3 ms·

As Brian Ford pointed out, this is far more reminiscent of Palm's bravado before iPhone in 2007: http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/13/10398704-samsun

by g9a5 15y ago

As Brian Ford pointed out, this is far more reminiscent of Palm's bravado before iPhone in 2007: http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/13/10398704-samsung-doesnt-think-apple-can-compete-in-the-tv-market-that-sounds-vaguely-familiar http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/13/10398704-sams... > Responding to questions from New York Times correspondent John Markoff at a Churchill Club breakfast gathering Thursday morning, Colligan laughed off the idea that any company — including the wildly popular Apple Computer — could easily win customers in the finicky smart-phone sector. > “We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” he said. “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” But, really, what does anyone expect incumbents to say? They know that they can't compete with Apple on the ecosystem. They know that they can compete with Apple on the quality of the picture, because that's the part that they will likely be supplying to Apple anyway. It's clever to try to shape the direction of the discourse away from the stuff Apple will be trying to compete on and back to what Samsung try to compete on.

alexbell 15y ago
> But, really, what does anyone expect incumbents to say? Exactly. It's not like a Samsung rep is going to get up on stage and talk about how one of their competitors entering another of their core businesses is bad for Samsung. You have to sound confident, and in the case of TV they probably ARE much more confident regarding competition with Apple. Whether that confidence is warranted remains to be seen.
Duff 15y ago
Two things differ from pre-iPhone Palm. Apple has an established track record of not getting what people want from a TV. Ala carte TV shows and a crippled set-top box is not very inspiring. Palm wasn't exactly a superstar before the iPhone's launch. I had a Treo... the only thing that could be said about it was that the crappy web browser was better than BlackBerry's crappier one.
- g9a5 15y ago
  > Apple has an established track record of not getting what people want from a TV. Ala carte TV shows and a crippled set-top box is not very inspiring. Disagree. TV is not a TV set. You may as well argue that the Macintosh TV from 1994 is indicative that Apple doesn't "get" television. Apple TV is a hardware extension of iTunes. It is not a profound re-imagining of the TV, which is what we are expecting the Apple TV to be. And I'd suggest that TV has been pretty popular. "Apple sold more than 3 million units of the device last year, marking seemingly strong demand among customers for the small box that plugs into high-definition TVs to stream music, movies and photos from computers, mobile devices and various websites." "Cook didn't say what that "something" was, but did add that "for those people that have TV right now, the customer 'sat' (satisfaction rating) is off the chart…"" > Palm wasn't exactly a superstar before the iPhone's launch. Palm's marketshare in Q1 2005 was 17.9%. Back then when there were several goliaths (Nokia, RIM, Sony-Ericsson) that's a huge fucking deal. Samsung's marketshare of the TV business in 2010 (only data I could find)? 17.2% Believe me. This is a very apposite comparison. I'm bookmarking this thread to revisit in 5 years.

by g9a5 15y ago

alexbell 15y ago

> But, really, what does anyone expect incumbents to say? Exactly. It's not like a Samsung rep is going to get up on stage and talk about how one of their competitors entering another of their core businesses is bad for Samsung. You have to sound confident, and in the case of TV they probably ARE much more confident regarding competition with Apple. Whether that confidence is warranted remains to be seen.

Duff 15y ago

Two things differ from pre-iPhone Palm. Apple has an established track record of not getting what people want from a TV. Ala carte TV shows and a crippled set-top box is not very inspiring. Palm wasn't exactly a superstar before the iPhone's launch. I had a Treo... the only thing that could be said about it was that the crappy web browser was better than BlackBerry's crappier one.

g9a5 15y ago
> Apple has an established track record of not getting what people want from a TV. Ala carte TV shows and a crippled set-top box is not very inspiring. Disagree. TV is not a TV set. You may as well argue that the Macintosh TV from 1994 is indicative that Apple doesn't "get" television. Apple TV is a hardware extension of iTunes. It is not a profound re-imagining of the TV, which is what we are expecting the Apple TV to be. And I'd suggest that TV has been pretty popular. "Apple sold more than 3 million units of the device last year, marking seemingly strong demand among customers for the small box that plugs into high-definition TVs to stream music, movies and photos from computers, mobile devices and various websites." "Cook didn't say what that "something" was, but did add that "for those people that have TV right now, the customer 'sat' (satisfaction rating) is off the chart…"" > Palm wasn't exactly a superstar before the iPhone's launch. Palm's marketshare in Q1 2005 was 17.9%. Back then when there were several goliaths (Nokia, RIM, Sony-Ericsson) that's a huge fucking deal. Samsung's marketshare of the TV business in 2010 (only data I could find)? 17.2% Believe me. This is a very apposite comparison. I'm bookmarking this thread to revisit in 5 years.