Hacker News Reader

Comment by headShrinker | Hacker News Reader

Every company has it's moments, but why does Samsung so often come off as particularly petty. Whether it's completely knocking off designs or launching half-baked products, or buying all the ad space on the day of an apposing company's product launch. The rules of capitalism allow all of this behavior, but generally mankind frowns upon it when this behavior is exhibited by a person. Why is it not frowned upon when it is exhibited by a group of people operating as one; as a corporation?

View on HN

Well, your opinion is your own, but there's nothing wrong with this. Apple could have just as easily bought the space. Here in San Francisco, Samsung bought all the ad space in all the BART (subway) stations for weeks leading up to and after the release of the iPhone 5 to tout the S3. It's just marketing strategy and it's a pretty good one, especially if millions (billions?) of dollars are riding on the fact that people recognize your product instead of a competing one.

Granted, while effective, Samsung's strategy is rather predictable and easily (albeit expensively) countered by buying the ad space yourself. Why Apple didn't do this, I don't know. It would have been the first thing I would have done as the VP of Marketing at Apple once I knew the launch date.

Why bother paying a ton for ad space on the day when you know that the site will basically be a giant ad for you anyway?

Apple spends almost nothing compared to Samsung's giant advertising dollars anyways. They don't need to, really - Apple's solid reputation lets the media do their ads for them.

Just like how Apple doesn't need to buy billboards at the mall when they have bright, inviting stores of their product to entice you.

...to stop your competitor getting it?

Also, why wait until you've announced a major media event before buying advertising to coincide with said media event?

In other words, if Samsung is buying advertising to crowd out competitors' ads on the day of an Apple product launch, Apple is surely not the competitor they're hoping to crowd out.

Apple does stuff like book so much air freight space from China that they squeeze out other users:

http://www.cultofmac.com/150519/massive-apple-air-freight-de...

Bad for the planet too, and all just to save a couple of weeks on a boat. Buying up ad space seems pretty minor by comparison. I guess minor does go along with "petty". Funny how we're sometimes much more upset about a small slight than a large one.

Those aren't just a couple of weeks on a boat. Those are probably some of the most valuable weeks in the global economy today. The faster you can move product the better, especially when you're Apple and you're trying to maximize how many you sell right after a launch.

If you're trying to draw a comparison, maybe a better way to compare would be to say that Apple buys up empty carriers just to keep Samsung from moving their stuff?

Inventory sitting around on a boat for a couple of weeks costs you a lot of money. We're not talking about sewing machines or anvils here, we're talking about a high-margin item that weighs very little and is extremely "perishable". Air-freight is perfect for this.

Well, they only do it once a year. I have to wonder just how much it would really cost to move production up a couple of weeks, or move the release down a couple of weeks. Most of the time they're fine waiting for inventory to come over the slow way.

The cost of shipping a phone by plane is insignificant because they're booking so much capacity. This isn't like FedExing one phone from your house to a friend. This is a whole other scale. They probably only pay a couple of bucks and they save way more than that by not having to stockpile these phones anywhere, with heavy security to keep them from "leaking", for weeks on end.

Apple turns over their inventory almost as fast as McDonald's. Think about that.

It comes off as petty because you don't like them. It doesn't come off as petty to me - I simply don't think about Samsung, so I don't brood about it either. I can't see any analogy between Samsung and individuals. Whether something is a knockoff or half-baked seems to be your judgment.

Comes off as smart to me

Still, this is a decision made by individuals who thought it was a smart move.

If a person did this, it would be the kind of thing they would answer for the "successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage" question on the YC application.

Since when is "pay a bunch of money" any sort of "hack"? Granted the term "hack" is being watered down, but has it slipped this far? Did I "hack" myself a cup of coffee today? Nope, I paid for it.

The "paying money" is just the means of the "hack", not the "hack" itself. The hack is recognizing that there is a great, targeted opportunity to keep your product in customers' minds on one of the biggest marketing days for your biggest competitor. If anything, Samsung saved money by using it efficiently.

I've always said, somebody needs to tell Samsung that they're a market leader. They act like a cheap Chinese knock-off company in spite of their strong position and brand.

On the contrary, I think it's pretty cool and creative that they did this. Very tactical of them.

But then, I'm also very neutral in the iPhone vs. Android debate.

Apple is plenty petty, too. Remember when they blocked Google Voice because it "replicated existing functionality"?

Why is it not frowned upon when it is exhibited by a group of people operating as one; as a corporation?

Because who cares, aside from Apple fans? When an individual is petty, the target of that pettiness is a person. When a company is petty, the target of that pettiness is another company. Why become personally attached to that? It isn't your profit at stake.

Besides, if we judged companies that way what would Walmart be? A sociopathic killer, or something...

It comes off as petty because they buy up the ad space specifically to try to get in someone else's way. They didn't buy it specifically because they have a product launch. They didn't buy it just on a random day. They bought it to try to hamstring a competitor. To me, that's negative competition rather than positive (trying to drag someone else down rather than to elevate yourself). That's petty.

There is no way this can be called 'negative competition'. This could be considered grey if you count every single interaction between competitors as such. If this is petty than Mac-Windows ads must be categorized disgustingly so.

Do you think it's petty when a grocery store puts their own bottle of blue stuff next to the Windex?

Is making their own blue stuff petty, or is it when they display it next to the brand name blue stuff that it becomes petty?

Good for Samsung, good for smartphone buyers, and even if it's not good for Apple's bottom line this year, this sort of competition should be healthy. If they can't compete with the knock-offs, it's time to stop buying Apple products.

Why is "launching half-baked products" petty? And why does mankind frown upon it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com