“The surge in the popularity of inexpensive but cutting-edge smartphones is more than just another marketplace success story,” John Burnett writes for FOX News. “It is one with profound social implications, particularly among low-income Black and Hispanic consumers who have long been on the losing end of the digital divide.”
“If there has been any recent development that has helped to bridge that divide in communities like my own here in Harlem, it has been the advent of low-priced smartphones,” Burnett writes. “Indeed, studies have shown that Black and Hispanics access the Internet on a cellphone, tablets or other mobile handheld devices at demonstrably higher rates than whites. ”
“However, the days of inexpensive smart phones may be coming to an abrupt end, due in large part to an ongoing patent dispute playing out in a federal district court in California,” Burnett writes. “Apple, the maker of high-end devices like the iPhone, is suing Samsung, the maker of more inexpensive devices, claiming that Samsung has copied its technology.”
“Apple must stop waging this legal war on its main competitor, Samsung, because it is anti-competitive and could ultimately decimate the smartphone market that is enabling the digitally disenfranchised go online,” Burnett writes. “Some experts note that the legal remedies sought by Apple, which caters to a relatively affluent clientele, could translate into higher costs being passed on to consumers who have come to depend on the inexpensive products offered by competitors, which cost roughly $370 less on average… For all its standing as a model of American ingenuity and success, Apple serves a relatively narrow segment of the market with a limited number of smartphones – 3 – that fetch premium prices.”
Complete stupidity here.
MacDailyNews Take: You know, because protecting your property is wrong. It should instead be freely given to a corrupt South Korean conglomerate and 500 other crapola outfits around the world in order to help U.S. minorities afford smartphones and because $0 for an iPhone 4S is too expensive.
Imagine the melodic stylings of Burnett’s tune if a black person invented and patented the iPhone in Harlem and then, over in California, a bunch of white guys at Apple immediately decided to blatantly and clearly infringe upon these patents in order to mimic the operating system, offer it to every Tom, Dick and Harry handset assembler on earth, churn out their own knockoffs and, oh by the way, grabbing the bulk of smartphone market share in the process?
Somehow we believe that Burnett’s little ditty would have an entirely different sound.
—
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Edward W.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Apple already has its first victory in new $2 billion Samsung patent infringement fight – March 31, 2014
Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial begins today (link to live blog) – March 31, 2014
How Google reacted when Steve Jobs revealed the revolutionary iPhone – December 19, 2013
Stealing designs by another company is anti-competitive.
Doublethink ©George Orwell
To know and to not know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy is impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy. To forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Robbery Is Competition
Don’t panic folks, there’s always the Obamaphone for the minorities. It’s made in Kenya with natural tree bark so it won’t pollute the environment.
That’s right, the government has thought of everything. Everything except get you a job.
This message was brought to you by the Dept of Labor and supported by your President.
Read the article dim wit, it’s from Fox News!
But what if I like my cell plan provider. Can I get an Obamaphone and keep old provider?
“Listen, I’ll say it again. If you like your provider, you’ll be able to keep your old provider.”
Oh, Okay if you say so it must be the truth.
Sorry folks, I couldn’t help myself. hehe
“digitally disenfranchised.”
insanity.
I’m “Catherine Zeta-Jones Challenged”…I blame .
As typical of online journalist they don’t have a clue. The phone are only “low-priced” because of subsides. I am of course assuming the author is comparing Samsung phones that are of similar smartness as the iPhone.
Also, the article would have been better without the race comments.
This is absurd. If it wasn’t from Fox News I might be mad. MDN has the perfect take, I couldn’t state it better. I would add that any software changes may be Googles problems and since Android is free shouldn’t effect Samsung prices. Did someone pay this guy to write suck nonsense?
Samsung pays bloggers. Enough said, right?
Hey, John Burnett, thanks for writing that. I’m going to reuse it on my site and not give you any compensation. And why should I? Fox pays you big bucks and not me, right? Your “Robin Hood” scenario so completely ignores the possibility that Samsung and Google could have created their own ideas rather than copying, without compensation, Apple’s work.
to the idiot author of the article:
Samsung can STILL sell cheap phones even AFTER paying Apple royalties (like HTC does) if Samsung was willing to CUT the BILLIONS it makes in profits. Why do higher costs have to passed to the CONSUMER, when costs can be covered by Samsung’s billions in profits… ?
And if Apple refuses to license out certain patents then Samsung can still sell cheap phones with fewer features (why does a cheap need to provide as many features as an expensive phone? The ONLY REASON Samsung can do so : cheap phones with iPhone features is because it is STEALING and not spending millions of $ and years on R&D).
Besides Samsung has already stated in court nobody buys a phone because of Apple patent features. So since these are valueless features in Samsung’s mind, why do android phones absolutely need to have them?
I read the article. It was so full of holes, bad “facts” and BS that coming to a bad conclusion was easy.
After all, its fox news, and we know fox has a very slanted focus on news…. ok, well not really news…. just slanted news.
Just me saying.
Oh my, can’t play that race card MDN even if it’s the truth. There’s a new “entitled” in America and this guys writing about them.
Perhaps the network’s new slogan ought to be, “Fair and Averaged.”
Fox news and poor people, the never ending war.
First of all, there are more poor white people then minorities. A distinction white people do not care to brag about. Furthermore, the last thing a poor person regardless of their race desires let alone afford is a $650.00 smart phone as they have difficulty supporting themselves and family and worry of their future.
This article is based on the faulty premise that only Android phones are inexpensive; it fails to consider older iPhones that are available, functional, and cheap.
It is also necessary to discuss the costs of devices and service plans, since these are joint purchases: you need both. Many phones are sold in the context of service plans, and many people may not fully understand how much they are paying for each. Phone company charges can easily exceed the device purchase cost over time, so it is important to understand. It is hard to be sympathetic to people who whine about needing an absolutely “affordable” device, who are nevertheless happy to substantially overpay phone companies for service plans they don’t really need.
Lastly, the author neglects to address the “security divide” faced by those people who feel their only option is to buy a cheap Android phone ‘out of economic necessity’, when this decision consigns the buyer to a lower class of smartphone user with intrinsically greater security and privacy risk.
I am sensitive to the fact that many people are cost-sensitive. A lot of people would be better off buying inexpensive devices and service plans, and putting what they save into a savings or retirement account. But there are options out there besides Android.
You can get older iPhones from between $0 and $80. If you ask around, you might be able to find a relative, friend, or co-worker with an unused iPhone sitting in a drawer that they will pass along for free. Ebay has 1st generation iPhones listed for under $20; 3G phones listed for $20 to $40, and 3GS iPhones listed for $50 to $80.
Depending on need, phone service can be bought for as little as $10 per month, which also provides (limited) cellular data service. (I am experimenting with AirVoice Wireless, which uses the AT&T cellular system …might even be a subsidiary of AT&T, who knows? But there are others.) You can pay more, for more service, too. A few weeks ago I bought a $10 Pay-As-You-Go plan (good for 3 months, unless used first). I put that SIM card in an old 1st gen iPhone and lent it to someone new to the country until they had the time to buy their own phone and service plan. I was surprised how well it worked. Phone, text, email, web browsing, and WiFi functionality. I admit the chip is slow. But it was a useful communication device and pocket computer while my friend hunted for an apartment in the big city — basically for free. I will now look to pass it along to someone who can use it.
I am tired of people talking about the value of, or need for, “cheap” Android phones without considering the alternative of an older iPhone (which is probably more secure) and less-expensive phone company service plans. There may be better iPhone alternatives to the need for so-called “cheap” Android phones. These alternatives may not be right for everyone, but they may be perfectly suitable telecoms solutions for many.
My personal experience is with black musicians. Eighty percent of the ones I know have iPhones. Even among poor, struggling people, if you appreciate the difference, you find a way. The withers concept is both silly and racist.
Tom H,
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments.
To eldernorm,
To say Fox News is slanted one way and not address at all the left-leaning bias of the other news networks is a little disingenuous, wouldn’t you say?
Since when is a personal comment at a blog subject to the fair-use doctrine? Since never, that’s when. It doesn’t even get applied to news commentary on anything like a consistent basis, so why take it out on one man? Keep your ammunition dry and don’t squander it on rustling underbrush like an amateur. Besides, just about everyone gets that mainstream media are left leaning, so there is no need for a seminar on that.
I’m not so sure I can agree everyone gets that mainstream media are left leaning. People believe what they want to believe, facts just don’t matter much to a majority of people.
John Burnett, “…could ultimately decimate the smartphone market…”. hum, decimate is the incorrect word. When I hear or read someone use, decimate (means in tenths) my question always is, “what about the other 90%”?
I fixed Burnett’s article for him…
“The surge in the popularity of inexpensive but cutting-edge luxury cars is more than just another marketplace success story,” John Burnett writes for FOX News. “It is one with profound social implications, particularly among low-income Black and Hispanic consumers who have long been on the losing end of the luxury car divide.”
“If there has been any recent development that has helped to bridge that divide in communities like my own here in Harlem, it has been the advent of low-priced, stolen luxury cars,” Burnett writes. “Indeed, studies have shown that Black and Hispanics access the interstates in a BMW, Mercedes or other stolen luxury car at demonstrably higher rates than whites. “
“However, the days of inexpensive stolen luxury cars may be coming to an abrupt end, due in large part to an ongoing dispute playing out in a federal district court in California,” Burnett writes. “BMW, the maker of high-end cars like the 650i convertible, is suing Bubba & Sons, Inc., the seller of inexpensive luxury cars, claiming that Bubba & Sons has stolen the cars they sell.”
“BMW must stop waging this legal war on its main competitor, Bubba & Sons, because it is anti-competitive and could ultimately decimate the stolen luxury car market that is enabling the transportationally disenfranchised go to New Jersey,” Burnett writes. “Some experts note that the legal remedies sought by BMW, which caters to a relatively affluent clientele, could translate into higher costs being passed on to consumers who have come to depend on the stolen products offered by Bubba & Sons, which cost roughly $37,000 less on average… For all its standing as a model of German ingenuity and success, BMW serves a relatively narrow segment of the market with a limited number of luxury cars that fetch premium prices.”
Apple must stop waging this legal war on its main competitor, Samsung, because it is anti-competitive and could ultimately decimate the smartphone market that is enabling the digitally disenfranchised go online.
This is EXACTLY what Loon Level Liberals, aka sap sucking socialists, FOIST on the world:
“DESTROY INCENTIVE and CALL IT COMPETITION!”
No, that’s insane. That’s why communism is always a total FAIL from day one.
Caring about others is part of being humane. But raping inventors, destroying the benefits of INVENTING, is the ruination of ALL business, of ALL commerce.
That’s insane. Go study the history of EVERY communist state ever created. What happens on DAY ONE?
And then there is the incoherent, incomprehensible fact that this is some dickhead from FOX attempting to shove the WORST of socialism down out throats. WTF? Corporate Oligarchy butt-licking FOX allowed this lunatic article to be published? Good gawd, a pig just flew past my window.
Have another bar of lead with your coffee Mr. Murdoch?
Anyone notice the date?
Yes, the date the article was posted on March 31. You’re welcome.