Samsung in a memo to employees after losing to Apple:
History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.
By innovation, do they mean blatantly copying Apple?
They’re right, except that excerpt should have come out of the Apple memo, not the Samsung one.
“We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.”
And they have indeed ‘proved this beyond doubt’.
The memo is purely propaganda.
Their culture lacks critical thinking, which makes it fairly easy for them to brainwash people with delusional disinformation like this.
Promoting hatred is much preferred than admitting guilt, losing face or damaging their pride.
Hmm… maybe they’re actually North Korean- aren’t they the experts in brainwashing and delusional propaganda?
Keep repeating a lie and eventually some people will believe it.
I think by innovation they mean their technical expertise in executing a perfect copy in no time at all.
“Their culture lacks critical thinking…”!?! I think you may be risking pot-calling-kettle-black syndrome on the “Promoting hatred” front. (Unless you actually meant the culture of the company, rather than the culture of South Korea, in which case I humbly retract my criticism.)
Strange choice of words, It’s like if Samsung took an Apple Internal Memo and twisted It their way.
The Original may have Looked like this :
«History has shown [that Apple] has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth [by pursuing Innovation], [While defending its Intelectual Property against rogues companies].
[PS : No Worries, No Apple Employes lost too much precious Time over litigations. We have Lawyers for That… and enough money to pay them]»
Funny how after the Reconstruction of the Original Apple Memo Samsung Used to do Its own, I had left-overs that simply and concisely defines Samsung Business Model :
«[Samsung] has yet to be a company [of Its own] when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.»
I think you should have digested the comment a bit more, and a little further reading wouldn’t hurt. Do a search for : “critical thinking Korea”, “rote learning vs critical thinking asia” & “confucian society critical thinking”
The context of my comment was around the propaganda, the exploitive nature of the propaganda, and possible reason for the propaganda. All three sentences maintain and cohere to the context.
I’m kind of confused on how you could consider the statement “Their culture lacks critical thinking” risking pot-calling-kettle-black syndrome, when you just validated that an insufficiency is derogatory by suggesting this idiom and focusing on the hatred aspect. Depending on which side of the fence your on, or if your not on either side, it could be interpreted in many ways. Believe it or not, some cultures prefer systematic thinking and view critical thinking as inefficient and dangerous.
“Unless you actually meant the culture of the company, rather than the culture of South Korea, in which case I humbly retract my criticism.”
Your logic is bit flawed considering that a company reflects it’s own society’s cultures and values.
Sorry, but I won’t be following your instructions to google to find your propaganda. My point was that you were possibly (and I now see, definitely) making a racist generalization about all the members of a group based on what may or may not be valid information about some subset of that group.
And as far as corporate culture reflecting the overall culture, I won’t deny this could be the case in some societies (I’m certainly not familiar with all or even the majority of existing combinations). However, once again you’re generalizing to a disturbing degree, especially given all the instances through history when corporations have been so in conflict with their containing societies’ culture that legal and/or social action was necessary in order to bring them back in line (for one simple legal example — AT&T pre-breakup… and possibly post-breakup, for that matter). At least in the US, I would say that corporate culture is seldom very much in line with any significant (population-wise) cultural mores and ethics of any culture or sub-culture of our society.
I’m sorry to have ruffled your feathers. It was not my intention.
If you would actually take the time and digest, you would have notice that I didn’t provide direct links or source, but rather I suggested googling relative terms to the discussion. I provided a method and a template for you to inform yourself with choice. This is quite contrary to the nature of propaganda which is limited and misleading. If you actually searched the last term “confucian society and critical thinking”, you might have learned that confucianism teaching is linked to critical thinking. I’m a bit surprised that you decided on ignorance, which is unfortunate. Because you seem to be quite a liberal person from your tone and stated representation.
The context of the initial comment was on propaganda. The recipients of the propaganda can only be defined as the “culture”. If one was to make a generalization in this case, they probably would have chosen something more obvious. It probably didn’t help that the first reply mentioned North Korea. I even provided an opposing example to critical thinking, in order to redirect it away from generalization.
I think it is unfair, rash and irrational to categories this as a racial issue. It’s unfair because you chose ignorance; rash because you convinced yourself prematurely that this is a racial issue without doing proper diligence; irrational because there is no reason for this to be a racial issue. And it certainly would not help your point of view, if I was to disclose myself as asian and Korean.
I don’t think you intended this, but you provided an example of how a company was realigned with the society’s values with the whole AT&T monopolization example. This supports the reflecting statement and not the countering generalization you intended. A little of the mark. Also, you’re being hypocritical for using corporations in a generalized way. Kind of muting your own argument.
I understand that you are trying to represent yourself in a noble view, which I commend, but slow down and digest what your reading once in awhile. Not everything is what it sometimes appears to be…