Samsung: Now I get it

[omniusovermind]

I'm not the average consumer that most marketing departments target. I'm really into my tech, bordering on obsessive. I research my gadget purchases for months before committing. I keep a constant watch on devices most people seldom ever hear about. One thing that's often puzzled me is HOW Samsung managed such an unusually large lead over every other manufacturer except Apple. I mean aside from the obvious marketing. Another puzzling thing was why it got uptalked so often by the "public" on tech news sites, social media, and store reps. It's not like they're paid to. Right?

I'm not slamming the product. You can't achieve that success on marketing alone, you still have to make a decent product. Key word: decent. This is why I was puzzled. Samsung's competitors make good products too. There's nothing vastly superior about Samsung devices that would be proportionate to their lead in sales and market share, even when you factor in "usual" marketing methods.

CNN appears to have turned over a rock and found something about Samsung's marketing methods underneath. Something Samsung came close to but not quite admitting. What are your thoughts? Do you think these kinds of practices should fall under antitrust laws or do you believe all is fair in retail war?

Here is the first article:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/20/apple-samsung-dirty-tricks/

This is the followup where they comment on the suspicious activities they discovered in the reaction to the original:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/21/apple-samsung-agent-provocateurs/#respond

 

[zorak950]

I don't see what antitrust has to do with any of this. Samsung is a big player in the smartphone industry, but they're certainly not a monopoly.

If you really stretched it, you might sell me on libel, but even that's dubious.

 

[omniusovermind]

I don't see what antitrust has to do with any of this. Samsung is a big player in the smartphone industry, but they're certainly not a monopoly.

If you really stretched it, you might sell me on libel, but even that's dubious.

Wrong term then, I'm not really good at speaking lawyer's speak. There must be some legal shenanigans about hiring paid shills though, the Taiwanese FTC are investigating now as well I found out over the student shill hiring incident. The CNNs findings were pretty interesting though

 

[sting7k]

I'm not the average consumer that most marketing departments target. I'm really into my tech, bordering on obsessive. I research my gadget purchases for months before committing. I keep a constant watch on devices most people seldom ever hear about. One thing that's often puzzled me is HOW Samsung managed such an unusually large lead over every other manufacturer except Apple. I mean aside from the obvious marketing. Another puzzling thing was why it got uptalked so often by the "public" on tech news sites, social media, and store reps. It's not like they're paid to. Right?

I'm not slamming the product. You can't achieve that success on marketing alone, you still have to make a decent product. Key word: decent. This is why I was puzzled. Samsung's competitors make good products too. There's nothing vastly superior about Samsung devices that would be proportionate to their lead in sales and market share, even when you factor in "usual" marketing methods.

CNN appears to have turned over a rock and found something about Samsung's marketing methods underneath. Something Samsung came close to but not quite admitting. What are your thoughts? Do you think these kinds of practices should fall under antitrust laws or do you believe all is fair in retail war?

Here is the first article:

How much are Samsung's dirty tricks hurting Apple's shares? - Apple 2.0 -Fortune Tech

This is the followup where they comment on the suspicious activities they discovered in the reaction to the original:

Did an Apple 2.0 story touch a nerve at Samsung HQ? - Apple 2.0 -Fortune Tech

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

I don't think there is any way you could ever prove that Samsung actually did any of what is suggested. Nor that there is any real punishment that could be given out for what ever is being suggested that Samsung has done. That is if they actually did anything, which I I'm not actually sure what they might have done...

 

[Madmanden]

Wrong term then, I'm not really good at speaking lawyer's speak. There must be some legal shenanigans about hiring paid shills though, the Taiwanese FTC are investigating now as well I found out over the student shill hiring incident. The CNNs findings were pretty interesting though

There was some talk a few days ago about HTC hiring students to bash Samsung online, so I guess they're not alone.

 

[omniusovermind]

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

I don't think there is any way you could ever prove that Samsung actually did any of what is suggested. Nor that there is any real punishment that could be given out for what ever is being suggested that Samsung has done. That is if they actually did anything, which I I'm not actually sure what they might have done...

Agreed, you would pretty much need a whistleblower with access to the entire operations. Or a way to subpoena it. Neither will ever happen no matter how obvious the evidence may appear. You'd pretty much have to illegally hack a company to prove it. I guess it's just another example of big business dirty tricks that will never see a day in court

 

[nickndfl]

Samsung is what Sony was in the 1980s. Their designs are practical and stylish. Samsung also had the benefit of a Japanese yen becoming so strong against the US dollar that it allowed South Korean competition to displace Japanese manufacturers due to their relatively weaker currency and strong products.

 

[Ry]

It's all about building the brand.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums