The Age quotes Harvey Norman representatives as being unhappy about the Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction. Not so much on technology grounds — moreso because there’s money out there that it’s not making and importers are.
The article notes that despite Apple winning a Federal Court injunction against sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, business has been brisk amongst any number of grey market importers (although clearly not Kogan any more), and as such, that places bricks and mortar retailers such as Harvey Norman at a distinct disadvantage. Ben McIntosh, Harvey Norman’s general manager for computers is quoted as saying that
Obviously I am very disappointed if it is true that there are overseas retailers able to get around the injunction, because that’s no good for the integrity of the case. I would hope that both Samsung and Apple’s legal teams were to address any breach of the injunction. It’s not fair if the Australian retailers are the only ones that are suffering – it highlights the bigger issue at hand which is that overseas retailers aren’t playing by the same rules as the locals.”
[The Age]
Jason
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:03 AMBoo hoo Harvey Norman! Perhaps if you didn’t overcharge and provided real service you would be able to compete!
Peter
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:12 AMAnd to think this is because Apple doesn’t think the ipad can compete with the galaxy tab. Sad.
Matt
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:15 AMIf you can’t beat them, sue them. It’s the apple way.
Pariah
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:25 AM“A genuinely better product in every concievable way, sold against the iPad? Not on our watch!!” – Apple
Matt A
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:53 AMBased on Apple sales and market position, this would suggest they were winning a while ago. Also they are the most sued company in the world, So that’s totally not ironic to your statement at all.
MDolley
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:17 AMWouldn’t it also be illegal for online companies based in Australia to sell grey imports? (Isn’t that why Kogan removed them?)
If so maybe Harvey Norman should be complaining to somebody other than the media.
If my competitors were breaking the law to gain a competitive advantage I’d do something about it.
Morkai
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 4:26 PMto my knowledge (and i’m by no means an expert, someone feel free to correct me here) the injunction was to stop it being sold by australian retailers, and being brought into the country by australian distributors.
now, companies like MobiCity, Clove, Expansys etc, are all sourcing their units from overseas distributors or possibly even the companies themselves, and allowing Australian customers to buy the units, so in a sense, Mr McIntosh is correct, they’re not playing by Australian rules, because they’re not Australian companies.
observer
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:17 AMThe injunction prevents Samsung, its agents and servants from selling, promoting or otherwise making the tab available. Perhaps the local retailers are miffed that the tab was not banned completely. As it stands, they lose sales of the tab, but apparently consumers cannot tell the difference anyway, or so we are led to believe.
That just begs the question then, why those buying the grey market tab are not buying Ipads…
Pariah
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:26 AMBecause the iPad has nothing new and isn’t worth the price?
alexeiw123
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:06 AMi think you’ll find it was a rhetorical question.
Dan Miller
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:18 AMI love Apple and all but this war with Samsung is just pathetic. Ether way, some one is going to get hurt.
mike
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:25 AMThat someone you refer to is us, the consumer who isnt allowed to buy samsungs product.
but there is a reason why apple is one of the richest companies in the world right now and it aint cause they play nice
Ruen
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:21 AMWhat I can’t understand is Harvey Norman isn’t really losing any money here. The people who are buying the Tab online would still buy the Tab online even if their wasn’t any injunction. Harvey Norman is just using yet another news story to complain about the evil online retailers
Peter
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:47 AMHarvey Norman seem to be one of the few bricks and mortar stores that is actually trying to get a decent selection of tablets, if the advertising material I got last night means anything. They seem to have everything released aside from Samsungs lines.
Matt
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 5:22 PMNot really. I prefer bricks and mortar for high end stuff, as it often provides a point of return if anything major goes wrong. Also..I don’t like waiting for shipping.
BenDTU
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:40 AMI’d be curious to hear what price they were planning on selling it for. Their other non-iPad tablets all have horrendous pricing.
Peter
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:49 AMWe know Harvey’s are expensive, but price isn’t everything. I thought $488 for my Eeepad was fine in any case.
Louis Rodriguez
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:44 AMHarvey Norman isn’t losing, per se, but they are sitting on a sunk cost that they can’t recover: the Galaxy Tab devices bought for store stock. If the injunction lasts long enough, by the time Harvey Norman and other australian retails are able to start moving that stock it could be outdated. Then they’d have to move it at a discount, leaving them with lower overall profits than they projected.
Ronald
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:48 AMIf Harvey Norman sold the samsung galaxy 10.1 it would be slavishly copying other overseas retailers. That can’t be allowed.
light487
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:48 AMHarvey Norman digs and Samsung vs Apple arguements aside; the article itself is more about the local retail tech sector missing out on profits. In business, a missed opportunity to sell something is a loss, whichever way you cut it.
Turd
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:52 AMGerry Harvey having a whinge again? What next a tax on all APPLE products? lulz!
Peter
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:54 AMYou already have a tax on Apple products. That’s why they can afford to just swap your iDevice over instead of fixing it like any other manufacturer.
Sarah
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:55 AMI have both an iPad 2 and a samsung galaxy tab 10.1. The samsung product is so much superior to the iPad 2 that it makes the iPad 2 look really bad. No wonder apple is worried. A big win is that I can use all the flash capabilities on a light a well designed tablet. Apple should work on improving its product offering rather than blocking the competition.
Hardly Normal
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:59 AMIt is the fault of the courts. Hardly normal should counter sue apple for loss of profits for having to sell their iPad that only apple fans want.
Bible Scholar
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:05 AMThe iPad copied the tablets Moses brought down from Mt Sinai. Can’t understand what all the fuss is about!
Matt
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 5:27 PM1) Thou shalt not worship any other goods but Apple
2) Thou shalt not develop any goods that resemble Apple goods in any way
3)Do not misuse the image of Apple
4)Thou shalt honour the release date
5)Honour Steve Jobs
6)Do not jailbreak.
7)Do not venture on the path of alternative Products
8)Do not pirate.
9)Do not mention product failures
10)Do not think about products with better features.
Leanne
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:10 AMI bought a couch from Harvey Norman and under the cushion was a samsung galaxy 10.1. I have now given the iPad 2 to the cat.
Sarah
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:13 AMHaha Leanne same thing happened to me. I gave out iPad to my 6 month old son. He mainly chews on it.
Nick
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 2:05 PMSo, both you and Leanne have basically thrown away a $500+ tablet, because you’re that much of a fandroid?
Oh, society.
Peter
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:02 PMIt’s getting used, isn’t it?
tonybaby
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:14 AMThe apple lawyers have the judge bluffed. The injunction is much more damaging to the market and the consumers, than to Apple, as the judge seems to have stated in their reasons. The court should pay more respect to the rights for open competition in the market.
Kroo
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 10:35 PMAnd what about the rights of IP? Steal anything, then wait to get sued? Correction fool, the judge had the stupid samsung lawyers tied in knots when they couldn’t identify their own product. Who’s the idiot? So by your logic, you can invent something, put your hard earned into development, and I can come along and pinch your work to make a copy? Thats fine with you then?
Peter
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:04 PMIf you personally can’t tell android and ios apart, you need more than a pair of new glasses mate.
Angry Kid
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:19 AMCmon Harvey Norman! Give me Samsung Tab now! Bored with IPad and dont have credit card to buy one from overseas.
Cobbar
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:22 AMCan Harvey Norman sell a lounge with the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 wallpaper design? It would be the next best thing!
Matt L
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:44 AMGerry, did you really think Harvey Norman would be an enterprise forever? How many hundreds of thousands of years did you think it would run for? Grow up with the rest of the world and start thinking about the reasons people actually hate your store, rather then holding onto the precious uptight people that wouldn’t shop anywhere else because that’s not keeping up with the Joneses. You’re business is dying, do something about instead of trying to make people feel bad about you. I dunno, let me spend my money on your website for a start, it might prevent me from checking out your catalog, then checking out ebay… A checkout on your website might prevent me making that step… And if I can pick it up from the store later, bonus…. In the meantime, I have to wait 8 weeks for you to stock the lounge I ordered from you… Kinda defeats the whole “going into the store” benefits you was talking about… Your salespeople are pushy, and she thought I was going to cancel the order so she gained an attitude towards me, so I went and cancelled the order and got someone else to finalize my sale instead. Also, everytime I talk to your sales people, I can see things ticking away in their head, they know I know more then them and it should be embarassing for you as chairman to know this. I hate you and your store (but I’ll continue shopping there because 40 months interest free is a good thing… But your sales people don’t seem to like it when people go for that option, instantly attitudes change, so only bring up interest free at the checkout.
Sami
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 1:36 PMJust picked up my Tab 8.9 yesterday. I think Kogan only stopped selling the 10.1 because he was selling the iPad as well. Apple probably threatened to stop their supply if he continued.
Mac
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 1:51 PMI Bet If Someone Opens A chain Stores Called Harvey Normano Selling White Goods, Furniture And Electronics, He Would Not Like Either, Would He!!!!
James
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 5:24 PMWhy don’t they just boycott Apple? Sure they would lose a lot of money, but hey, maybe they’ll be able to start something… Who knows, it might show that they aren’t greedy b******* with ridiculous mark ups who then complain that nobody in Australia buys from them.