AnonD-212255, 20 May 2014But that's the thing.
It's not just ME bashing Samsung's inability to adapt & change wi... moreNor did I ever claim or imply that I think Samsung is perfect....With Apple it's like sometimes they just flaunt "sinister".
And Obviously you are not the only to rag on Samsung's design. They are people that rag on every device.
That's the internet for you.
I'm not saying you have to love or agree with it. I was just pointing out that plastic or not, it's Poly Carbonate which is not "cheap" or below par. And in fact has a good bit of advantages.
And that at the end of the day Glass and aluminum are still cheap recyclable material as well.
I don't care which you like, prefer, wish Samsung used instead. More power to your own liking.
I will say my initial reply did not have to be as lengthy, but your angry bashing response is what brought us here.
AnonD-212255, 20 May 2014But that's the thing.
It's not just ME bashing Samsung's inability to adapt & change wi... moreIt's not bias if it started from me simply pointing out your bashing and you got upset.
They way you bashed in reply to me internally was you being upset. And I also noticed almost everything I posted kept re-posting for some odd reason. My reply was a little lengthy, but not bad.
It was not simply that we had different perspectives. I understand and embrace choice and personal preference. Bashing and illogical things on the other hand are what I defend.
Anonymous, 19 May 2014Me pointing out factual points is not the same as you illogically bashing out of personal opin... moreBut that's the thing.
It's not just ME bashing Samsung's inability to adapt & change with the times. They have great tech & SW, albeit a bit bloated, but their devices seem to deliver an overall positive user experience. They shouldn't abandon support for flagships that are only 1 1/2 yrs old, but that's a different matter at hand.
I have said it, reviewers & bloggers have said it, the media has said it, & even owners of the GS5 felt like it should have been beefed up in the materials department. Others will argue that design in simply played out & needs a complete redesign.
Users have been griping about Samsung's apathetic approach to design & build for some time. Samsung has all but refused to take heed.
They should though, as consumers are fickle minded, & will move on if they feel as though they are being ignored.
If I offer up a perspective that differs from yours, I'm not quite sure how my approach is viewed as "illogical".
Also, what "factual" points are you bringing to the argument that I have ignored? You can't tell only the one side of a story that makes the other party look like the villain. It's bias.
These are multi-billion dollar corporations & you seem to think that if there are any instances of litigation, there is something sinister at work.
It happens much more than you are aware of, especially when intellectual property is at stake.
AnonD-212255, 19 May 2014It's "factual points" not "factually". English isn't your native language,... moreThat following these techs for years, actually reading the cases, and some research shows the cases are fairly bogus....And here you were supporting Apple. Plain and simple what it meant.
Now I could have been wrong, but that's what it seems like you are doing.
AnonD-212255, 19 May 2014It's "factual points" not "factually". English isn't your native language,... moreMe pointing out factual points is not the same as you illogically bashing out of personal opinion.
One would think that is common logic....Apparently English....logic.....knowledge are not your strong points.
[deleted post]It's "factual points" not "factually". English isn't your native language, is it?
If you can't afford it, that's fine. That's all you need to say.
Although you'd have more credibility if you actually owned the device.
Just curious. What did it explain when you thought I supported Apple? (which I do)
AnonD-212255, 19 May 2014Why do you not own it? How many times are you going to avoid the question? Because I don't? You are just further side tracking.
Anonymous, 19 May 2014Of course, Apple did have to pay Apple Records for copying the name of the Beatles' Record lab... moreFunny that out of one side of your mouth, you're bashing Apple for questionable business practices, and out of the other side defending a company found guilty of patent infringement.
AnonD-212255, 19 May 2014I did explain it. It got deleted for something else said in the response. My wife's sister own... moreAnd I have explained that I used it. You have no grounds here and just reaching for excuses.
Ad bashing on it is not the same simply "not preceding" plastic.
Anonymous, 19 May 2014The $1 billion, which Apple will likely never see a dime of after appeals, is chump change to ... moreIts not 1 billion. That has been reduced after a retrial.
Saying Apple won't see any of it is pure conjecture. The legal ramifications of being found guilty of patent infringement is far more damaging than a monetary fine.
They were found guilty, more than once. Deal with it.
Anonymous, 19 May 2014You talk a lot of talk, but you still have not explained how you can illogically troll and bas... moreI did explain it. It got deleted for something else said in the response. My wife's sister owns it. I have spent hours using it. I never once said the tech inside was bad.
It has some features in it that waste resources IMO but is still a capable device.
My gripe was that it's a flagship still made from plastic in an age where materials used lends added credibility that it's truly a flagship offering.
Like I said, if it is so great, why don't you own it?
AnonD-212255, 19 May 2014What does it explain? That I have a penchant for well built, aesthetically pleasing mobile dev... moreYou talk a lot of talk, but you still have not explained how you can illogically troll and bash a device that you do not own...Yet on the other hand tell someone that because they do not own it means they have no say in logically defending it.
If you cannot see the flaw in that you are brain dead or trolling. Plain and simple.
AnonD-212255, 19 May 2014You should practice what you preach in regards to your comment of "If people are going to... moreThey are suing for supposed theft/copying of the iPhone and patents...yet they stole the names of it. And LG Prada was released with design first.
Same with the name of the iPad.
So what I said was directly relevant thank you. And they had not bought the names. They just took them. I'm pretty sure years later down the road when things were brought up the companies just sold out and took money....the same way apple gets away with most things. Name, power, money.
And you ignore the rest
AnonD-212255, 19 May 2014You should practice what you preach in regards to your comment of "If people are going to... moreOf course, Apple did have to pay Apple Records for copying the name of the Beatles' Record label. As a part of the settlement, Apple agreed to stay out of the music business. Then, Apple created itunes because they have no integrity, and had to pay Apple Records more money.
AnonD-212255, 19 May 2014That was what Apple was awarded for THIS trial. Previously, on November 21, 2013 the jury a... moreThe $1 billion, which Apple will likely never see a dime of after appeals, is chump change to Samsung. Samsung Mobile spends $14 billion a year on marketing. $1 billion, if it were ever paid, means no commercials for 3 weeks.
Anonymous, 19 May 2014Apple stole the names iphone and ipad from existing companies because they could.
If people... moreYou should practice what you preach in regards to your comment of "If people are going to comment on cases then they should pay attention to them and know the actual facts".
Why did you conveniently leave out pertinent details? You love to spread misinformation for some reason. Why??
Cisco has agreed to license the iOS trademark to Apple for use as the name of Apple’s operating system for iPhone, iPod touch and iPad. The license is for use of the trademark ONLY and not for ANY technology.”
Examples of using the same name include Delta (for faucets and airlines) and Pioneer (for electronics and agricultural seeds).
You probably already know that Gerber is the baby food maker, but I bet you didn't know there were other companies using the same name, like Gerber Plumbing Fixtures LLC, and The Gerber Store, which sells outdoor hunting and fishing knives and tools. There's also Gerber Scientific Products, which is sign making equipment, Gerber Life Insurance...etc, etc.
The point is, multiple companies can use the same name & pay fees, or buy the name outright, as long as they are not stepping into each other's markets by selling the same type of product or competing with one another. Cisco & Apple came to a licensing agreement.
Apple now owns the iPad trademark. The trademark (Serial No. 76497338) was filed by Fujitsu in March of 2003 for their iPad wireless handheld computing device used by retailers. At the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office records show that "the entire interest" of the iPad trademark was assigned to Apple on March 17, 2010. It is unclear what amount Apple paid for the naming rights.
This sort of thing happens all the time. Failed attempt at making Apple seem underhanded though.
I give you an F+.
Anonymous, 19 May 2014Oh god...You are even an apple follower?
That explains so muchWhat does it explain? That I have a penchant for well built, aesthetically pleasing mobile devices, or that I only use Apple? Because labeling me the latter as an Apple fanboy would be a misnomer.
I also own the HTC M7, M8, & the Xperia Z1 & just got rid of my Xperia Z1c.
Have you come to talk about devices you don't own, or perhaps throw around your famous catch-phrase of
OR...Maybe you'd like to discuss how you are able to completely disable & get rid of Knox on the Galaxy S5?
Serious question though. If you like the Galaxy S5 so much, why don't you simply purchase it? If it as great as you truly believe, what is stopping you from owning it?
Apple stole the names iphone and ipad from existing companies because they could.
If people are going to comment on cases then they should pay attention to them and know the actual facts.
The only jumped on the bandwagon of smartphones because they saw the rise in phones.
Most of their claims in courts are bogus. Almost everyone borrows a feature or aspect from everyone.
Apple is the only one outright taking and stealing things.
Then says things like stealing is bad...yet job's famous quote was...Good artists copy, great artists steal. And I've been shameless for stealing many great ideas.
Most things are over Android features. Most things Apple never invented.
In their cases they have used photo shopped evidence without repercussions. They used about three different stories on how they came up with designs/ideas.
Samsung was denied using proof of prior art.
Apple lost twice in other areas on the tablet where they almost won because of "slender with rounded edges"...And then had to post on their site that Samsung did not copy. And the second time tried to deny two weeks being enough time to do that, then tried doing it in a non compliant way.
Earlier at the claim of wanting $40 per device Apple's cost of parts from Samsung was about $12 per Iphone.
That would mean that if Apple got all that money that basically they were paid by Samsung for Samsung to give them free parts.
Then turn around and sell it for more boatloads of profit with their over priced, under teched, scam device.
Recent article even has Yale Professor using Apple's math against them stating that most patents they are claiming are worth pennies. And total to around $1.75...
Besides showing that most are just bogus anyway.
Where Samsung won in the US Obama Vetoed it. Apple won and it was fine.