| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eedoryeong
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Location: Jeju
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
 Good gravy, I'm aware of the fecundity involved in evolving ideas, for Pete's sake. The string orchestra is an Italian expansion using the idea of the choral family applied to the violin that was picked up during the Crusades, the violin itself having come from India where it was played between the feet seated like a teeny tiny cello, blah blah blah. Yes people use stuff from other things but in the historical examples others have cited, they actually make new things.
Obviously I've touched a nerve /cut close to the bone with somebody... but my comment can be contextualized more recently and more corporately - but FWIW, Honda to Hyundai does not equal gunpowder to brass cannons.
I was thinking within the boundaries of the OP (clearly crossed when invoking history) : Samsung/Apple, Honda/Hyundai, which made me think of the US stolen nuke tech/Chinese nukes and the US stealth tech/Chinese stealth tech
(why is Asia dreaming of going to the moon? Really? Because there's a US flag there? Why not Europa, Mars, or other ET locales of more recent interest with obviously more life-sustaining potential and therefore more potential to obliterate the achievements of their space-race forebears by completely changing the game?)
(and while I'm on the point why do truly great creators or innovators in Asia such as Korea's luminary young architect featured in the Shanghai expo or Pororo's creator who has single-handedly raked in a king's ransom for his company barely get a footnote of appreciation in their home countries? Back home these guys would be giving talks for the rest of their lives on how to cultivate more of the same from up-and-coming generations, not toiling away anonymously in chaebol basements)
I'm more interested in reading/talking about how this bump on the nose for Samsung is going to affect how the company's R&D will be steered differently, if at all. And that's only because I suspect they are in similar waters as their Chinese and Japanese counterparts. But I think what Modernist and fermentation said cut to the center of it pretty quickly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
The fact that people graduate from college and don't know these kinds of things is embarrassing. |
This is surely the weakest riposte in the apologista's quiver, and ironically, considering the thread's topic, one of the most unoriginal.
Last edited by atwood on Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eedoryeong wrote: |
| I think what
and fermentation said cut to the center of it pretty quickly. |
I'd agree too with the Korean emphasis on superficiality. I was looking at an article on the new Hyundai Veloster which stated, "Korean buyers don't like corporate steering wheels, so Hyundai makes a different one for each car. "
So everything else about the car can be the same, for example the color (any color you want as long as its black or white, to paraphrase Henry Ford) but if something innocuous like the steering wheel is different, it's different. This difference for difference's sake, of course, ignores the benefits that consistency can bring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fermentation wrote: |
| . Almost every paper I've read on ROK military doctrine either explains concepts in American doctrine or explores ways to implement American doctrine into Korean operational thinking. . |
Since America still has peacetime control over the ROK military...this should hardly be suprising. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PastorYoon
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: Sea of Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is great news. I hope that company goes down the drain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| fermentation wrote: |
| . Almost every paper I've read on ROK military doctrine either explains concepts in American doctrine or explores ways to implement American doctrine into Korean operational thinking. . |
Since America still has peacetime control over the ROK military...this should hardly be suprising. |
Actually peace time operational control of ROK forces transferred back to Korea in 1994.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
Samsung Motors went belly up and was bought by Renault/Nissan. They kept the name, but that's it.
The cars were always Nissans. |
But Renault-Samsung is the main glue between Nissan and Renault. Maybe it wasn't for the profit but for the inter-company trusts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maladict23
Joined: 17 May 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I *heart* Samsung. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NohopeSeriously wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
Samsung Motors went belly up and was bought by Renault/Nissan. They kept the name, but that's it.
The cars were always Nissans. |
But Renault-Samsung is the main glue between Nissan and Renault. Maybe it wasn't for the profit but for the inter-company trusts. |
No it's not. Renault and Nissan merged in 1998 because Nissan was going under and Renault wanted to sell cars in Asia and North America. Goshn came over to Nissan from Renault, instituting the changes that helped Nissan return to profitability.
Where are you getting your information? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
komerican
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Konglishman
...............
The patent case between Samsung and Apple are still in the courts. Samsung actually has a lot of patents. So unless there are experts in this field it's a bit silly to draw any conclusions now.
btw, Apple just lost their patent case against Nokia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case
| Quote: |
| The Finnish phone-maker Nokia could receive a one-off payment of more than �800m (�700m) from Apple and receive further royalties of �8 per iPhone sold in future, after winning a settlement in a long-running patents dispute |
Apple got caught infringing on Nokia patents. But of course Apple is so inventive  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No way is Samsung failing - they are making a killing from ripping off the iPhone! And I don't see how Apple is going to prove that in court unless they find a snitch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eedoryeong
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="atwood"][quote="Steelrails"]
| carleverson wrote: |
| Eedoryeong wrote: |
The fact that people graduate from college and don't know these kinds of things is embarrassing. |
This is surely the weakest riposte in the apologista's quiver, and ironically, considering the thread's topic, one of the most unoriginal. |
Did I write that? I think I didn't. I think you should delete this misquote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eedoryeong
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| fermentation wrote: |
| . Almost every paper I've read on ROK military doctrine either explains concepts in American doctrine or explores ways to implement American doctrine into Korean operational thinking. . |
Since America still has peacetime control over the ROK military...this should hardly be suprising. |
I think a point is being missed. Since America has had peacetime control over the ROK there has been ample opportunity for the ROK to develop its own military tech solutions but hasn't. The fact that they work alongside their US ally needn't necessarily have an effect on Korean innovation. Isn't that what fermentation was raising? I think the point stands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
markhan
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| No way is Samsung failing - they are making a killing from ripping off the iPhone! And I don't see how Apple is going to prove that in court unless they find a snitch. |
You do know that many of key components of iPhone are provided by Samsung, right? Below is the snippet from an article on the rise of suppliers as a result of increased sales of iPhone.
"Based on the results, one of the biggest winners is South Korean chipmaker Samsung Electronics, which is making the main microprocessor used to run the phone's operating system and various applications. Samsung, the world's largest memory chip manufacturer, is also making a type of memory called NAND flash for the iPhone."
As Komerican has said above, Samsung Electronics has tons of patents pertaining to mobile phones. After all, Samsung has been in a mobile phone business a lot longer than Apple's. Apple's premium is in the design and charisma of Steven Job, enabling them to obtain components at a very low price from various world's suppliers. Their strength is not in technical innovation but rather in design, usability, marketing, and last and perhaps most importantly, their small and yet devoted Apple fanatics. As such, there is no company in the world where the image and value sorely depends on one man, Steven Job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Eedoryeong"][quote="atwood"]
| Steelrails wrote: |
| carleverson wrote: |
| Eedoryeong wrote: |
The fact that people graduate from college and don't know these kinds of things is embarrassing. |
This is surely the weakest riposte in the apologista's quiver, and ironically, considering the thread's topic, one of the most unoriginal. |
Did I write that? I think I didn't. I think you should delete this misquote. |
I edited it for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
