• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Okay, so how did Samsung end up ruling android phones?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sweenish said:
It was HTC's to lose after the Evo 4G, that was the longstanding king of Android handsets.
Click to expand...
You mean their best device was on the worst US carrier (and nowhere else!) and carried a brand HTC couldn't even exploit themselves?

No further explanation needed.
 
They know the power of simple product branding through their flagships. Everybody knows for certain that the S3 is a fully incremental upgrade over the S2 without reading the specs, reviews etc. Doesn't hurt that the hardware then was head and shoulders over the competing Android makers either.

Now ask the same people about HTC phones. Nobody will know WTH was going on over there.
 
On Samsung copying Apple: the issue wasn't that anyone bought the Galaxy S thinking it was an iPhone. It was that Jane or Joe Q. Public would go to a carrier store, ask sales rep what they'd recommend, and get pointed to the Galaxy S because it was "just like the iPhone." The handset was built to ride the bandwagon, to appeal to a public that was primarily interested in someone else's product.

Look at the original Galaxy from 2009: it's designed nothing like the Galaxy S, and many of the strangely familiar-looking hardware and software traits weren't there. The S wasn't a subtle evolution of Samsung's design.
 
Last edited:
So in other words, Samsung recognized "what the public was primarily interested in" and made products accordingly.

Pretty much like every other business on the planet.

(IE: Toyota will even advertise how the Camry compares directly to the competition's Civic - or name your own example).

Both are exactly what a certain demographic expects both to be and look like- neither looks like a model T. (Which incidentally looked much like its contemporaries as well.)

Sure, Samsung went a bit too far copying the first S model, but then you could probably make the case originally that JVC and Pioneer made their first boxes look a little too much like Sony's (or any of any number of consumer products that look pretty damn similar to each other without the brand labels.)

Nobody ever really got all that sue-happy over one brand of rectangle with buttons on it looking similar to another when it was VCRs, TVs, radios, DVD players, remote controls, computers, a gazillion other electronic devices.

It's just that people think phones are super-duper-special; Apple certainly does. No one else was supposed to be allowed to make a rectangle with a touch screen. But too bad. Other people were going to, and have. That's what people now expect a modern cell phone to look like. Apple wanted to own the whole idea- but they can't. Tough.
 
Samsung had three big things going for it. First, Samsung parent was a large and prosperous company that could pour billions into growing the business. None of the stand alone manufacturers could do that. Second, Samsung had a wealth of experience from making components for Apple that no one else had. Even other conglomerates like LG and Sony lacked that. And third, Samsung had a good enough set of products pre-Iphone that they reached a very broad accessible market through existing carrier relationships.

And also they obviously ripped off the Iphone aesthetically. Google and interestingly even more so Samsung decided to pursue the market and ignore IP licensing until they couldn't anymore. Obviously this was an incredibly smart business decision, but the upshot is you get smacked around in court a bit until you reach licensing agreements. I don't see why some people get so upset about this, it's really just business.
 
Zaap said:
Sure, Samsung went a bit too far copying the first S model, but then you could probably make the case originally that JVC and Pioneer made their first boxes look a little too much like Sony's (or any of any number of consumer products that look pretty damn similar to each other without the brand labels.)

Nobody ever really got all that sue-happy over one brand of rectangle with buttons on it looking similar to another when it was VCRs, TVs, radios, DVD players, remote controls, computers, a gazillion other electronic devices.

It's just that people think phones are super-duper-special; Apple certainly does. No one else was supposed to be allowed to make a rectangle with a touch screen. But too bad. Other people were going to, and have. That's what people now expect a modern cell phone to look like. Apple wanted to own the whole idea- but they can't. Tough.
Click to expand...

Think you're being a little too apologetic for Samsung here.

I do think Apple used its design patents a bit overzealously, but look at it this way: it took a global lawsuit campaign to get Samsung to consider truly original ideas (notice the huge break in hardware and software layouts when the Galaxy S III came around). It would have otherwise been willing to take most of its design direction from Apple. The company is actually stronger because it has to think for itself… well, mostly.

If you want another example of Samsung's problem, look at the original Galaxy Tab 10.1. When it was unveiled at Mobile World Congress in February 2011, it was relatively thick with a pronounced rear curve. Days later, Apple unveiled the iPad 2; Samsung reacted by saying it "would not be outdone" by the iPad. Move forward five weeks, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was reintroduced at CTIA with a completely different, much thinner design… that looked considerably more like an iPad 2. At trial, Samsung lied and claimed that the redesign was due to other competitors who were at MWC, but the only other major rivals at that show were the Motorola Xoom and LG G-Slate, neither of which was significantly thinner than the original Tab 10.1 design (the G-Slate was only lighter because it was smaller). Anyone who wasn't a Samsung lawyer could see the iPad envy from a mile away.

That's the rub. Samsung's issue in 2010-2011 wasn't that it was making things look "a little too much" like a competitor's product, or using some kind of inevitable hardware design. This was overt, completely avoidable copying; phones from HTC, LG, Motorola, Sony and just about everyone else didn't look like the iPhone… but Samsung's did. Apple didn't sue those others over design patents.
 
Commodus said:
Think you're being a little too apologetic for Samsung here.

I do think Apple used its design patents a bit overzealously, but look at it this way: it took a global lawsuit campaign to get Samsung to consider truly original ideas (notice the huge break in hardware and software layouts when the Galaxy S III came around). It would have otherwise been willing to take most of its design direction from Apple. The company is actually stronger because it has to think for itself… well, mostly.
Click to expand...

Ehhh, Samsung is still on this copying spree/we need to be like Apple mentality. The whole Gold S4 and 64-bit debacle showed how weak Samsung was. Whoever was first didn't really matter. It was the fact that Samsung had to come out and go ME TOO that showed how incredibly insecure the company was. They might've stopped shamefully copying the iOS layout and stuff, but the core attitude is still the same.

If anything, adding "polish" to Android isn't doing favors for Samsung anymore at least amongst the tech crowd. TouchWiz is now known as the bloated UI and if anything takes away from the elegance and cleanliness of AOSP Android. Samsung was once needed in an era when Android looked like ass (2.0 - 2.3), but the TouchWiz platform is doing more damage than good nowadays.
 
desura said:
Shortly after the iphone was announced, the first android handset was actually built by HTC, right? The HTC G1 for Tmobile, with the chin and the screen that flipped out for a keyboard underneath.

So how is it that HTC is struggling (despite, IMO, superior build quality and design) compared to Samsung?
Click to expand...

its pretty simple, starting with the galaxy s2, they were the only company that actually offered people with all the features they wanted, and no other company has stepped up to offer any competition. you had companies like htc selling really low quality stuff with huge flaws like horrible battery life (incredible and thunderbolt) and companies like motorola selling stuff that was years obsolete at the time it was introduced. there was just no good alternative. its wasnt "marketing", samsung earned their market dominance, thats how things are supposed to work. lg is the only company the comes close to competing with samsung at the moment
 
Last edited:
Commodus said:
Think you're being a little too apologetic for Samsung here.

I do think Apple used its design patents a bit overzealously, but look at it this way: it took a global lawsuit campaign to get Samsung to consider truly original ideas (notice the huge break in hardware and software layouts when the Galaxy S III came around). It would have otherwise been willing to take most of its design direction from Apple. The company is actually stronger because it has to think for itself… well, mostly.

If you want another example of Samsung's problem, look at the original Galaxy Tab 10.1. When it was unveiled at Mobile World Congress in February 2011, it was relatively thick with a pronounced rear curve. Days later, Apple unveiled the iPad 2; Samsung reacted by saying it "would not be outdone" by the iPad. Move forward five weeks, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was reintroduced at CTIA with a completely different, much thinner design… that looked considerably more like an iPad 2. At trial, Samsung lied and claimed that the redesign was due to other competitors who were at MWC, but the only other major rivals at that show were the Motorola Xoom and LG G-Slate, neither of which was significantly thinner than the original Tab 10.1 design (the G-Slate was only lighter because it was smaller). Anyone who wasn't a Samsung lawyer could see the iPad envy from a mile away.

That's the rub. Samsung's issue in 2010-2011 wasn't that it was making things look "a little too much" like a competitor's product, or using some kind of inevitable hardware design. This was overt, completely avoidable copying; phones from HTC, LG, Motorola, Sony and just about everyone else didn't look like the iPhone… but Samsung's did. Apple didn't sue those others over design patents.
Click to expand...

Think about that. Samsung was able to reintroduce new thinner tablet in 5 weeks. That's crazy impressive. It takes some companies 5 weeks to design a logo. How many companies could have done what Samsung did in such short timeframe?
 
sweenish said:
This photo is the best biased representation. Physical size difference of the phones is visually obvious; they have been re-sized in this picture. The Samsung phone shows the drawer and not the home screen, which is what people see when turning on the phone.

It's also impossible for retail confusion because you're either buying your device under the giant Apple logo or you're not.

With that said, Samsung deserved to get busted, but not as hard as they did. Apple also should have had bounce-back revoked, as I feel that Samsung actually did a great job with strong evidence in that one aspect of their trial.

Samsung's strategy paid off, they are on top of the Android heap. I hope it doesn't last, but things need to happen first. People need to become aware of the Moto X, Sony needs to push updates the way Moto has been lately and advertise, and HTC needs to advertise as well as push updates in a timely manner.

Basically, people just don't know these other phones exist and are just as good.

A friend of mine wouldn't even consider the HTC One over the S4, just because of the buzz factor around the phones.
Click to expand...

Sony was talking about leaving Android and going back to basic phones for the rest of the world.

Moto is hit or miss. It seems like they only have one kick-ass phone every other generation.
 
DLeRium said:
The whole Gold S4 and 64-bit debacle showed how weak Samsung was. Whoever was first didn't really matter. It was the fact that Samsung had to come out and go ME TOO that showed how incredibly insecure the company was.
Click to expand...
Translation: I know I'm wrong, Samsung was first, and there was no "me too" (the gold devices were still only released where they'd long been scheduled to be released), but nothing's going to get in the way of a rant!
 
Samsung and Nokia had gold phones before Apple. Apple once again steals someone else's idea, and some are duped into giving Apple credit for it.
 
Commodus said:
it took a global lawsuit campaign to get Samsung to consider truly original ideas (notice the huge break in hardware and software layouts when the Galaxy S III came around). It would have otherwise been willing to take most of its design direction from Apple. The company is actually stronger because it has to think for itself… well, mostly.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that roundish design trend of the S3 suuucked in my opinion. That phone is like a throwback. The S4 and Note 3 finally get back on track with the same design sense of the S2.

I'm not one that believes Apple owns the rights to a rectangle with rounded corners and a touch screen, so Apple can go suck on 1 billion dollars in imaginary nickels if they (or any of their crazier fans) think they can own that form factor.
 
s44 said:
Translation: I know I'm wrong, Samsung was first, and there was no "me too" (the gold devices were still only released where they'd long been scheduled to be released), but nothing's going to get in the way of a rant!
Click to expand...
Heh. The gold phone thing is just beyond stupid, but it's still laugh-worthy when people cite that.

Meanwhile, ...plastic phones that come in multiple colors? TOTALLY ORIGINAL IDEAS!

Notice how with the crazy "everyone copied Apple" crowd, it only goes so far before they develop selective amnesia.
 
So I hopped into Best Buy today, and whaddya know but there is a display of NON-WORKING ANDROID PHONES. None of the HTC phones worked, but instead had dummy display stickers, I managed to find one working MotoX after running into like 3 dummies, and so on.

Meanwhile, all the apple phones worked of course, and there was a nice laid out table with working samsung phones.

Simple things like that probably end up driving a lot of sales.

but looking at it, the Samsung phones are basically iphone-like in the appeal. They don't seem to be excessively nerdy like the droid phone line or all of the map like HTC's.
 
Last edited:
desura said:
Meanwhile, all the apple phones worked of course, and there was a nice laid out table with working samsung phones.
Click to expand...

the employee at the apple section in Best Buy works for apple right? probably that's how the apple phones work

wonder who was fixing those samsung phones
 
I think a major factor in samsung's success is its hold over the developing countries, low end devices and microsd card. In my country I have seen only 5 iphones (i live in a city though) physically and it's not unusual as they cost like $800+ equivalent at launch, without the desired features like expandable storage, ability to share whatever file you want with any other device, different screen sizes, and really really low price.

Carriers don't exist in my country and that makes things far more in favour of someone like Samsung.

Cloud is meaningless with low income levels, high data charges and crappy coverage; so microsd is killer.

Everyone (I am not exaggerating) uses pirated music and other stuff and thus itunes doesn't mean jack.

Well, my points are probably more towards what makes android successful. But particularly for Samsung, I think the marketing thing does work really well. I have seen in almost every reputable retailer who also deal in other brands have a dedicated samsung employee to give demonstration of their phones while for sony or LG, even the exclusive showrooms had the real phones in boxes and only plastic demos were on the table. So anyone who goes to a store to buy a phone ends up getting a samsung midrange phone like galaxy duos or grand.

And yes, that's how people here go to a store, not to buy an iphone or a galaxy phone or an experia, but a phone. So they make decision in 15 to 30 minutes balancing between price, size, specs, camera and look and get a samsung phone because that nice lady showed them what and how they can do things in the device, while other brands are still in the shelves without human contact.
 
Samsung for awhile made the best Android phones. The galaxy S II (i9100) was the best phone of its era. They have/had the best modded firmware community and a long life due to a user replaceable battery (many 2011 era batteries are toast by this point but at least on a Samsung you can get a new one for cheap). They're easy to unlock and thus re-sell.

Even though they've diluted the "Galaxy" lineup with a million and one models, the "Galaxy S" series is their flagship and it is almost sacrosanct (a few shitty North American carrier specific galaxy s2's notwithstanding). Aside from Apple, no other handset maker has such a clear flagship product launch schedule. HTC diluted its brand with a million models and no clear flagship - Desire, Hero, Legend, Evo, One....

It helps that Samsung has boatloads of cash, and let's just say a liberal approach to aping features from its competitors.

It also helped that their competitors were all spinning their wheels -- Motorola was imploding; LG was late to the party and only got it's sh!t together in the last 12 months or so; Nokia went Windows; Blackberry wasn't innovating at all and Apple was only selling 1-2 high priced phones.

It's important to mention too that Samsung phones were/are really easy to unlock, and generally quite reliable and easy to repair, too. Couple that with a user-replaceable battery and better OS updating than just about anyone besides Google (until recently) and you have a phone with a fantastic life compared to its competitors... My old Galaxy S2 and S3 are still in use, just not by me (I sold them as unlocked phones each time I upgraded).


I think Samsung's market share should erode now that there are so many competent competitors, but they have built themselves a great brand image to this point. Each new Samsung flagship launch is an event, even if the S4 was a little underwhelming.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't get HTC's naming scheme.

Heck, I get confused by it. Last year was the One and now it is the One X? What's next year gonna be?
 
s44 said:
Translation: I know I'm wrong, Samsung was first, and there was no "me too" (the gold devices were still only released where they'd long been scheduled to be released), but nothing's going to get in the way of a rant!
Click to expand...

You guys just keep repeating the same thing over and over again right? The gold iPhone was rumored months before the release. Even if the gold GS4 was in Samsung's pipeline, you think they would've come out showing off the gold GS4 if it weren't for Apple? 2 days after the A7 processor, Samsung comes out and says the 64-bit Galaxy is coming soon?

This isn't an argument about who's first. This is about how Samsung seems so obsessed with what Apple's doing and having a "me too" mentality. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Apple doesn't copy. They copied the notification drawer, and widgets, and quick toggles. Did they come out and make a big deal about it and act go "Hey Android users, we have a notification drawer too!!!!" Samsung just screams desperate. Sure it's worked, but how much respect do they deserve for that attitude? I'm not too impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top