Evidently, it’s not only Koreans who think Samsung is too big. As Samsung’s size approaches that of Hewlett-Packard, the largest electronics company in the world, a recent WSJ article asks the same question (for different reasons).
Samsung is a huge, amorphous conglomerate with the nearest Western equivalent probably being General Electric. However, much of the article focuses on Samsung Electronics and the vertically integrated manufacturing nature of its business. Once considered a strength, Samsung’s vertical integration might eventually step on too many toes. For example, Samsung’s aggressive play into smart phones and announcement of a proprietary OS platform (code named “Bada,” or 바다) may cause some tension with Apple, who buys a lot of Samsung chips (more on Bada from Apple Insider). Apple may one day ask itself why it keeps providing dollars to Samsung when Samsung, in turn, uses those dollars to develop better smart phones to compete more effectively against the iPhone.
Furthermore, Samsung’s sheer size means it loses much of the flexibility that technology companies need in order to be competitive. Samsung tends to commit to industries only when it knows that the technology trajectory is established. For example, Samsung will likely never innovate Blu-Ray or LCD, but it will jump in with both feet once it knows that the market has solidly committed to a particular technology. The problem with this is that Samsung will always be the market follower and will always play catch-up when new technologies are developed. Although Samsung got away with it when Sharp and Sony developed LCD TVs and eventually surpassed them over time, when Motorola came out with thin cell phones, it took several difficult years (and lost market share) before Samsung caught up. The same with Apple and smart phones.
Another weakness cited by the WSJ is Samsung’s continued reliance on Korean accounting standards, but that’s a different story for a different time.
{ 81 comments… read them below or add one }
Also, profits of Apple’s iPhone (estimated at $1.6 billion in Q3) are bigger than Nokia (estimated at $1.1 billion for Q3) or Samsung’s entire hand set division (estimated at lower than Nokia’s). This effectively makes Apple the largest cell phone manufacturer in the world in terms of nominal operating profits.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/10/apple_overtakes_nokia_to_claim_handset_profit_crown.html
@1 that’s what true innovation gets you.
any recommendation on how to see the wsj article to which you linked for free?
Apple’s iphone have alot of stake holders which includes company like Samsung because Iphone depended on its components from other companies.
Man…cmm, this is a closely guarded secret of mine, but ok, I’m feeling generous.
Google “Samsung’s Swelling Size Brings New Challenges” and click on the link that takes you to WSJ’s site and you’ll get the whole article.
cmm,
America needs to take what’s in Apple and inject that into its other consumer facing industries… namely cars and other consumer related electronics.
JW…you my friend are a bona fide whiz-bang computer genius who makes the impossible seem easy.
And I thank you for this gem of knowledge.
Interesting to see that only the Korean companies listed actually increased not only market share but the number of units shipped in 2009. I believe this surely has a lot to do with a weak won (to blend this post with one of WangKon’s from before). I also think the Bank of Korea will be reticent to hike rates as long as the Chinese Yuan remains pegged to the US dollar. Adding $63 billion to forex reserves to halt the rise of the won didn’t work, but maybe the BoK or Lee administration may try something unconventional to keep the won down. Actually raising rates could bring a flood of money into the won and that wouldn’t help Samsung or LG at all…
Otherwise, say they were to hike in Q1 or Q2 or 2010, there might also be some accompanying unconventional measures to counterbalance, by which I mean some kind of increased capital controls. They may feel that with as long as the won continues to rise so quickly there is no real need for rate hikes, again with the Chinese yuan’s dollar peg being a key here.
Won’t work because the dollar won’t hold its end of the bargin…
“Evidently, it’s not only Koreans who think Samsung is too big.”
Is there really a consensus among Koreans that Samsung is too big (to be a positive force in the ROK)?
I hope not. Koreans should appreciate what Samsung has accomplished and realize that Samsung’s lofty position is tenuous, just like any other top company’s–especially those in the technology industry.
But this article is silly. Samsung should not be cowering just because they are too competitive and got too big. That is patently ridiculous. And besides, Samsung has been involved in little wars against other massive firms for a decade now. And certainly, Samsung should not be fearing Apple. They should be working to supplant Apple in the handheld segment. After all, what does it matter if Apple ultimately ditches them for a different supplier, as long as Samsung ends up being the most profitable handheld maker in the world? The cell phone industry is a trillion dollar industry–it’s a lot bigger than the semiconductor industry. Fear a competitor? What’s the point of being too big and mighty yourself if that means you have to be afraid of others. My goodness.
Finally, to flatly state that Samsung will always be a market follower is pretty short-sighted. Samsung, in coincidence with the development of Korean society, have only recently achieved its lofty position in the world. It’s not by accident that an increasing number of Koreans are starting to make a mark in the world. For 4 or 5 decades, Samsung, like the Korean people, had been merely struggling to become respectable. Now, Samsung, like the Korean people, are at the level in which they can feasibly fling themselves into the leading edge of cultural, technological, and scientific advancement. The completion of this phase of their development will take, I now believe, less than two decades, after which Samsung–and more broadly, the Korean people–will be as vital a source of innovation as any in the world.
lollabrats,
Some Koreans do think that Samsung is too big. Haven’t you ever heard of The Republic of Samsung?
http://ebusinessforum.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=7375&categoryid=&channelid=&search=prepares
Here’s another WSJ article to feed korean pride.
Google “Korea Emerges as Player in Nuclear Power”
Too bad I ain’t seein any benefits…
“The completion of this phase of their development will take, I now believe, less than two decades, after which S-sung–and more broadly, the Korean people–will be as vital a source of innovation as any in the world.”
As someone on the inside, I should say that it’s good that you give them 20 years to become a “vital source of innovation,” because their current trajectory is not promising. The aggressive work ethic is here, but gutsy risk-taking and tech-frontier trailblazing is not. Long-term, game-changing projects (e.g. blue-ray tech development) are scarcely considered. Emulation and “benchmarking” as tools of product development are more than just de rigeur.
‘Now, Samsung, like the Korean people, are at the level in which they can feasibly fling themselves into the leading edge of cultural, technological, and scientific advancement. The completion of this phase of their development will take, I now believe, less than two decades, after which Samsung–and more broadly, the Korean people–will be as vital a source of innovation as any in the world.’
i remember koreans pissing into pots. your predictions will come to pass.
‘but gutsy risk-taking and tech-frontier trailblazing is not. ‘ cmm
one of the most ignorant statements i’ve ever heard. when koreans started to build ships, they really didn’t know how. the world ie the west told them they were nuts and they were. korea #1 ship builders. you want korea to fail because at the heart of korea’s success, there’s a korean man.
btw, why is korea the country that files the most patents in the us? what are patents for? could you tell me? please stop hating my people. you bring your problems on yourself.
@JW:
What do you mean by not ‘seein any benefits?’ Do you mean that the indigenous Korean nuclear technology is vaporware? Because it is not. Or do you mean that you personally will not benefit from South Korea’s strategy to enter the global nuclear technology market? Because I don’t know how to answer that. Or do you mean that you are an American and that our nation is not in the nuclear power mood? Because this sentiment is clearly changing.
ROK not only wants to export their nuclear technology to developing nations at highly competitive prices, but they are also part of the ITER research group that is working to bring fusion power technology to market.
“Or do you mean that you personally will not benefit from South Korea’s strategy to enter the global nuclear technology market?”
Yeah.
“Because I don’t know how to answer that. ”
You really don’t have to.
Just keeping quiet when one doesn’t know an answer alone would make the Internet/MH a lot better place…
blue-ray tech development….
Blue LED laser diodes, the technology behind Blu-ray was developed singlehandedly by one man, Shuji Nakamura, who was, at the time, an obscure researcher working for an obscure Japanese chemical company. His superiors didn’t understand the significance of what he was doing so much of his early work was driven purely by personal initiative.
@Wangkon936:
“Some Koreans do think that Samsung is too big. Haven’t you ever heard of The Republic of Samsung?”
I’ve heard this particular phrase before, but I didn’t actually know whether the sentiment behind the name is denigration or wry humor.
One benefit of having a Samsung is that it should act as an incubator for what is vitally lacking in the ROK: innovative small and medium sized business. What Koreans should hope for is that clever Samsung engineers will take some of their expertise and some initiative and set up their own enterprise with the insights they learned at the chaebol. In addition, to cut the cost of research, Samsung has jointly researched new technologies with their major rivals. For instance, they’ve worked with Intel in developing new semiconductor technology and they’ve worked with Sony to develop the PVA panel. Such experience must be invaluable to Samsung engineers.
Mr. cmm may be pessimistic, but I think Koreans realize their business culture is top heavy–dominated by chaebols. After all, President Lee himself has made a priority of developing small enterprise. And even despite the nature of the Koreans Mr. cmm works with, they are not the only Koreans in Korea. And we should not forget that the distance Korea has covered in its development post-Korean War is vast. Such development does not occur when the people are innovation- or development-averse.
By the way, I have previously remarked to one of your recent posts that Samsung is poised to dominate the AMOLED era. Americans and Japanese may have developed most of the important ingredients to build the next-generation panel technology, but Samsung seems to be the one in position to best profit as the lcd era winds down and the OLED technology takes off over the next ten years.
We shall see if at the end of the AMOLED era, Koreans will have advanced enough to share some of the lead development burdens with the Americans and Japanese over the next technology.
@thekorean:
“Just keeping quiet when one doesn’t know an answer alone would make the Internet/MH a lot better place…”
You have ignorantly commented. The sentence you have quoted fuctions rhetorically as a question. As in: “Could you clarify that.”
But I am gracious and will forgive your ignorance. ^^
@thekorean:
“Just keeping quiet when one doesn’t know an answer alone would make the Internet/MH a lot better place…”
You have ignorantly commented. The sentence you have quoted functions rhetorically as a question. As in: “Could you clarify that?”
But I am gracious and will forgive your ignorance. ^^
oh pawi…
“one of the most ignorant statements i’ve ever heard.”
As someone sitting in the USA, jacking off furiously to your ethnic heritage, telling someone sitting in a research lab in Korea in the company in question (where I’ve been for several years) how things are and aren’t here, you look pretty strange telling me I’m ignorant.
I’m not a Korea-hater pawi, so spare me the knee-jerk reaction of reminding me that Korea developed a steel and shipbuilding industry, etc., from nothing. I’m well aware of Koreans’ successes, and as much as you’d like to think that they bother me, they don’t at all. My point was and is, serious innovation is not a strong suit here. Following and overtaking the leader is.
Now, if Koreans INVENTED the boat, and created a new industry by doing so, you’d have a point, and I’d be wrong. But that’s not how they developed the shipbuilding industry. Instead they benchmarked and poached employees from the Japanese and Europeans, applied their legendary work-ethic, and succeeded. It’s a good formula, and nothing to be too embarassed about, but it’s not game-changing innovation. That’s just not how it works here, especially in the electronics companies. For example, look at the top cellphone companies in the world… now look who was the last to develop smartphones. The Korean smartphones will be great, don’t doubt that, but they are just following.
Serious innovation is not a strong suit here. Korean professors will agree with this. My colleagues will confirm this. It’s not a mystery here gooseboy. This isn’t my hate-motivated conclusion. It wasn’t a Korean-hating fairy-tale element of the WSJ piece above either. It’s the state of affairs. Arguing against this is ignorant.
“btw, why is korea the country that files the most patents in the us? what are patents for? could you tell me?”
Good question, and yes I can tell you. Ostensibly, patents are ways to protect intellectual property, duh. But, where I’m sitting, they have a different role. Patents are just another number here. Increasing the number of patent applications associated with a project is a good way to help your evaluation. …not necessarily the quality of the patents, but the number. And that’s the rub. Patents are applied for so quickly here and for concepts that are not feasible and for ideas that will never even be pursued (because all too often it would be a waste of time). We are literally given quotas for patents on projects. Management actually tries to plan/dictate/quantify the amount of patents/innovation that a project should yield, even years in advance. Ridiculous numbers of not-so-useful patents results. As an example, I am currently an author on about 30 pending patent applications. I don’t expect a single one of those to make money for company, as most are for a project that was canceled. But, when we were working on that project, we had targets, and as good employees, we exceeded them. You can patent a bad or unproven idea very easily. All it takes is several thousands of dollars, which are readily available. Lawyers will happily take the fees and do their part. These are the reasons why Korea has so many patents filed. They use the shot-gun approach, and quantity over quality. If there was a way to quantify the “quality” of patents filed for, the picture wouldn’t look as rosy here.
Now pawi, you are probably hating me for “hating” Korea so much. The interesting thing is, my coworkers and my bosses agree with this assessment, and helped me take on this view. Though they agree it’s not the best way to manage, they say things run this way because it’s just hard to change the status quo. That’s what it comes down too. The people are intelligent, driven, and capable, management just needs to take the next step.
My assessment has nothing to do with me being white living as an expat in Korea. It’s just how things are. I certainly don’t want my company or Korea to fail. I’m quite happy that both are doing quite well this year. I don’t hate your people Pawi, and I don’t know how or why you would twist what I said into such an idea. If I did, I’d have left this country years ago. The Koreans I work with are my friends. Stop projecting your hate, little man. Christ, what’s wrong with you.
lollabrats,
thanks for another example of the method of “innovation” that I am explaining with the AMOLED display stuff. They didn’t blaze the trail, but waited until the course was laid and then passed those who did.
and, I didn’t say anything about “the nature of the Koreans [I] work with,” in my post to which you responded.
===
NK,
“Blue LED laser diodes, the technology behind Blu-ray was developed singlehandedly by one man, Shuji Nakamura, who was, at the time, an obscure researcher working for an obscure Japanese chemical company. His superiors didn’t understand the significance of what he was doing so much of his early work was driven purely by personal initiative.”
Another nice example. In the US, such personal initiative is encouraged in big companies. One of my friends, when starting at 3M straight out of grad school, a notoriously innovative company, was expected to spend 40% of his time on such endeavors. It seems that Shuji Nakamura was encouraged to some extent as well. Not so here. Our day is regimented like it’s the military.
I’m not an intellectual-property lawyer, but I do follow the profession generally and it seems like quite a racket. The Patent and Trademark Office in the United States is well-known for issuing a patent on just about any trivial thing, and for sloppy examinations. Low pay and overwork are blamed for this outcome, as patent examiners apparently make much less than attorneys (although apparently the wages are thought to be pretty good by others less spoiled), and the work is most often described as the “single most boring thing on Earth”.
In other words, the US patent system is broken, and it’s no surprise that Koreans seek to exploit the dysfunction.
korean saying: the grandfather builds the company, the father exapnds it… the grandson breaks it up(3세가 말아먹는다)..we are in the third generation now. a typical lifecycle.
sorry i burst out laughing here..
i think koreans are not innovative nor original. do you know why?
they didn’t invent the wheel.
or how to start the fire..
my poor tummy.
btw cmm i don’t think you hate the koreans – some of the stuff you write are valid criticisms. the koreans know about it too.
einstein was so bored he had to come up with a whole new theory on space time.
‘Stop projecting your hate, little man.’ cmm to pawi
‘luckily for the average expat in korea, the average expat in korea is often complemented as having movie star looks (must be our noses) and can easily get the prettier korean girls–something the average
locals (and probably you) must pay for.’ cmm to pawi
‘Stop projecting your hate, little man.’ cmm to pawi
Well thanks for confirming that it really is all because you’ve (or you feel you’ve) been cock-blocked and disrespected, gooseboy. LOL
listen, don’t tell me what koreans can’t do because the koreans can do anything your people can do. i’ve had a lifetime of westerners scoffing at koreans only to see the koreans throw pie in their face.
korea will be a center of innovation. do you know why? because the people who used to piss in pots say it will be so. thus it will be. you obviously don’t understand koreans even if you do live there.
btw, your implication that you know koreans because you live there means the same for me? do i know americans better than you do because i live here and you live there?
don’t tell me what koreans can’t do. koreans can do anything your people can do.
No responsible contributors to this board are arguing that Koreans are genetically/racially or otherwise constitutionally incapable of anything that other humans can do.
That may have been an (not the only and arguably not the most significant, albeit the most mistaken and offensive) element of Japanese colonialism; and it may have been the (equally mistaken and repulsive) attitude both of some (but not all) early Westerners familiar with Korea, and some (but not all) post-Liberation Americans in Korea. But it’s past time for Koreans to have gotten over such pre-colonial, colonial and post-war insults, and to manfully ignore any current bigots, instead of treating anyone who has anything critical to say about Korea as if he were cut from the same cloth.
The real issues concern the myriad ways in which the manner in which Korean society is structured operates to frustrate what Koreans themselves, when they are not stewing in the self-pity pot, recognize are the legitimate aspirations of all residents in the ROK, Korean and non-Korean alike, to live safe, productive and rewarding lives. Of course, there are problems in every society, and they usually are of very similar kinds , at least considered as conceptual abstractions. But on the streets, each one is quite different given the accretion of specific, unique historical events and the particular, unique ways in which those events have become embedded in a place’s institutions and mores its peoples’ historical memory and then act thereby to constrain people’s actual behaviour.
Whoa,
A lot of stuff here since I had dinner. Well, none of the sports I follow are doing well so let me dive in.
pawi, I largely agree with cmm actually. Besides, although he may not be a korea hater, Samsung has him chained to a cubicle 8 to 12 hours a day in Suwon in one of those light gray, monolithic, apartment-like buildings. He may not have a desk near a window, so let him blow off a little steam.
Innovating is hard work man. Then again, so is refining raw ideas. One of my industries of specialty is medical devices and I found out that the big companies seldom ever invent anything new. All the “inventing” per se, is done by smaller companies by brilliant “mad scientist” types that didn’t want to work at the stifling environment of a bigger company. Some of them have great ideas but have terrible business skills. So they reach out to venture capitalists for funding and have $10-20M of capital to burn through. Hopefully, in a couple of years (before the first round burns out) this mad scientist type creates something that a bigger company, by virtue of its greater distribution channels. With any luck, the smaller company will invent a doohickie so valuable that a big company will pay a relatively absurd amount for it. Well, that’s the basic premise of venture capital and it’s been the incubator of a lot of new technologies and inventions. Very developed in the U.S. Virtually non-existent in Korea (or Japan for that matter).
The problem with innovation is that there seems to be too many case studies where the originators failed to profit from their innovations. A well known example in the tech industry is that of Xerox Palo Alto Research. They originated the concepts of the mouse, the menu-driven operating system, and the laser printer. But it was other organizations, most notably Apple, Microsoft, and IBM that ran with these innovations and profited, not Xerox. A federal government bureaucracy created the first primitive computer network back in the 60s, but it was the private commercial world that made the internet what it is today. Innovation is not necessarily linked to profitability for the innovator. Thus it is not rational for pragmatic-minded Korean companies to take undue risks in pie-in-the-sky R&D, but that is precisely what it takes to produce game-changing innovation. Korean innovation is largely of an evolutionary nature not revolutionary. Furthermore, it is largely invisible to the average layperson. Samsung may invent some new process for cramming smaller MOSFETs on a silicon substrate but this is invisible to the layperson because the endproduct is just another memory chip.
Yes… but Xerox gave the world xerography (photocopying)… and it did profit from that.
Duplicates were make from cumbersome carbons before that.
HEY what happened to my previous post? don’t fish it out wangkon. i will repeat post it.
not that i think these things mean much
and INSEAD results here
how preposterous these results are….
net kim you say things which will have non-experts like me nod my head and go “ah so. so. (in japanese)” until someone more knowledgeable than you comes and bursts that bubble.
Another thing Koreans don’t seem to have (at least the bigger companies) are stock options to rank and file employees. The most innovative companies in the U.S. (such as Apple) gives many of their hardest working employees stock options, the ability to partake in the growth and value creation of their company.
The chaebol overlords don’t like to share with the masses.
There was a time when U.S. companies were stingy like this but as innovation became a more important part of a company’s growth. This is old history to many, but back in the video game heydays a big company, Atari, was owned by an even bigger company, Warner Bros, and had a huge, suit and tie, big company culture. Some of the programmers that developed the best games asked Atari for a little recognition, maybe even put their names on a game’s box. But they were not given this and so they left Atari to start little known companies called Activision and Electronic Arts. Today, Atari is gone, it’s trademark sold to other companies so the name sorta lives on, but the company itself fell into oblivion. Activision and Electronic Arts lives on and their combined size is larger than Atari ever was.
American companies that depend on innovation give their most productive employees a piece of the action.
pawi, you remind me of a kid who likes to throw M80 one eighth of a size of dynamite sticks into groups of unsuspecting people just to get attention. I honestly don’t think that anyone here believes Koreans are any less innovative than any other groups of people. Now I will agree with you that they may lack diplomacy in how they express their opinions and may lace them with sarcasm at times (either intentionally or unintentionally), but you don’t have to egg them on…
I don’t know of anything that venture capitalists were involved with that created anything of lasting value. The venture capital system, however, does seem adept at creating bubbles.
wangkon could you fish out my spammed comment? (the second one only – i tried twice)
Hi NK!
How about Google?
http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/pressrelease1.html
Um, how about the computer and semiconductor industries? Just one example — Intel, started in 1968 by Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore with $500,000 of their own (they had founded Fairchild Semiconductor) and venture capital investment of US$2.5 million. Forty years later and counting… You might also look for the name Mike Markkula and ask how his US$80,000 investment turned out.
I don’t consider google to be a fundamental, paradigm-shifting innovation. It’s basically a engine with better algorithms. Other search engines existed before it. Google is an “evolutionary” advance, not revolutionay.
Intel is a corporation, not an innovation. Meanwhile, did venture capital have anything to do with the invention of the solid-state transistor itself?
thanks wangkon.
everyone read my link
NetizenKim: Please accept my heartfelt thanks for the education, guys.
# 41 and 42,
Sun Microsystems, Intuit, Amazon.com, PeopleSoft, Oracle…. so on and so forth…
Code innovation often trumps hardware innovation… especially in the 21st century…. and it’s almost always more profitable too.
Yuna,
Well, according to Forbes, there are different types of innovation:
http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1112/137.html
Americans seem good at visionary leadership, marketplace of ideas and collaborative innovation. Koreans, at this point, are probably better at “systemic innovation.”
We seem to differ on the definition of “innovation”.
I’m talking about fundamental world-shaking ideas or inventions, not a better variation of a pre-existing concept/invention nor the process of diverting funds into companies that seem better poised to take advantage of said pre-existing ideas (network computers, e-commerce, people-management software, database systems).
I think one of the ideas that a land-challenged nation like Korea could lead is in the field of food-security, such as truly automated and mechanized agriculture. Why not build multi-story, multiple football field size structures that house artificially engineered eco-systems, equipped with robotics, that could produce grain in much the same way that a Samsung plant produces semiconductor chips, rather than trying to lease land the size of Belgium in places like Madagascar and be accused of neo-colonialism by hypocritical Western press? This is also a space travel related technology.
do you mean “per” as in “like” not “as GS says”, because that article is not from GS. per. it’s a swedish name for boys.
south korea features as a text book case for innovation in management schools (at least in the european ones) whether people here agree with this or not.
NK, that’s because Japan hasn’t invented it yet…. hahahaha…. jk! jk!
When I think of Korean agriculture, I keep thinking about this. I don’t know why, I just do.
Before Korean agriculture thinks of such fancy schmancy technological things, it would be nice it it develops Hanwoo into a sort of premium beef like Kobe, then perhaps the Korean cattle farmers can have their own niche and not find cheap American beef so threatening…
How did Madagascar get into this conversation?
Yuna, yeah I know so I fixed my comment.
WangKon, you have my life pegged. (It’s not all that bad though. I pull the old 칼퇴근 trick more than most and they’ve got me set up well in the heart of 강남, so I’m generally happy at the moment.) And no, there is no window, unless you count the frosted window to the hallway. If I want to see outside, I can go to the restroom. The cleaning ajummas insist on keeping that window open even though it is freezing outside.
now, for rockbrain gooseturd…
pawi quotes me from 2+ years ago:
‘luckily for the average expat in korea, the average expat in korea is often complemented as having movie star looks (must be our noses) and can easily get the prettier korean girls–something the average locals (and probably you) must pay for.’
OK gooseshit, I will address this here, hopefully for the last time. …not because it’s relevant to the discussion, but because you chose to bring it up.
First, there is no hate in those words… au contraire… just happiness about my undeserved good fortunes. What is there to hate about that phenomenon? Why you are bringing it up in this post to try to prove (to yourself?) that I hate the country I choose to live in and the people amongst whom I choose to live, is beyond me. Seems desperate, and makes you look stupid(er). Read it again and notice that it’s nothing for me to be hateful about at all.
Second, I wrote that just to get your goat. Not only did I get your goat, I got the whole herd and the rest of the farm. You dwelled on that quote from the moment I typed it for many months, took a year hiatus, and then brought up the very same quote on your first Open Thread when you came back to (dis)grace us with your presence again here at the Hole. Did you read this quote every day during your hiatus? The fact that you are still quoting me (even if it’s often out of context) years later is certainly a testament to just how successfully I pissed you off. EPIC WIN on my part. And, it is proof of how sad of a little man you are. You are still riled up about a paragraph you read on a blog? Really pawi? …one meant specifically to piss you off? really? one loaded with sarcasm and inside jokes?…
Third, I assume many people realized that it is loaded with sarcasm, and jokes that expats and those who really know the expat experience in Korea would have gotten. It’s not uncommon for expats to be (unreasonably and undeservingly) compared to movie stars. The whole phenomenon is parodied here:
http://theyangpa.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/brad-pitt-look-alike-contest-winner-announced/
No p-dog, I have no illusions that I look like a handsome movie star. And my nose is standard 백인 fare.
Fourth, there is some truth to it, and you know that. It’s not fair, I agree. And it probably one reason why you have such hatred for expats. And I brought it up to you just to piss you off, successfully.
Lastly, I’d like to reiterate how pleasing it is to know that you are still so taken by my prose from more than two years ago. You must feel pathetic.
Pawi, I know you came back to the MH, armed with your keyboard, to fight the good fight for Korea and her image. Ironically, you could help Koreans’ and Korea’s image a lot more by just unplugging your computer for the internet and taking up a new hobby that has nothing to do with your troubled ethnic identity. You are a charicature of an angry, insecure, blinded-by-emotion, netizen. Do your people a favor and log off.
=====
caricature*
caricature.
cmm.
are you doing the korean oecd thing by wasting your paid-to-sit-on-you-arse-time on marmots writing long comments, and not being efficient?
keep up with the 칼퇴근….(i’m impressed with your knowledge of such terms)
that’s a foreigner-privilege.
yuna,
cmm can only leave when his Korean supervisor (who hates his wife) does whether he has stuff to do or not… it’s a neoconfucian thing. I wouldn’t expect you to understand…
your comment was just so frinkin desperate. i actually ran across it when i was looking for a comment of mine. i copied it so i could remind you. what kind of guy needs to talk about all the women he gets on the net? it’s pathetic. your comment was pathetic.
don’t write such long posts to me because they bore me. keep your insults brief.
ps here’s another comment i copied from the same thread. it’s one of two comments i have on a notepad. this one is from sonagi. i copied it because i thought i might use it the next time she says she actually likes me.
’69 Sonagi October 18, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I honestly can’t think of anything or anyone that pawi is smarter than.
I would rank his intelligence as slightly above that of another commenter notorious for posting multiple streams of consciousness in between rounds at the hospital.’
lol
yuna:
I’d had that post in my head since the last time pawi posted my quote, but held off, hoping the little twit would just bugger off on his own. but he didn’t, and brought it up so I pasted my already-formed reply. I’d like to claim that I was multi-tasking. Don’t get me started on inefficiencies around here!
peewee:
oh, so you saved it to a notepad? like I said, glad it’s memorable.
But, why did you see fit to post it here today? It’s not on your mind or anything, and certainly had nothing to do with this post or your accusation that I’m a Korea(n) hater (though you seemed to be trying to use it to prove this in 29). Yet, somehow you remembered that it was on your notepad and had to repost it for about the 7th time? I’m still not sure why it would come to mind.
Anyway, I’m done with you. You are all emotional response and no reason. You are worse than a women with bad PMS. You are incapable of intelligent reason and aren’t worth engaging.
lol
sonagi:
nice post (albeit 2+ years back). it seems we make a good team feeding pawi’s complex. High five.
In reading comments above, I notice that the terms ‘invention’ and ‘innovation’ are being used as if they are synonymous. ‘Innovation’ however, relates to the development of something already in existence, while ‘invention’ refers to the creation of something new.
The development of the semiconductor by Bob Noyce & Co. is an excellent example of innovation (in this case, of the transistor technology pioneered at Bell Labs). Frankly, innovators often make changes, large and small, to inventions that are more profitable and/or profound than the inventions on which they are based.
58 gbnhj
Your clarification of the difference between “innovation” and “invention” is helpful and appreciated. And it does seem as if using one word to inappropriately describe two different meanings has partly contributed to the confused nature of the discussion here. And I am aware I was one of those at fault.
@48 NetizenKim
“I think one of the ideas that a land-challenged nation like Korea could lead is in the field of food-security, such as truly automated and mechanized agriculture.”
@50 WangKon936
“NK, that’s because Japan hasn’t invented it yet…. hahahaha…. jk! jk!”
Actually, I am sure you are only half joking. I, too, think that the Japanese are the one most likely to come up with something like that.
46 Wangkon936
“Americans seem good at visionary leadership, marketplace of ideas and collaborative innovation. Koreans, at this point, are probably better at ‘systemic innovation.’”
The article does not say that Koreans are better. It uses Samsung as an example of “systemic innovation.” They also cite Procter & Gamble and Goldman Sachs as companies which embody systemic innovation. I think the Americans are doing fine here.
About innovation, I remember hanging out with these artsy prgrammer kids in an apartment near Hong-Dae (before it was populated with English teachers), and they were smoking and programming while I was strumming my beloved Gibson six-string acoustic.
“What’s that song you’re playing? Who wrote it?” one asked.
“Oh,” I answered (this was all in Korean), “it’s just something I’ve been making up.”
“I’m sorry what?” came the incredulous reply; “How can you just make up a song? We’d never dare to make up our own song. People would say, ‘Who do you think you are to make your own song?’ and it would be embarrassing.”
Now these were *art school kids.* I was truly amazed and while I doubt I’d get that response today, it does tell me that attitudes matter.
That said there are some very talented Korean artists and I’m sure there will be many more, and I have no doubt that Koreans can be very creative and innovative (for me the two go hand in hand). But the most innovative Koreans, alas, are still probably those educated in the US or Europe.
As to the size of Samsung, it’s probably not a bad thing. More important would be to encourage more small and medium size businesses and especially a means for entrepreneurs to find capital, and to attract entrepreneurs and skilled innovators from other countries.
For WangKon and about the won, look at what Brazil has done to control appreciation of the real — taxes on foreign purchase of Brazilian securities. And it seems to be having some effect! I don’t know if Korean can do this considering its EU free trade agreement, but these kinds of measures may start to look attractive.
i’m currently reading a fascinating book which speaks to some of the lesser sexy aspects of industrial food processes of smaller land-locked nations. south korea and taiwan both have exceptional eco-legislation concerning food waste and turn a very high percentage of said waste into feed for pigs. it’s estimated that 98% of korean food waste is recycled as opposed to about 3% in the united states. i do remember that bundang had large, automated food waste tunnels under the city that pushed everything to one central pickup location. if you’re interested in this area of food processes, “Waste-Uncovering the Global Food Scandal” is a fascinating read with solid data.
That’s called neoconfucianism. Things will change. I say give it another 10 years.
@ # 63,
I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m inclined to believe that there is less flexibility for Korea because of the export reliance of its economy and the difficulty for foreigners to buy Korean bonds on the open market… but honestly, I’m just guessing…
14 pawikirogii
“btw, why is korea the country that files the most patents in the us?”
22 cmm
“If there was a way to quantify the “quality” of patents filed for, the picture wouldn’t look as rosy here.”
Mr. Pawikirogii, the sad fact is that Mr. cmm is correct. You are correct in that the ROK applies for large numbers of patents. It also publishes large numbers of research papers. But if you look at the times that Korean papers and patents are cited, you would be embarrassed to see how much of it is ignored and not desired by the world.
But I disagree with cmm’s and Wangkon936′s belief that Korean societal and industrial institutions will continue to bar Koreans from being “inventive.” Koreans are clearly “innovative,” it is absurd to say that Samsung has not been innovative and to attribute its success solely to the weakness of the won.
But there is no doubt that Koreans are not currently massively contributing at the leading edge of technology and science. Americans, Japanese, and Europeans are far ahead. This is because of the long head start they have worked hard to have. In addition, the Indians, whose citizens have had a large hand in creating the highly innovative and inventive Silicon Valley, seem poised to leapfrog the Koreans. China, however, is notably at the same level as Korea–profiting from the discoveries others have made and not contributing to discoveries themselves.
But my point is that, like China, Korea is now rich enough and developed enough where it can and will finally start contributing. They used to be too poor, too socially unsettled, and too scientifically behind to contribute. Not any more. The Koreans also recognize that their culture needs to be changed if it wants to nurture the inherent enterprising spirit that the best young people have.
The ROK has several strategies to change their culture to one that is condusive to innovation and invention.
One way is to increasing their small and medium sized business. In a previous post, Wangkon936 linked to an article by The Economist titled, “Invisible but Indispensable.” The article describes the chuken kigyo, which are the Japanese small and medium sized firms, which collectively dominate as suppliers of many essential components of both manufactured goods and the machines that build them. The article, examines what allows them to be dominant and innovative in the world. But it also mentions that the Japanese are concerned that the Koreans, Taiwanese, and the Chinese are increasingly taking on the chuken kigyo.
The Korean government has developed strategies and incentives to increase the share of smaller business in the state. The chaebol are behind the plan, too, because they are concerned by how much of their revenue goes into paying for Japanese patents and components. The chaebol would prefer to pay Korean firms for patents and components.
Another cutural change the Koreans want to implement is to get Koreans used to making patents and publishing research. This is happening, though, as already noted, much of the result today is useless. But I think it is a good idea; I think of it as priming the pump. Current patent seekers may not have the skills to develop something useful, but they will inculcate the next generation with the importance of developing useful patents and research papers.
Another possibly useful development in the ROK is the establishment of industrial clusters. The ROK wants to duplicate the success of Silicon Valley. They are not the only ones. China, India, Europe, Texas, North Carolina, and Colorado does, too. However, my guess is that the culture and business practice of the Mumbai cluster will end up looking like the one in North California, whereas, South Korean clusters will end up emulating the practices of Massachusetts’s vibrant university and industrial corridor, where exists the stereotype that where you went to school and who you know can be more important than what you know and what you can do.
At any rate, what I am trying to say is that Koreans see exactly what cmm and Wangkon936 are seeing and they don’t like what they see. But instead of trying to hide from the truth, the Koreans are actively trying to change their behavior. This is why I think that Koreans, as well as the Chinese who have noticed the same thing in their own country, will start making bleeding-edge contributions sooner than people think.
36 yuna
“net kim you say things which will have non-experts like me nod my head and go “ah so. so. (in japanese)” until someone more knowledgeable than you comes and bursts that bubble.”
Actually, what NetizenKim says here is not special knowledge and you don’t need any particular engineering background to know what he is talking about.
The story of Xerox dropping the ball on some key inventions their own researchers made is part of the world famous (true) founding myth of Silicon Valley. Anyone who is remotely interested in computers and the progress of technology knows something of how when Steve Jobs toured the Xerox PARC lab, in 1979, and saw what Xerox researchers were up to, he was stunned at seeing what we take for granted today: a computer for a single person–a personal computer (pc)–whose functions can be manipulated by a combination of a graphical user interface (gui) and by an external device–a mouse. Xerox was not interested in personal computers, so Jobs hired those Xerox researchers, and began producing Apple personal computers. This is why you don’t buy Xerox pcs. :p
38 NetizenKim
“I don’t know of anything that venture capitalists were involved with that created anything of lasting value. The venture capital system, however, does seem adept at creating bubbles.”
42 NetizenKim
“I don’t consider google to be a fundamental, paradigm-shifting innovation. It’s basically a engine with better algorithms. Other search engines existed before it. Google is an “evolutionary” advance, not revolutionay.”
Mr. NetizenKim, these two sentiments are just so wrong on so many levels… 0.0
36 yuna
“not that i think these things mean much
and INSEAD results here
how preposterous these results are….”
I think it was Wangkon936 who once offered the pdf download link for the Boston Consulting Group’s analysis titled, “The Innovation Imperative in Manufacturing: How the United States Can Restore Its Edge.” That is the one that ranked America 8th and the ROK 2nd overall and America 2nd and the ROK 1st among large nations (Singapore 1, Switzerland 3, Iceland 4, Ireland 5, Hong Kong 6, Finland 7, Japan 9). Although I enjoyed the read, I have to agree with you that the scoring of South Korea seems confounding and optimistic.
Thank you for the link to the INSEAD report, “Global Innovation Index 2008-2009.” It was a good read.
At any rate, both these serious analyses seem to suggest that the future of innovation and invention in South Korea is bright. At the present, South Korea is expanding rapidly in its cultural, commercial, industrial, and scientific capacities. The people are now sufficiently wealthy and touring the world in larger numbers and getting acquainted with what is possible for themselves. They are voracious for outside cultual products, which is vital for innovation. The government, business, and private citizens are working to increase their global competitiveness. And most importantly, the Koreans have a chip on their shoulders and want to surpass the Japanese, which is a high bar to aspire to, indeed. I think all the necessary ingredients for a bright inventive future is all there. I think they’ll be alright.
I totally agree that there seems to be an enthusiasm for the overseas experience that’s very very strong among koreans. If I remember correctly, one of the big papers did a survey among young koreans that asked who they admired the most, and it turned out to be a woman by the name of Kim Han Bit I think it was? (sorry no korean typing at the moment), who is apparently famous for traveling to all corners of the earth even to dangerous politically unstable areas. Which, if I may relate it something that’s not relevant here, is why I don’t think korea would ever introduce an english instruction program that seriously attempts to and eventually enables its children to become fully bilingual in both korean and english, like how India is able to do. With the birthrate being so low and the enthusiasm for going overseas so strong, and on top of that if they were fully capable in english, the country will lose its most able people way too quickly!
Yuna: net kim you say things which will have non-experts like me nod my head and go “ah so. so. (in japanese)” until someone more knowledgeable than you comes and bursts that bubble.
Has the bubble burst yet?
Oops, her name is not Kim Han Bit, but 한비야. Jeez, that was awful.
http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%95%9C%EB%B9%84%EC%95%BC
I saw 5 episodes of Flash Forward back to back the other night.
Its too bad gabrielle doesn’t have a bigger role. Having john as her fiancee makes it so much easier for me to fantasize about umm….being with her.
71JW
“I don’t think korea would ever introduce an english instruction program that seriously attempts to and eventually enables its children to become fully bilingual in both korean and english, like how India is able to do.”
The very different experiences of India and Korea make your comparison not right. The subcontinent is actually a massive collection of different ethnicities, cultures, and languages. But when the British East India Company conquered it in the mid to late 1700′s, all those people who spoke different languages had to learn English to do business. Centuries followed in which Indians experienced schooling and travel across the massive British Empire. After Ghandi successfully led the independence movement, Indians wanted to rid themselves of the English language, for the same reason Koreans were shamed by having learned the Japanese language. But since India is a collection of different nations with different languages, no one domestic language had the cachet to become the official language over all. There were attempts to make Hindi–the one dominant language in the state–the official language. But too many people in India do not know any Hindi. Moreover, ethnic and cultural rivalries made it impossible for the Hindi speakers to foist their language onto the others. That is why India has been forced to allow English to remain a national language. Ironically, English had become the one language of India, which was seen as impartial in these rivalries. And later still, when India transformed from a socialist nation into a capitalist, open-market society, they realized that knowing English was a great boon when engaging in international business. This is why Indians know English.
Koreans, on the other hand, all know Korean. They were colonized by Japan, who, incidentally, have had their own troubles mastering English, and forced to learn Japanese.
^^
What I am trying to say above is that learning English is a very new experience for Korea. Most emigrated Koreans born in the 50s and 60s have only pidgin English skills. But now you increasingly see young Koreans who speak English properly and well.
JW,
Maybe you can hit up this sista…. she loves H-Mart too…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbzkNhfnFrM&feature=related
I was actually quite amazed at how easily a relatively able korean person can get recruited out of korea to a company located overseas. A relative of mine in her late 20s, grew up and went to school in korea, who had maybe 4 or 5 years of programming experience at a korean company, without having anything close to a fluent ability to dialogue or write in english, was fairly easily able to find a job in the UK and move there, all expenses paid. Nothing about her really stood out and yet, there she is. And let me tell you, she couldn’t be any happier about leaving korea.
Maybe she just got real lucky, but maybe not. Or maybe it’s just the UK that allows this labor transfer to happen with much more ease compared to other countries?
It’s nice to see a thread progress well without too much mud slinging.
Any ways, let me address a few comments, particularly by lollabrats. I think cmm and I are coming from two different angles. Cmm appears to be talking about Samsung’s problems from a past and present tense. I think I’m more in the present tense but I don’t think I’m as pessimistic as you may think I am. I agree with you that the long-term prospects of Samsung and with many Korean companies in general, appear bright, but I also think there are many challenges ahead and it’s still not going to be easy and they can still fail along the way. There are also systemic issues that Korea and Koreans have that may impede their progress. To be fair, the Chinese and the Japanese probably have similar systemic issues (given that these three East Asian countries have similar cultures), but to be realistic both these countries are bigger in terms of multiples to Korea. Thus, Korea’s margin of error is smaller.
Plus, Koreans, by virtue of their difficult history (and similar to the Jews) have this feeling that everything they worked hard for can disappear in an instant. There is a temporary and unbelievable feeling to their achievements and sometimes they are their biggest critics, but they tend to keep their doubts to themselves and a lot of it is locked away in Korean language sources so few expats get to see it.
I also have an issue with how Korean companies set very odd goals. Take Samsung for instance. They say they want to be a $400B in sales company by 2020. Is that wise? Even a huge conglomerate like GE is only $180ish billion. Two companies in the $400B realm are WalMart and Shell. Oil & gas companies are different as they are moving commodities and Walmart moves around a lot of commodity products. The net profit of these more commodity related companies are 3% for Walmart and a little less than 5% for Shell. The profit margins for GE is about 10% and that’s the mark I think a Samsung should shoot for. But if it ever gets to be $400B or close to that size in sales, it’s very unlikely that it will be a 10% net profit business.
Personally, I think many Korean companies are too big. I’d like to see some broken up. You know, breaking up Hyundai into Hyundai Heavy and Hyundai Motors was probably the best thing to happen to the respective companies. Hyundai Heavy was able to focus on ships and contruction and Hyundai Motors was able to focus on cars and both have profited a great deal from this decentralized arrangement. The problems of one arm of the conglomerate did not pollute the other. Hyundai Motor’s labor issues and operating profit drain didn’t become a burden to Hyundai Heavy, so on and so forth. Samsung makes everything from fish sticks to LED TVs. Thank goodness they sold their car business to Renault. I hope Samsung never becomes anywhere near $400B in revenues because if it does, you’ll have an inefficient zombie of a company.
Oh, almost forgot. Speaking of Samsung and innovation looks like they are following lollabrats’ advice and establishing global technology centers, including one in Silicon Valley/Northern California.
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2912756
Looks like biotech, medical and pharma are areas they want to aggressively move into, which makes sense given that Samsung, in addition to other Korean companies, don’t really have a presence in those industries. However, these are industries with very high barriers to entry because there are a large number of established players. It is going to take a lot of capital investement for a Korean company to build a meaningful presence here, however, Samsung is one of the few Korean companies who has the resources to do it.
You must log in to post a comment.