Samsung is a big technology behemoth that is fully vertically integrated in hardware, giving it economies of scale and cost to build very price-competitive electronic devices. However, Samsung still lacks the talent of software innovation that Apple has and Nokia has ably demonstrated in its low-cost cellphone dominance. Samsung’s biggest asset is its vertical integration, enabling it to design its chips, manufacture them, build LCDs and its own complete mobile devices in-house, giving it a unique selling proposition of offering lower price points due to lower cost of production. However, Samsung continues to imitate Apple, even the recently launched mobile phone, Galaxy S4, is not a compellingly innovative product.
Much of Samsung’s edge comes from Google which has enabled Samsung and others to unleash competition with Apple by offering a free mobile operating system—Android. Without Android, there is no Samsung high-end mobile phone or tablets. Google benefits by staying on the new mobile platforms to dominate “search”. Samsung, obviously, has benefited more since it has capitalised on Google’s free software offering and leveraged its vertically integrated hardware supply chain to dominate the high-end mobile cellphone and tablet market.
Apple and other Silicon Valley high-technology companies invest very heavily to generate new intellectual property to differentiate it in the hyper-competitive technology markets. It is their right to defend their hard-earned innovations and not be outdone by imitators and free-loaders. Samsung will not always be at the top because no company can be numero UNO globally for too long.
Vinod Dham, V-C and father of the Pentium chip
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Hello Vinod Dham,
We have heard a lot about you and we admire you but wonder, were you having the Apple stocks that make some part of your personal networth in mind, when trying to pen such a hopelessly biased article such as this?
Yes Samsung is a COPY CAT, but please tell us which of Apple's products are original..
The IPod ? No way, MP3 Players existed well before Apple thought of it..
IPhone? Not at all. the idea of smartphones with touch screens dates back to a decade before Iphones were brought..
Macintosh PCs with GUI.. Come on, Xerox Corporation did lot of work on all this before apple was even born..
IPad? Seriously the idea of touchscreen enabled smart handheld computers goes back to Palm and many other clones..
Apple has been ahuge commercial success but that doesnt mean that the one who makes money always is original. It is not..
The huge advancement in technologies in last 30 years has been on the backs of pathbreaking innovations made in previous thirty years (specifically btw 1940 and 1970) but it is just that many of those who drove these innovations were not smart enough to cash in on them...
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT