent-suits-20120302-story.html?outputType=amp

No sir. Samsung can't produce enough panels for Apple. That has been a known reason why they are going to LG.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/28/samsungs-oled-iphone-display-supply-dominance-challenged

 

[apolloa]

Luckily a court settled this argument a while ago, right?

Doesn’t change the fact that Apple was in the past able to bundle technologies in its products like no other competitor.

iPod, iTunes, iPhone were disruptive arrivals and won customers immediately.

iPhone didn’t disrupt things to begin with other then in America, it couldn’t do half the stuff other devices could at launch. But it had a multitouch glass screen that was a first, iTunes saved the music industry.
Still doesn’t mean anyone has copied Apple over recent years..

All the US court did was agree the first Galaxy phone copied the interface of iOS. It did not prove anything more.

Samsung’s inability to mass produce enough OLED panels is probably also the reason why Apple could not have them in their devices earlier. Nobody sells enough for Apple’s scale.

Doesn’t mean they haven’t copied OLED from other handsets.

 

[FFR]

Samsung can make as many oled panels as Apple want and have been able to for years. Samsung could also make as many chips and batteries as Apple wanted. Apple just didn’t want to use Oled in their devices. Tim Cook said a few years ago that Apple felt that the current Oled technology at the time had limitations. Regardless of what Tim said Apple are always slow to adopt new technologies try usually wait for it to mature before putting it in their devices.
[doublepost=1532205273][/doublepost]
A US court yes. Most of the cases Apple brought in other countries against Samsung were thrown out. In the UK Apple were caught out lying and had to run adverts stating that Samsung did not infringe their parents.

https://www.theverge.com/2012/10/18/3520356/apple-loses-uk-appeal-must-run-adverts/in/2297513

https://www.theverge.com/2012/11/10/3627542/apple-samsung-fees-false-apology


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.la...tent-suits-20120302-story.html?outputType=amp

Um those are about the Ipad not the iPhone.

And they weren’t lying like you claim... they mentioned that they one patent trials in other countries and that pissed of the judge.

It’s clearly stated in the links you posted.

 

[Grimham]

iPhone didn’t disrupt things to begin with other then in America, it couldn’t do half the stuff other devices could at launch. But it had a multitouch glass screen that was a first, iTunes saved the music industry.
Still doesn’t mean anyone has copied Apple over recent years..



Doesn’t mean they haven’t copied OLED from other handsets.

Here we go again, stating opinion but being wrong with no facts backing up your statements. I am not wasting any more time with you as its obvious to me and others you don't have a clue. I'll let others deal with it.

 

[Shanghaichica]

No sir. Samsung can't produce enough panels for Apple. That has been a known reason why they are going to LG.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/28/samsungs-oled-iphone-display-supply-dominance-challenged

No the reason why they are going to LG is because they don’t want to be over reliant on Samsung as their biggest competitor. They have been trying to move away from Samsung for years. They’ve even invested in LG display tech. Samsung’s charge them a lot per display and using LG also allows them to keep their costs down.

 

[apolloa]

Here we go again, stating opinion but being wrong with no facts backing up your statements.

No you have zero facts to back up your ludicrous claims. You are like a politician attempting to rewrite history.
You claim others have copied Apple over recent years with ZERO facts to back it up. Keep drinking the kool aide.

 

[FFR]

Apart from the AR emojis, the court case is referring to things from 8 years ago. You are implying that Samsung are constantly copying Apple, even in recent times.

Come on, the ar emojis are a blatant ripoff and it’s so execution is so bad it’s kind of the butt of everyone’s jokes, like bixby still is.

 

[Grimham]

No the reason why they are going to LG is because they don’t want to be over reliant on Samsung as their biggest competitor. They have been trying to move away from Samsung for years. They’ve even invested in LG display tech. Samsung’s charge them a lot per display and using LG also allows them to keep their costs down.

You obviously didn't read the link. OLED is hard to manufacture, and many articles have already said out there Samsung could not produce the amount Apple wanted. Stop posting till you research some.
[doublepost=1532206263][/doublepost]

No you have zero facts to back up your ludicrous claims. You are like a politician attempting to rewrite history.

Really? Where are your facts? We haven't seen any.

 

[Shanghaichica]

No sir. Samsung can't produce enough panels for Apple. That has been a known reason why they are going to LG.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/28/samsungs-oled-iphone-display-supply-dominance-challenged

It doesn’t say anywhere in this article that Samsung can’t produce enough displays, in fact it says

“At present, Samsung is the exclusive supplier of OLED panels for the iPhone X, being the only firm with enough production capacity to meet Apple demands”

All it says is that Apple are using a second supplier as a precaution to make sure there are no production delays. It says nothing about Samsung not being able to supply enough displays. In fact it says Samsung are the only company who can currently meet Apple’s demands. The real reason Apple don’t want to use Samung is become they don’t want to be over reliant on them and to save money.

 

[Grimham]

No the reason why they are going to LG is because they don’t want to be over reliant on Samsung as their biggest competitor. They have been trying to move away from Samsung for years. They’ve even invested in LG display tech. Samsung’s charge them a lot per display and using LG also allows them to keep their costs down.

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/08/04/samsung-oled-lines-full-capacity/

Multiple reports this year have pointed towards production delays in the supply chain, potentially leading to a limited capacity iPhone 8 launch. Which technically was the X launch.

 

[Shanghaichica]

You obviously didn't read the link. OLED is hard to manufacture, and many articles have already said out there Samsung could not produce the amount Apple wanted. Stop posting till you research some.
[doublepost=1532206263][/doublepost]

Really? Where are your facts? We haven't seen any.

You obviously didn’t read the article.

“At present, Samsung is the exclusive supplier of OLED panels for the iPhone X, being the only firm with enough production capacity to meet Apple demands”

 

[Grimham]

It doesn’t say anywhere in this article that Samsung can’t produce enough displays, in fact it says

“At present, Samsung is the exclusive supplier of OLED panels for the iPhone X, being the only firm with enough production capacity to meet Apple demands”

All it says is that Apple are using a second supplier as a precaution to make sure there are no production delays. It says nothing about Samsung not being able to supply enough displays. In fact it says Samsung are the only company who can currently meet Apple’s demands. The real reason Apple don’t want to use Samung is become they don’t want to be over reliant on them and to save money.

Like I said, you didn't research.

 

[Shanghaichica]

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/08/04/samsung-oled-lines-full-capacity/

Multiple reports this year have pointed towards production delays in the supply chain, potentially leading to a limited capacity iPhone 8 launch. Which technically was the X launch.

But Samsung did meet demands which is why there wasn’t a massive shortage of X models as predicted by Ming chi Quo. He said that it would take Apple until Feb/March of 2018 to be able to meet demands for the X. Yet only one month after it went on sale you could get it for next day delivery from apple’s own website.
[doublepost=1532206714][/doublepost]

Like I said, you didn't research.

look it says it in the same article you quoted that Samsung are the only supplier that can meet Apple’s demands at present. The iPhone X is not backordered. Apple didn’t have any issues with iPhone X production, in fact it was one of the least back ordered iPhones which led a lot of journalists to incorrectly state that it wasn’t selling well.

 

[Grimham]

But Samsung did meet demands which is why there wasn’t a massive shortage of X models as predicted by Ming chi Quo. He said that it would take Apple until Feb/March of 2018 to be able to meet demands for the X. Yet only one month after it went on sale you could get it for next day delivery from apple’s own website.

Actually no, the price is why they met the demands. They did not sell as many as expected. If there was as large of demand, there would have been a production issue.

 

[Shanghaichica]

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/08/04/samsung-oled-lines-full-capacity/

Multiple reports this year have pointed towards production delays in the supply chain, potentially leading to a limited capacity iPhone 8 launch. Which technically was the X launch.

Come on, the ar emojis are a blatant ripoff and it’s so execution is so bad it’s kind of the butt of everyone’s jokes, like bixby still is.

I accept that they copied Apple with AR emojis.

 

[Grimham]

I accept that they copied Apple with AR emojis.

And a lot more stuff. @FFR can list it out as he is better at that.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Actually no, the price is why they met the demands. They did not sell as many as expected. If there was as large of demand, there would have been a production issue.

No the iPhone X did sell well. The analysts keep getting it wrong. The they’ve even stopped taking about the iPhone X not selling well because this was shown to be incorrect at the last two earnings reports.

 

[Grimham]

No the iPhone X did sell well. The analysts keep getting it wrong. The they’ve even stopped taking about the iPhone X not selling well because this was shown to be incorrect at the last two earnings reports.

No, the iPhone DID NOT sell as well as expected. It did not hit ANY of it's sell predictions.

 

[Shanghaichica]

You obviously didn't read the link. OLED is hard to manufacture, and many articles have already said out there Samsung could not produce the amount Apple wanted. Stop posting till you research some.
[doublepost=1532206263][/doublepost]

Really? Where are your facts? We haven't seen any.

Oled might be hard to manufacture but Samsung have been doing it for years and have perfect it now.

 

[Grimham]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphon...-apple-will-sell-fewer-than-14-million-in-q1/

Apple is expected to sell "fewer than 14 million" iPhone X handsets in the first quarter of 2018, or less than half the 29 million Apple is estimated to have sold in the previous quarter, according to analyst firm Canalys.
[doublepost=1532207253][/doublepost]

Oled might be hard to manufacture but Samsung have been doing it for years and have perfect it now.

Not the way Apple requires it with the screen bent under.

 

[Shanghaichica]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphon...-apple-will-sell-fewer-than-14-million-in-q1/

Apple is expected to sell "fewer than 14 million" iPhone X handsets in the first quarter of 2018, or less than half the 29 million Apple is estimated to have sold in the previous quarter, according to analyst firm Canalys.

These are all old reports and were all debunked at Apple’s last earnings call.


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....sales-show-wall-street-analysts-got-it-wrong/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/bgr.com/2018/05/02/apple-iphone-x-sales-q2-2018-earnings/amp/

 

[Grimham]

These are all old reports and were all debunked at Apple’s last earnings call.

Really? Prove it. And make sure it doesn't include all the phones. This is just 3 months old.

[doublepost=1532207607][/doublepost]https://www.theinquirer.net/inquire...ppliers-confirm-iphone-x-sales-have-plummeted

24/4/18: Five of Apple's key manufacturing suppliers have confirmed that the iPhone X isn't meeting expectations, Bloomberg reports, revealing that demand for the smartphone has "plummeted" since the handset made its debut last year.