v0cab

Unfortunately Samsung began this fight by having the South Korean government block the iPhone from being sold in South Korea until Samsung could develop their competitor. Therefore Apple lost out in South Korea by being the first mover -- Samsung could just copy the iPhone and save on a lot of time and R&D costs.

Your future business may also be damaged if your potential American customers do not have money to buy your apps, because their jobs working at Apple in the US disappeared.

And what if you also found yourself unable to sell your apps in Asia due to the actions of protectionist governments there?

Samsung fired the first shot when they had the South Korean government delay the introduction of the iPhone to South Korea to give them time to develop a clone.

Samsung own the South Korean government. Samsung had the government delay the introduction of the iPhone to South Korea to give them time to clone it (the phone that Apple was paying them to manufacture!), so that they'd at least find it easier to break their domestic market with their clone.

Apple lost your respect for going against this?

If you were Apple, you would love to see Samsung win?

What? Apple's monopoly in Korea? What on earth are you talking about?

Samsung has a wider product range than Apple. If the same number of presently-sold products of both companies are banned, it will have a bigger effect on Apple.

This is South Korea, owned by Samsung. Samsung are absolutely not going to be punished in any meaningful way in South Korea.

The corrollary is, you need a way to force the kids to do stuff they don't want to do. That's what corporal punishment was for.

Problem is, other countries aren't necessarily as open as we are to outsourcing and foreign labour. For instance, Western universities have many Asian professors, especially in Math, Science, and Engineering. But South Korean universities very rarely employ foreign professors, at least not full professors.

This goes for many jobs in South Korea -- they simply don't want foreigners to do it, because foreigners aren't Korean. The exception is teaching English Conversation, because the Korean teachers very obviously can't do it well enough themselves. The government is trying to limit South Korea's reliance on foreign ESL teachers though.

This goes for outsourcing too -- the UK government is happy to consider having foreign companies build nuclear power plants or railway lines in the UK, but the South Korean government would rather have everything in South Korea done by South Korean companies, even setting up a company to do it if necessary.

When Westerners open their labour markets to foreigners and foreign companies, what can they do if the foreigners do not reciprocate?

Samsung and the other Korean phone companies used many anti-competitive tactics against foreign phone companies in South Korea. The original iPhone's introduction to South Korea was delayed, for instance. See articles I've linked in my history.

Samsung are an extremely unethical company. I try not to have anything to do with them whenever I can help it.

> What if Apple spent all this lawyer money instead on making a superior product that would beat their competitors, you know, because it was a better product, and not just go around and be the corporate Tonya Harding?

That's exactly what they did do with the iPhone. Samsung used their might to stop it from coming to South Korea and give themselves time to develop a knock-off of it.

Are you familiar with the 'hot coffee' case? I mean, have you actually looked into it, beyond "someone decided to sue for getting burned by coffee"?

Almost everyone who uses a spreadsheet wants to do basic arithmetic in it, though.

Look at the demo video on the site. There's a list of expenses and dollar costs. But you can't automatically sum them? Anyone familiar with spreadsheets would consider that a pretty fundamental feature.

What's more, the South Korean government (owned by Samsung) has been blocking and putting up barriers to foreign phones for years, including delaying the introduction of the original iPhone to South Korea, to give Samsung and co. a chance to develop competitors.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html if you want more info on South Korean protectionism in regards to phones.

You may also wish to read:

'Republic of Samsung' Confronts a Backlash http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/25/business/fi-samsung2...

This may also interest you:

Samsung doesn't find satirical spoof amusing http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/10/world/la-fg-korea-sa...

Odd that I'm not reading so much anger about all that Samsung has done on HackerNews and Reddit.

> Apple was the initial aggressor against HTC, Motorola and Samsung.

Samsung own the South Korean government, and they've been putting up obstacles to foreign phones in South Korea for years, even before the iPhone.

I mean that the phones were blocked for a while, before they were allowed.

I'm not American, but still I wouldn't mind seeing these South Korean chaebols get a taste of their own medicine.

Protectionism may reduce the overall efficiency of a system, but can be good for the individual actors within that system who implement it. I think Americans are more interested in their livelihoods than in the efficiency of world production. In fact total efficiency should never be our goal; that would make slaves of us all.

The original iPhone was blocked from South Korea for quite a while.

Here's more info on South Korean protectionism in relation to phones: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html?mod=...

The South Korean government (owned by Samsung) has been blocking and putting up barriers to foreign phones for years, including delaying the introduction of the iPhone to South Korea, to give Samsung and co. a chance to develop competitors.

I'm glad to see the US government blocking a South Korean product for once, if that is indeed what is happening.

When I was jobless and broke, I didn't have a computer. Difficult to start a web company.

Would be better phrased "try to find a better job."

Why does she want to learn C++? What does she want to achieve in the end?

Not everyone can upgrade to iOS 5.x for free. I had a first-gen iPod which couldn't upgrade to 4.x. The older devices have limitations on which iOS upgrades they can get.

That's one guy. There are millions of unemployed people.

Anyway, this kind of business would have been possible in the past with local newspaper ads and the Yellow Pages.

Don't most kinds of business require some capital to start?

The question is jerky.

But I don't know that the quality of the estimate is important in the case of putting golf balls on bus without a reason.

So there's some kind of aim relating to transporting the golf balls. That really should have been stated.

There are just too many possibilities here. We don't even know if it is a double- or single-decker bus. If we worked for a company that actually did do this kind of thing (fill things with objects), we would not start making estimates and assumptions based on so little information.

I still don't get it.

I don't know how you got that out of what I said. I think welfare is quite good.

The polygons onscreen question is a far better one, as it gives me a clue about the reason for asking, the kind of assumptions I can make, and the level of accuracy needed. The golf balls on bus example does not.

> And the seats really don't matter, volume-wise.

How do you know?

But in this case (golf balls on a bus), I don't know what kind of assumptions I can and cannot make. It isn't a real-world problem, so I can't use my 'common sense' to reason about its constraints.