[mnc76]

To people that say a major company would never pay trolls to post negative information about a vastly smaller competitor who is already in dire financial trouble, please read the link below (I have also pasted the original article at the bottom).

This post is related to BlackBerry since many people have said that large companies (such as, for example, a company like Samsung) would never waste their time or money trying to bash a smaller company (like BlackBerry) with vastly smaller market share and almost no chance of becoming a major threat to their dominance.

Many have also said the notion of 'paid trolls' is just paranoid conspiracy theory.

That Samsung did this to HTC is no conspiracy. It is 100% fact. Proven in a court of law.

Note: I have no knowledge that any company has done the same thing to BlackBerry. I posted this only to demonstrate the idea that, this COULD HAVE POSSIBLY happened to BlackBerry, is completely plausible.

Again, I stress that I'm NOT claiming that this DID happen; I'm just showing that there is an undisputed factual precedent for exactly this type of thing happening to even 'small fish' like BlackBerry.

---

Original article:
Associated Press (via Businessweek)
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...ng-local-rival

BGR blog on the AP story
Samsung paid anti-HTC trolls, gets fined in Taiwan | BGR

HTC has enough problems right now and it doesn?t need to deal with paid trolls bashing its products in online reviews as well. The Associated Press, per Bloomberg Businessweek, reports that Taiwan?s Fair Trade Commission has slapped Samsung with a fine worth about USD $340,000 for paying a pack of trolls to bash HTC products and praise Samsung products in online forums. It?s a little odd that Samsung would bother to organize an anti-HTC troll campaign given that it already dwarfs its Taiwanese rival in marketing spending and that HTC has been suffering from a series of self-inflicted wounds�for the past two years. If Samsung is willing to create an online troll ring to take whacks at HTC, it makes you wonder the sort of stealth operations that it has going to bash bigger fish such as Apple.

Posted via CB10

[zocster]

I personally don't think it has anything to do with BlackBerry. Hence it is moved to other platform news...

[mnc76]

I personally don't think it has anything to do with BlackBerry. Hence it is moved to other platform news...

I don't see how the relevance would not be crystal clear, but that is your call.

Perhaps it is too much of a 'touchy' subject. (?)

Posted via CB10

[zocster]

I don't see how the relevance would not be crystal clear, but that is your call.

Perhaps it is too much of a 'touchy' subject. (?)

Posted via CB10

Oh yeah I get you now, I will move you back and re edit your title.

Sent from what ever device I got my hands on via Tapatalk

[Troy Tiscareno]

This "news" is over a year old, and IIRC was limited to the Korean market anyway.

No one is paying anyone to trash BB - BB has done a fine job of harming itself over the last 6+ years. I promise you: Apple and Samsung aren't concerned about BB10 and its 0.1% marketshare, certainly not enough to pay someone to lower it any further.

[mnc76]

This "news" is over a year old, and IIRC was limited to the Korean market anyway.

No one is paying anyone to trash BB - BB has done a fine job of harming itself over the last 6+ years. I promise you: Apple and Samsung aren't concerned about BB10 and its 0.1% marketshare, certainly not enough to pay someone to lower it any further.

From October 24 2013, so it's about 4 months old.

I'm not saying anyone did this to BlackBerry. However, the 'low market share' argument applied equally to Samsung/HTC. As the articles states, it seems odd that Samsung would bother with HTC and their 2.6% marketshare (at the time) and the fact they had been posting huge losses and poor sales.

Basically, what I'm saying to people that say "this type of thing would never happen", is: It happened! (to HTC)

As for BlackBerry in particular, who knows. Without any proof, its a moot point.

Posted via CB10

[bspence87]

I don't think that companies would do it to BlackBerry because they fear for BlackBerry cutting into their market share.

I could see them wanting BlackBerry gone so they can get ahold of BlackBerry's patents though.

I'm also not saying that I think it has or is happening, but it is a good (albeit dirty) strategy if you're willing to risk the consequences of getting caught

[Ment]

The ruling in Taiwan was last fall the anti-HTC campaign in Taiwan was well before that in 2012 when HTC had about 10% of the market, this was when Samsung was promoting the S3 vs HTC One X. You could say Samsung was successful to the extent HTC lost marketshare but that was due to multiple reasons including Samsungs efforts.

Very few BB10 handsets sales are from former Samsung handsets so again apples and oranges.

[mnc76]

The ruling in Taiwan was last fall the anti-HTC campaign in Taiwan was well before that in 2012 when HTC had about 10% of the market, this was when Samsung was promoting the S3 vs HTC One X. You could say Samsung was successful to the extent HTC lost marketshare but that was due to multiple reasons including Samsungs efforts.

Very few BB10 handsets sales are from former Samsung handsets so again apples and oranges.

Good point. However, BlackBerry's marketshare at the release of BB10 was around 6 percent in the US according to comscore, and 8% global installed base at the time (according to IDG). Samsung even released a TV ad promoting Samsung Knox over BlackBerry phones.

But yes, the info you presented does change my interpretation of the FTC fines. HTC had a small, but not insignificant marketshare at the time. The info no longer supports plausibility of _recent_ 'paid trolls' against BlackBerry.

However, it still supports the plausibility of such behaviour near bb10's launch (and possibly upto bb's 'black friday' earnings call) -- e.g.: before the world learned the extent of BlackBerry's huge drop in sales.

Posted via CB10

[mjs416]

The ruling in Taiwan was last fall the anti-HTC campaign in Taiwan was well before that in 2012 when HTC had about 10% of the market, this was when Samsung was promoting the S3 vs HTC One X. You could say Samsung was successful to the extent HTC lost marketshare but that was due to multiple reasons including Samsungs efforts.

As you mentioned - correlation is not causation.


Posted via CB10

[Playbook007]

If they are not paid, then Apple has some serious followers that do the dirty work for them. As for actual websites, there advertising dollars from Apple and Google naturally make them tow the line. Hey, after all its business.

Posted via CB10

[Wiki Cydia]

To people that say a major company would never pay trolls to post negative information about a vastly smaller competitor who is already in dire financial trouble, please read the link below (I have also pasted the original article at the bottom).

Your post proves the point I've always made, which is that no such campaign could be kept secret for long. That's why I chuckle when I read posts about a supposed years-long anti-BBRY campaign that's somehow managed to remain completely hidden from everyone but a few CB members.

[mnc76]

Your post proves the point I've always made, which is that no such campaign could be kept secret for long. That's why I chuckle when I read posts about a supposed years-long anti-BBRY campaign that's somehow managed to remain completely hidden from everyone but a few CB members.

I'm sorry, but my post does not prove what you say it does.

It doesn't prove that any campaign against BlackBerry existed, but it certainly doesn't prove that one never existed.

Posted via CB10

[crackbrry fan]

OP Samsung has VERY questionable Business practices, I can go into some other aspect of their operations that I have first hand knowledge of patent infringements and the likes. They have absolutely no scruples nor respect for IPR. Amongst other issues and it goes way beyond their mobile portfolio. Yes they do pay to have this done,their philosophy is if caught "we can pay the fine"

Posted via CB10

[Wiki Cydia]

I'm sorry, but my post does not prove what you say it does.

It doesn't prove that any campaign against BlackBerry existed, but it certainly doesn't prove that one never existed.

Posted via CB10

What your post proves is that these things do get out; they don't remain secret.

Also, I've never claimed any absolutes regarding campaigns against BlackBerry; instead, I specifically refer (as I did in my response) to the "years-long" campaign often cited on these forums.

There's also the fact that no anti-BBRY campaign can explain the company's recent tendency to overbuild and undersell, but hey, maybe BBRY's management is in on the campaign too.

[TGR1]

OP Samsung has VERY questionable Business practices, I can go into some other aspect of their operations that I have first hand knowledge of patent infringements and the likes. They have absolutely no scruples nor respect for IPR. Amongst other issues and it goes way beyond their mobile portfolio. Yes they do pay to have this done,their philosophy is if caught "we can pay the fine"

Posted via CB10

The big chaebol in Korea frequently overstep the line and get away with it because they make sure to maintain very close ties to the government. Yes, Samsung is more than a little unscrupulous. Hyundai is another - we are talking intimidation, threats, outright criminal activity.

Consider those fines a licensing fee.

[mnc76]

What your post proves is that these things do get out; they don't remain secret.

Also, I've never claimed any absolutes regarding campaigns against BlackBerry; instead, I specifically refer (as I did in my response) to the "years-long" campaign often cited on these forums.

There's also the fact that no anti-BBRY campaign can explain the company's recent tendency to overbuild and undersell, but hey, maybe BBRY's management is in on the campaign too.

"maybe BBRY's management is in on the campaign too."

It definitely seemed like it for too many years lol.

I agree that, without proof, any claims -- either way -- are moot.

I was just trying to show that the idea had a modicum of plausibility due to this precedent.



Posted via CB10