Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Jul 2012 23:08 UTC
Permalink for comment 525364
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-02
No it is not. If you want that similar decisions follow in the future as a protectionalist measure, you have to keep in mind that Europe and Asia may also follow suit, and judging by the population (313M vs 739M and 1,339M from China alone), you might not like the result of that. Not that I expect something like this would actually happen anytime soon.
Why wouldn't it be relevant? First, the Galaxy Nexus is produced by Samsung AND Google. Especially in this case, the "fault" (which it is not, of course) lies with Google. Second, all the stuff that makes up an Apple device (be it a laptop, cell phone or iPod) is produced in Asia, mostly by foreign companies from foreign R&D. So if you want to be consistent, you should frown upon Apple products, too. Or if you are only worried about the label, well, it's *Google* Nexus, not Samsung Nexus.
I guess you are right in that. However, do you think that most of that R&D stuff goes into refrigerators and clothing? I do not doubt for a second that most of it goes into electronics -- for example, into AMOLED (which is not Samsung Electronics, but definitely something we have on our phones). Also, you might want to muse for a few minutes on why Samsung became the initial supplier for retina displays instead of LG or Sharp, if not for their investments in the area?
Except the first list is about 2010; but aside from that, there is not a single column in either table labelled "money spent on innovation". They try to get that information out of stock market statistics and expectations, in other words, out of their ass.
Nice language, BTW.
Edited 2012-07-05 11:53 UTC