Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Samsung *SELLS* 5 Million Notes in 5 Months!

Tarzanman said:
You made a semantic distinction ignoring the context of the posts that preceded it in order to imply something that simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

The actual context was the relative security of iOS and Android. The statement that you claimed was incorrect was a tangent that I added. I created the context.

If you are going to argue semantics, then quote me properly. I said that correlation is not causation.
Click to expand...

I corrected your misquote of the actual term.

Correlation definitely does imply causation. As for *lots* of correlation not implying causation....well actually, yes it kinda does. How do you think that we discovered atoms or elements? Lots of objective evaluation of relevant (or correlating, if you will) phenomena.
Click to expand...

That's an absurd invocation of the scientific method.
 
BaldiMac said:
The actual context was the relative security of iOS and Android. The statement that you claimed was incorrect was a tangent that I added. I created the context.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. As you have stated, the context was security. I will invite you to read this link again:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/trojans-viruses-worms-how-does-malware-get-on-pcs-and-macs/3491

I corrected your misquote of the actual term.
Click to expand...
that's not quite the whole story. Here is the first use of the term on the thread by mcman77
mcman77 said:
the OS is not the problem here...it is just as safe.

The USER is the problem that makes the OS vulnerable. Its the user that has to provide the safetiness...same goes with iOS and OSX. the user can install a virus.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how viruses (your definition) do not require user interaction to be 'installed', it is pretty clear that mcman77 is using the term 'viruses' to apply to various types of malware. Again, I refer you to this passage from the ZDNet article:

....And categories don’t matter. These days, actual viruses are almost unheard of. Melissa, back in the late 1990s was a real virus, the kind that copied itself to documents and spread via e-mail. Today, security professionals are more interested in what a particular family of malicious code does. The delivery mechanism is usually separate.

If this were simply a matter of semantics, I would let it slide. But it’s not. The obsession with these technical labels reflects a dangerously outdated view of computer security. If you can’t see past those labels and get an accurate view of the current threat landscape, you won’t be able to make smart, informed decisions for yourself or for others....

You either misunderstood mcman77, or (as you claim) used a different definition with your response here without indicating that you were using the semantically distinct definition for viruses. That is your truthiness in action.... which is why I linked you to the ZDNet article which has this to say about those of your mindset:

...Or, put another way: We can’t even have a discussion if one side thinks the world is flat and the other thinks it’s round....

That's an absurd invocation of the scientific method.
Click to expand...
Why? Because it is correct and you can't twist it to support your flawed and ultimately incorrect opinion? :) Pity!

----------
KnightWRX said:
It's an opinion piece, it doesn't present facts. I happen to disagree with the guy.
Click to expand...

That is your (and Baldimac's) prerogative. You can have whatever opinion you want... even in the face of all evidence to the contrary. I'm shocked, SHOCKED that an Apple enthusiast would act that way!
 
Tarzanman said:
Not exactly. As you have stated, the context was security. I will invite you to read this link again:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/trojans-viruses-worms-how-does-malware-get-on-pcs-and-macs/3491
Click to expand...

Please stop reposting the same thing. Ed Bott's opinion doesn't prove anything.

that's not quite the whole story. Here is the first use of the term on the thread by mcman77
Click to expand...

I was referring to your misquote of the term "correlation does not imply causation."

Why? Because it is correct and you can't twist it to support your flawed and ultimately incorrect opinion?
Click to expand...

No, because the scientific method fundamentally disagrees with the concept that correlation implies causation. It's whole purpose is to weed out irrelevant correlations in order to determine actual causation.
 
Tarzanman said:
That is your (and Baldimac's) prerogative. You can have whatever opinion you want... even in the face of all evidence to the contrary. I'm shocked, SHOCKED that an Apple enthusiast would act that way!
Click to expand...

Two problems :

- you mistake me for some kind of Apple fanboy
- you place someone's opinion higher than facts. Even he doesn't say that there are viruses for OSX. He says he'll just call whatever malware is out there a virus.
 
The Samsung Note is only selling so well because of advertising. If 100+ million people hadn't watched the commercial, it'd just be another forgotten Android phone. Apple didn't sell 300 million iPods just because it was an iPod, they sold so many because of all the iTunes advertisements through the years. It is also an affordable line of products unlike their computers (to the average consumer anyway).

And I'm pretty sure most of the people buying into the Note are coming from Blackberry, Windows Mobile/Phone, and feature phones. And in a year's time, at least 1 million of them will go to iPhones.
 
Tarzanman said:
You should try actually reading the articles that you link to. From the article:

.....(though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a hint)......

No squirming here. If a hint doesn't imply something... then how in the world is it a hint?
Click to expand...

What makes you think I didn't read it? You should read the entire thing to understand it and not pull bits and pieces out of context. Let me pull an example for you, since you tend to avoid reading and/or quoting something that proves you wrong:

The Fine Article said:
Example 5
Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and obesity levels have increased sharply.
Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes obesity.
Click to expand...

By your logic (correlation definitely implies causation), that would be true, but it's not. For someone who is telling others they completely ignore evidence to the contrary, you sure do that a lot.

What it means that correlation doesn't automatically imply causation. Sure, it's true sometimes, but not all times.
 
Last edited:
5 million devices fills their distribution channel worldwide. That's about all.
 
Makes me laugh - so much defence towards apple just because Samsung sells 5 million Notes. It really shouldn't bother people so much.

Apple and success are not exclusive!
 
smoledman said:
5 million sold is like a good week for Apple.
Click to expand...

Altogether, Samsung sells as many or more smartphones as Apple.

5+ million is pretty good for a single very unique model.

--

News today is that Samsung has 9 million preorders for the new Galaxy, two weeks after being shown off. Will be interesting to see what the first quarter's sales end up being.

When the iPhone 4S debuted, it got 1 million preorders in the first day, sold 4 million over the first weekend, then slowed down a bit and ended up with a total of ~33 million sold over 11 weeks... averaging 3 million a week.
 
kdarling said:
News today is that Samsung has 9 million preorders for the new Galaxy, two weeks after being shown off. Will be interesting to see what the first quarter's sales end up being.

When the iPhone 4S debuted, it got 1 million preorders in the first day, sold 4 million over the first weekend, then slowed down a bit and ended up with a total of ~33 million sold over 11 weeks... averaging 3 million a week.
Click to expand...

That's a rigged comparison. The new Galaxy had 9 million preorders from global carriers. iPhone preorders were to end users.
 
KnightWRX said:
Reading the last 2 pages this thread doesn't even seem to be about Samsung anymore. :confused:
Click to expand...

Don't know whats with the :confused:

There's a fair amount of needless Samsung hate.. this entire discussion has 8 pages at the time of this post.. There's more to this thread than just the last two pages.
 
Samsung Galaxy SIII was announced 30+ days after the post you quoted? Anyways, did you watch the announcement?It was way less than its potential in terms of marketing...

Apple knows how to market there product. Samsung still has some learning to do.

Tarzanman said:
Really. Maybe you somehow missed all the coverage that the Samsung Galaxy S III got when it was announced?
Click to expand...
 
Stella said:
Don't know whats with the :confused:

There's a fair amount of needless Samsung hate.. this entire discussion has 8 pages at the time of this post.. There's more to this thread than just the last two pages.
Click to expand...

I'm confused because either you've come in late and didn't notice this became about a ridiculous semantics game about viruses or if you just didn't read the last 2 pages.

There's a fair amount of needless Samsung hate... all over this site. Don't tell you're really surprised ? ;)

Since Steve said "Samsung Bad", we've heard nothing but that. It did end the "Adobe Bad" phase though and kind of smothered the "Nokia Evil" one.

With Steve gone though, I wonder how people will pick the next Apple nemesis.
 
OllyW said:
He was probably working on it right until the end and has left a roadmap of targets for the next 5 years. ;)
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think Steve Jobs was that godly that he could lay out a 5-year product roadmap? Please, stop it. Regardless Apple has many other brilliant people to do that kind of thing by now.
 
When I am sitting down on the train in the morning, there are times a bigger screen would be nice. But then when there isn't any seats and I have to stand, being able to use the iPhone with just one hand (while holding onto something with the other) is very useful.

So I am in two minds about the screen size. But I think 5inches is far too big for a phone you use every day as you can't easily carry it around with you without a manbag/handbag.

Of course the solution to all this is one of those foldable screens that were demoed a few years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back