or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple nearly scrapped iPhone "multiple times" says designer Sir Jonathan Ive
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple nearly scrapped iPhone "multiple times" says designer Sir Jonathan Ive

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
Apple's head designer Sir Jonathan Ive has related the the company almost gave up on its design for iPhone "multiple times" after running into seemingly insurmountable technical challenges.

Speaking at a British Business conference coinciding with the London Olympic Games, Ive said, "We nearly shelved the phone because we thought there were fundamental problems that we can't solve."

Yesterday, Ive's comments at the same event that Apple is "really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," made headlines.

A report by the Telegraph UK added additional comments from Ive describing the difficulties that nearly derailed the iPhone as a product.

"With the early prototypes," Ive stated, "I held the phone to my ear and my ear [would] dial the number. You have to detect all sorts of ear-shapes and chin shapes, skin color and hairdo...that was one of just many examples where we really thought, perhaps this isn?t going to work.?

Apple subsequently developed a proximity sensor that made the iPhone's screen unresponsive when held close to the face, eliminating the majority of false touches that might interrupt a phone call. Steve Jobs highlighted that technology when introducing the first iPhone in January 2007.

Ive's comments on the often invisible technology advancements Apple developed to produce the original iPhone design are particularly noteworthy now that Apple's competitors, in particular Samsung, are claiming in court that they too had in-house prototypes that resembled the iPhone.

Unlike Apple, Samsung and other makers simply did not productize their full screen concepts by solving some of the same complex issues Apple ran into during its development of the iPhone.

Instead, those companies either put those ideas on hold (as Samsung did), or released half-baked products that may have looked fleetingly like an iPhone, but didn't work like one, causing customers to reject those products in the marketplace (like LG's Prada phone, which was introduced just months before the iPhone but failed miserably as a premium priced, limited functionally device based on Adobe Flash Lite).

Some online blog enthusiasts have been trying to gain traction for the idea that Apple has no legitimate claim to original technical or design concepts of the iPhone because they've been able to find pictures of prototypes with big screens that look similar to the iPhone that Apple successfully brought to market (despite the objection of pundits who complained about its technology choices, such as the idea that its lack of a physical keyboard would likely cause it to fail in the market).

Samsung has included several "who copied whom" internet memes in its defense in the U.S. District Court case now underway in San Jose, California. Yesterday, Samsung's Chief Product Officer Kevin Packingham complained to the sympathetic Wired that he found it "unreasonable that we?re fighting over rectangles, that that?s being considered as an infringement."

Samsung has jumped upon "rectangles" as a simplification of Apple's entire patent portfolio protecting the iPad and iPhone because Apple's design patent for the iPad uses the word "rectangle" in describing its signature shape, a design Samsung has boldly copied so closely that its own lawyers were at one point unable to tell the difference in court.



Samsung hasn't just copied the outside shape of the rectangular iPad, however. It has meticulously copied everything Apple sells down to the shape and design of chargers and accessories to the box the products go in to the lettering and design of the box itself, as well as the software features Apple pioneered to make its iOS devices easy and desirable to use.



Samsung's copying of the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4 series, and the iPad have been so thorough and complete that retailer Best Buy complained to Samsung that customers were returning the Samsung Galaxy Tab because they thought they'd purchased an iPad.
post #2 of 34
It sounds like this trial is putting Fandroid "rectangle" arguments and "Samsung didn't copy Apple because Apple copied LG" arguments on trial.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #3 of 34
This is a major difference between corporate philosophies and the trolls that say such-and-such had this-or-that feature first. It's not just about the designs but how it functions. I think of the LG Prada with its single-touch capacitive display. I wonder how long that was on the table before it was stated that it had to be multitouch out of the box? I'm guessing not very long. Even now in late 2012 Google is finally admitting that Android's UI isn't fluid. They have their Butter project which is great that they are finally taking the user-experience seriously but we're talking about the majority of phones sold won't get that version of Android for at least a couple years. On top of that, iPhone OS was fluid from day one on what is now considerably archaic HW. Even RiM couldn't believe the iPhone was that responsive.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #4 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This is a major difference between corporate philosophies and the trolls that say such-and-such had this-or-that feature first. It's not just about the designs but how it functions. 

Exactly. Pima facie, it would seem that these copyists have piggybacked off of Apple's hard work, but now, five years later, have an entrenched product and technology where it all looks obvious.

 

Who cares if Apple wins on "look and feel" (even though they probably will). The proximity sensor IP -- if it turns out to be a valid one to pursue -- is the sort of thing that Apple should really go after. I truly hope that the current case is only the preliminary salvo on Apple's part.

post #5 of 34
His doesn't read like a news article, it reads like a fanboy rant. Apple Insider really need to get some decent writers who can write objective pieces based on facts and nothing more.
post #6 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

His doesn't read like a news article, it reads like a fanboy rant. Apple Insider really need to get some decent writers who can write objective pieces based on facts and nothing more.

If anyone is prone to rants, it's you. 

 

For a perfect example, see your post above.

post #7 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

His doesn't read like a news article, it reads like a fanboy rant. Apple Insider really need to get some decent writers who can write objective pieces based on facts and nothing more.
There is no such thing as 'objective' news reporting. Yes, facts should form the basis of reporting and facts need to be verified but the objectivity and truth is more often than not relative in the context of reportage. As long as the bias is declared or implicit that is OK. If AI only reported indisputable facts it would be an unbelievably boring place to hang out.
post #8 of 34

It is very much easier to devise a proximity sensor for your touch screen smartphone if you already have one to look at. 

Apple did not have that luxury for that and a hundred other problems with the original iPhone.

So Samsung really benefitted from Apple's work. As far as I know, they have paid nothing for that benefit.

post #9 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

His doesn't read like a news article, it reads like a fanboy rant. Apple Insider really need to get some decent writers who can write objective pieces based on facts and nothing more.

 

Seeing that the site is called Appleinsider, it may surprise you to realise it's in the site's own interest to see that Apple Inc remains in good form.
 
Case in point, visit Palminfocenter after the demise of Palm Inc and HP WebOS.
 
There are plenty of general tech sites and also those which focus on Windows Android etc.
I suspect the Windows or Android sites don't worry about whether they're covering Windows or Android objectively compared to Apple's products.
 
Yet Appleinsider is successful enough to continually attract kotatsu with his constant criticism of all things Apple.
 
 
 
post #10 of 34
Gizmodo reviewed the Sony SmartWatch. This is a prime example of a product Apple might bring to market at some point but would never bring to market like this. Just watch the video to see just how useful and frustrating this thing would be. Of course, once Apple does move into wearable electronics there will be a mess of old and new posters that will come here to say how Apple wasn't first and will use shit gadgets like the Sony SmartWatch as proof.


Edited by SolipsismX - 7/31/12 at 3:04pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #11 of 34

This article fails on several fronts.

 

1)  If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit.  They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.

 

2) The article claims that no one, or more focused Samsung had all 'slate' devices before the iPhone.  Regardless of the truth of this statement, which I will focus on in point 3, what was Samsung of anyone else suppose to do?  Just keeping making products that eventually nobody would want.  The iPhone did revolutinize the phone market and people wanted smart phones now.  It wasn't the lack of smartphone before the iPhone, but really a change from marketing to corporate types to consumers directly.  And biggest of all EASE OF USE.  The iPhone introduced that.  But again, was Samsung to quit the phone market?  Not respond?  When Karl Benz invented the car, should he have been the exclusive maker of cars until his patents expired.  Apple may be able to get more money but they have constantly pushed to block phones.  This is unfortuantely repeating the history of IE6 and Microsoft in a way.  It stops innovation.

 

3)  AppleInsider and other have claimed in the past that the iPhone was unique in its design.  This lawsuit seems less about the tech inside and more on the design outside.  The fact is Windows Mobile, among others were rapidly going toward this design point.  Yes they lacked capacitive display and worked around a stylus.  But they were rapidly becoming button free.  You had a variety of designs, but there was a subset that had 3 or less buttons with mostly screen real estate.  There was a white one I recall back in 2004 that had a home button, and send and end buttons.  Sure I won't argue that Windows Mobile was aging especially with its stylus UI.  Android in alot of way though is equally copy of Windows Mobile and iOS.  It has alot of the power features that Windows Mobile had and the UI changes from device to device.  It has a better UI (especially with ICS).

 

I just don't understand why Apple can't compete on merits, maybe take some license fees like Microsoft has.  Apple should be happy they pushed smartphones more towards Easy of Use.  Design seems less important to me, especially since most phones were already almost there.  They just need refinements like capacitive.  In addition its not like Apple has had 3 similar but unique designs.  iPhone, iphone 3G & 3GS, and now iPhone 4 & 4S.  But even with all the prototypes leaked, to me it just proves if you do a screen focused device there is only so much design variations you can do.  You had one that looked very much like the Nokia Lumia 800/900 which many journalists had said was one of the few unique designs... I guess not.

 

There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices.  It could create less innovation.  It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.

Nokia Lumia 920, iPhone, Surface RT, Intel i3 Desktop with Windows 7 & Hackintosh, Power Cube G4

Reply

Nokia Lumia 920, iPhone, Surface RT, Intel i3 Desktop with Windows 7 & Hackintosh, Power Cube G4

Reply
post #12 of 34

The first time I saw the Galaxy, I literally cleaned my glasses to make sure it wasn't a mislabeled iPhone 3G. No exaggeration.

post #13 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

This article fails on several fronts.

 

1)  If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit.  They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.

 

...

 

I just don't understand why Apple can't compete on merits, maybe take some license fees like Microsoft has.  ...

 

There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices.  It could create less innovation.  It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.

 

They won't take license fees because it's not about money!

 

No good banning Samsung? Well, it would force Samsung to design something different, like .... something innovative?

 

Your points are so easy to defeat.

post #14 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post

 

They won't take license fees because it's not about money!

 

No good banning Samsung? Well, it would force Samsung to design something different, like .... something innovative?

 

Your points are so easy to defeat.

 

LOL.  They would get more money for banning Samsung than taking license fees.  As one iPhone sale would give them more money then one Samsung devices that is licensed.  Mostly due to the fact that a very small part of Android is patented by Apple.  And don't get me started on the overly broad design patent.  I don't think you could make a modern tablet that wouldn't infringe, minus the fact there is prior art.

 

And how exactly are they suppose to innovate?  It is something easy to say.  Until you realize that the design and and some of the patents are essential to what consumers want from a smartphone.

 

Or I guess all the OEMs could switch to Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8.  Apple can't sue Microsoft, as they have cross licensing agreement.  How innovative... (and I say this sarcasticly as a Lumia 710 WP7 user).

Nokia Lumia 920, iPhone, Surface RT, Intel i3 Desktop with Windows 7 & Hackintosh, Power Cube G4

Reply

Nokia Lumia 920, iPhone, Surface RT, Intel i3 Desktop with Windows 7 & Hackintosh, Power Cube G4

Reply
post #15 of 34

Apple did well to solve their design issues, and now everyone has copied them.

post #16 of 34

Here is the problem with your argument and similar arguments that claim that Apple should innovate instead of litigate.  Having owned a company that also is at the front of their industry, Apple spent the money to be different and innovate. The very nature of a Patent is the right to have a monopolization over your technology.  If Apple simply let everyone license it, what benefit really is there?  The revenue in licensing is small and doesn't benefit the patent holder unless you are a NPE (non practicing entity).  Apple is a practicing entity and wants their products to stand out from the crowd, based on the innovation they invested into.  To continue to innovate and allow others to take, leads to no future innovation.  Why would anyone spend big investment dollars in creating and honing an idea, if they are doing for the rest of the industry. In addition, Apple is under obligation to their stock holders to litigate. The value of the company is built on many of these patents and the monopolization they offer. Failing to defend IP means the patent is worthless.  Yes, Microsoft licenses many things and so does Apple. Some of which are SEP (standard essential patents) (apple's quicktime is a SEP) and some are not. But the crown jewels are never licensed. Case in point: Googles' Algorithmic Search IP, Microsofts Core Office products and Server Software, etc. So, if you really want innovation you should get behind the people that are truly innovating - Stealing ruins the innovation and that is what Google's Android, Samsung and others have done.  Sure, it's what people want, but that doesn't mean they can simply take without permission. If the owner of the patent doesn't want to license, sobeit, let Google and Samsung innovate their way to something great - perhaps they can do something original. Now that is when innovation will happen, not the stealing that crushes any companies drive to innovate.  If Apple gave up litigating, beyond the problems with shareholders, they would find that their next batch of innovation is copied even faster - thus, they become the Designers for the industry - something they don't want.

post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by drwam View Post

It is very much easier to devise a proximity sensor for your touch screen smartphone if you already have one to look at. 
Apple did not have that luxury for that and a hundred other problems with the original iPhone.
So Samsung really benefitted from Apple's work. As far as I know, they have paid nothing for that benefit.

I understand what you're getting at but the same can be said of any problem/obstacle, people will follow whatever someone else came up with. Apple greatly benefits from the problems Samsung overcame making the components used in the iPhone.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserati Man View Post

Here is the problem with your argument and similar arguments that claim that Apple should innovate instead of litigate.  Having owned a company that also is at the front of their industry, Apple spent the money to be different and innovate. The very nature of a Patent is the right to have a monopolization over your technology.  If Apple simply let everyone license it, what benefit really is there?  The revenue in licensing is small and doesn't benefit the patent holder unless you are a NPE (non practicing entity).  Apple is a practicing entity and wants their products to stand out from the crowd, based on the innovation they invested into.  To continue to innovate and allow others to take, leads to no future innovation.  Why would anyone spend big investment dollars in creating and honing an idea, if they are doing for the rest of the industry. In addition, Apple is under obligation to their stock holders to litigate. The value of the company is built on many of these patents and the monopolization they offer. Failing to defend IP means the patent is worthless.  Yes, Microsoft licenses many things and so does Apple. Some of which are SEP (standard essential patents) (apple's quicktime is a SEP) and some are not. But the crown jewels are never licensed. Case in point: Googles' Algorithmic Search IP, Microsofts Core Office products and Server Software, etc. So, if you really want innovation you should get behind the people that are truly innovating - Stealing ruins the innovation and that is what Google's Android, Samsung and others have done.  Sure, it's what people want, but that doesn't mean they can simply take without permission. If the owner of the patent doesn't want to license, sobeit, let Google and Samsung innovate their way to something great - perhaps they can do something original. Now that is when innovation will happen, not the stealing that crushes any companies drive to innovate.  If Apple gave up litigating, beyond the problems with shareholders, they would find that their next batch of innovation is copied even faster - thus, they become the Designers for the industry - something they don't want.

Well written for a FNG. +1
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #19 of 34

Ive is lying through his teeth. 

It was narrowly reported that Apple was under extreme pressure to come out with a smart phone. 

This BS by Ive is just a diversion to make Apple look like it isn't under the grip of its investors(masters).

The article I read a few years back told of a female product manager, so under pressure, that in frustration during the iPhone creation she slammed her door shut so hard the door knob broke off.

post #20 of 34
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post
Ive is lying through his teeth. 

 

Which you know, because you've provided such immense volumes of proof.


It was narrowly reported that Apple was under extreme pressure to come out with a smart phone. 

 

No, that wasn't the case in the slightest. The entire industry laughed at Apple for thinking they could create a phone of any sort, having no experience in that market whatsoever.

 

The article I read a few years back told of a female product manager, so under pressure, that in frustration during the iPhone creation she slammed her door shut so hard the door knob broke off.

 

Well, you'll want to link to it or at least explain what it has to do with anything whatsoever about "pressure to create a phone".

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #21 of 34
exactly how does someone walk into best buy, select an item that says "samsung galaxy tab," walk to the registers, pay for it, get it home, open it -- and only THEN realize it's "not an iPad"??

while I do believe samsung has infringed upon apple's patents, I just don't understand how the scenario above actually *takes place*. if you're paying hundreds of dollars for something, don't u make sure u have the correct item *before* paying for it? I'm sorry, but are people really THAT stupid?
post #22 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserati Man View Post

Here is the problem with your argument and similar arguments that claim that Apple should innovate instead of litigate.  Having owned a company that also is at the front of their industry, Apple spent the money to be different and innovate. The very nature of a Patent is the right to have a monopolization over your technology.  If Apple simply let everyone license it, what benefit really is there?  The revenue in licensing is small and doesn't benefit the patent holder unless you are a NPE (non practicing entity).  Apple is a practicing entity and wants their products to stand out from the crowd, based on the innovation they invested into.  To continue to innovate and allow others to take, leads to no future innovation.  Why would anyone spend big investment dollars in creating and honing an idea, if they are doing for the rest of the industry. In addition, Apple is under obligation to their stock holders to litigate. The value of the company is built on many of these patents and the monopolization they offer. Failing to defend IP means the patent is worthless.  Yes, Microsoft licenses many things and so does Apple. Some of which are SEP (standard essential patents) (apple's quicktime is a SEP) and some are not. But the crown jewels are never licensed. Case in point: Googles' Algorithmic Search IP, Microsofts Core Office products and Server Software, etc. So, if you really want innovation you should get behind the people that are truly innovating - Stealing ruins the innovation and that is what Google's Android, Samsung and others have done.  Sure, it's what people want, but that doesn't mean they can simply take without permission. If the owner of the patent doesn't want to license, sobeit, let Google and Samsung innovate their way to something great - perhaps they can do something original. Now that is when innovation will happen, not the stealing that crushes any companies drive to innovate.  If Apple gave up litigating, beyond the problems with shareholders, they would find that their next batch of innovation is copied even faster - thus, they become the Designers for the industry - something they don't want.

You are 100% correct. If companies are unable to protect their innovation, where is the incentive to innovate?

 

It would be good for Samsung to lose this case. It will force them to innovate instead of piggyback and that will benefit us all (including them)

post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I understand what you're getting at but the same can be said of any problem/obstacle, people will follow whatever someone else came up with. Apple greatly benefits from the problems Samsung overcame making the components used in the iPhone.

Agreed, But Samsung chooses to sell those components to Apple and Apple pays them for their innovation.

post #24 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

This article fails on several fronts.

1)  If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit.  They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.

Like almost every time some one quotes Steve, you are taking the comment out of context.

Apple is as much about making money as the next, but the money isn't the key when they design. They don't cut corners to save costs if it brings down the quality of he product and so on
Edited by charlituna - 7/31/12 at 3:25pm

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #25 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post

They won't take license fees because it's not about money!


More to the point, these are not SEP and thus Apple doesn't have to share. Since these are the tech that makes the iPhone an iPhone, of course they aren't going to.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

This article fails on several fronts.

 

1)  If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit.  They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.

 

2) The article claims that no one, or more focused Samsung had all 'slate' devices before the iPhone.  Regardless of the truth of this statement, which I will focus on in point 3, what was Samsung of anyone else suppose to do?  Just keeping making products that eventually nobody would want.  The iPhone did revolutinize the phone market and people wanted smart phones now.  It wasn't the lack of smartphone before the iPhone, but really a change from marketing to corporate types to consumers directly.  And biggest of all EASE OF USE.  The iPhone introduced that.  But again, was Samsung to quit the phone market?  Not respond?  When Karl Benz invented the car, should he have been the exclusive maker of cars until his patents expired.  Apple may be able to get more money but they have constantly pushed to block phones.  This is unfortuantely repeating the history of IE6 and Microsoft in a way.  It stops innovation.

 

3)  AppleInsider and other have claimed in the past that the iPhone was unique in its design.  This lawsuit seems less about the tech inside and more on the design outside.  The fact is Windows Mobile, among others were rapidly going toward this design point.  Yes they lacked capacitive display and worked around a stylus.  But they were rapidly becoming button free.  You had a variety of designs, but there was a subset that had 3 or less buttons with mostly screen real estate.  There was a white one I recall back in 2004 that had a home button, and send and end buttons.  Sure I won't argue that Windows Mobile was aging especially with its stylus UI.  Android in alot of way though is equally copy of Windows Mobile and iOS.  It has alot of the power features that Windows Mobile had and the UI changes from device to device.  It has a better UI (especially with ICS).

 

I just don't understand why Apple can't compete on merits, maybe take some license fees like Microsoft has.  Apple should be happy they pushed smartphones more towards Easy of Use.  Design seems less important to me, especially since most phones were already almost there.  They just need refinements like capacitive.  In addition its not like Apple has had 3 similar but unique designs.  iPhone, iphone 3G & 3GS, and now iPhone 4 & 4S.  But even with all the prototypes leaked, to me it just proves if you do a screen focused device there is only so much design variations you can do.  You had one that looked very much like the Nokia Lumia 800/900 which many journalists had said was one of the few unique designs... I guess not.

 

There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices.  It could create less innovation.  It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.

Job's stated that the coming lawsuits were in fact not about the money, but about principle. He would not accept an offer for settlement if presented. His intent is to destroy Android, as he felt it to "be a stolen product".

post #27 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

Ive is lying through his teeth. 

It was narrowly reported that Apple was under extreme pressure to come out with a smart phone. 

This BS by Ive is just a diversion to make Apple look like it isn't under the grip of its investors(masters).

The article I read a few years back told of a female product manager, so under pressure, that in frustration during the iPhone creation she slammed her door shut so hard the door knob broke off.

 

What the hell does that prove? I imagine that if you could fix door frames you would have a regualr job around Cupertino while Job's was alive.

post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

 

 

There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices.  It could create less innovation.  It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.

 

Except that for the most part Samsung and other competitors didn't innovate.   They copied.    This is especially obvious with Samsung since they not only copied the overall design and look & feel, but the trade dress and packaging, down to the color and fonts.     

 

If the competitors innovated, then there would probably be no lawsuit.

 

There's more than one way to do a phone UI.    There's a lot about Apple's UI that I actually don't like.    And I have seen some things on some other phones that I think do improve upon Apple's designs.    But the competitors need to take that further.      And there's lots of ways they could have done that:   the screen could have been 16:9 (like HTDV) or even 2.35 (to emphasize widescreen movie downloads).    The app icons didn't need to be square.    The home pages (with the app icons) could have worked horizontally.     The home button didn't need to be in the middle of the phone.   They could have drastically improved performance.   They could have had physical keyboards.   And those are just a few off of the top of my head.    

 

From a physical design standpoint, the Nokia Lumia is very different than the iPhone and since it uses Windows Mobile (for better or worse) the UI is quite different as well.    So even though they also wouldn't be where they are if not for Apple, at least they didn't wholesale steal the whole design like Samsung did.    

 

The one thing I agree with you is that even though Apple created the iPhone with no competition, they do need good competition in order to keep innovating.   

 

And Ive was an idiot for saying "we didn't do it for the money".     Apple is a public company.    You never say that to shareholders, even if Apple decided to not manage to the share price, as some companies elect to do.   

post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundsgoodtome View Post

exactly how does someone walk into best buy, select an item that says "samsung galaxy tab," walk to the registers, pay for it, get it home, open it -- and only THEN realize it's "not an iPad"??
while I do believe samsung has infringed upon apple's patents, I just don't understand how the scenario above actually *takes place*. if you're paying hundreds of dollars for something, don't u make sure u have the correct item *before* paying for it? I'm sorry, but are people really THAT stupid?

Apparently. Samsung's own evidence says that the main reason for returns at Best Buy is people who thought they were buying an iPad and found out later that they weren't. Whether or not you can understand that is irrelevant.

But if you have even a shred of honesty, you have to admit that Samsung's design for the product and the packaging appear intended to make it look as close to the iPad as they thought they could get away with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

This article fails on several fronts.

1)  If Ive claims it is not about the money, they why is there a lawsuit.  They should be happy that they are pushing good technology and design forward, if they have been copied.

You might start by not misrepresenting the argument. No one said that Apple doesn't care about money. What Ives said is that when designing new products, 'insanely great' is the top criterion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

2) The article claims that no one, or more focused Samsung had all 'slate' devices before the iPhone.  Regardless of the truth of this statement, which I will focus on in point 3, what was Samsung of anyone else suppose to do?  Just keeping making products that eventually nobody would want.  The iPhone did revolutinize the phone market and people wanted smart phones now.  It wasn't the lack of smartphone before the iPhone, but really a change from marketing to corporate types to consumers directly.  And biggest of all EASE OF USE.  The iPhone introduced that.  But again, was Samsung to quit the phone market?  Not respond?  When Karl Benz invented the car, should he have been the exclusive maker of cars until his patents expired.  Apple may be able to get more money but they have constantly pushed to block phones.  This is unfortuantely repeating the history of IE6 and Microsoft in a way.  It stops innovation.

Who ever said that no one made a slate product before the iPhone? That's not anywhere in the article at all. Once again, you should read for comprehension before commenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

3)  AppleInsider and other have claimed in the past that the iPhone was unique in its design.  This lawsuit seems less about the tech inside and more on the design outside.  The fact is Windows Mobile, among others were rapidly going toward this design point.  Yes they lacked capacitive display and worked around a stylus.  But they were rapidly becoming button free.  You had a variety of designs, but there was a subset that had 3 or less buttons with mostly screen real estate.  There was a white one I recall back in 2004 that had a home button, and send and end buttons.  Sure I won't argue that Windows Mobile was aging especially with its stylus UI.  Android in alot of way though is equally copy of Windows Mobile and iOS.  It has alot of the power features that Windows Mobile had and the UI changes from device to device.  It has a better UI (especially with ICS).

In case you haven't noticed, there are several lawsuits. Some are about design and some are about technology. They will each be defended separately. If Samsung can prove that Apple doesn't have anything unique, then they'll win.

However, Samsung's own evidence is that they discarded all of their designs that didn't look like the iPhone and instead chose the one that looks the closest to the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

I just don't understand why Apple can't compete on merits, maybe take some license fees like Microsoft has.  Apple should be happy they pushed smartphones more towards Easy of Use.  Design seems less important to me, especially since most phones were already almost there.  They just need refinements like capacitive.  In addition its not like Apple has had 3 similar but unique designs.  iPhone, iphone 3G & 3GS, and now iPhone 4 & 4S.  But even with all the prototypes leaked, to me it just proves if you do a screen focused device there is only so much design variations you can do.  You had one that looked very much like the Nokia Lumia 800/900 which many journalists had said was one of the few unique designs... I guess not.

There would come no good of banning Samsung and other Android devices.  It could create less innovation.  It would be like 1984 with everyone carrying an iPhone.

Forcing companies to create their own products rather than copying others is what fosters innovation. Allowing blatant copying does not.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

His doesn't read like a news article, it reads like a fanboy rant. Apple Insider really need to get some decent writers who can write objective pieces based on facts and nothing more.

I thought that too, and it surprises me since it's the first time I think I noticed it so much. They usually try to be objective and that's good, seems like the writer didn't bother this time, again pretty unusual.
post #31 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

 

From a physical design standpoint, the Nokia Lumia is very different than the iPhone and since it uses Windows Mobile (for better or worse) the UI is quite different as well.    So even though they also wouldn't be where they are if not for Apple, at least they didn't wholesale steal the whole design like Samsung did.    

 

You are missing the whole point.  From the leaks about prototypes, one of the prototypes look very much like the Lumia 800/900.  So on any exterior design point, Apple did consider using such design before Nokia had made it public.  Proves the limited design capabilities when you are working around a touch screen.

Nokia Lumia 920, iPhone, Surface RT, Intel i3 Desktop with Windows 7 & Hackintosh, Power Cube G4

Reply

Nokia Lumia 920, iPhone, Surface RT, Intel i3 Desktop with Windows 7 & Hackintosh, Power Cube G4

Reply
post #32 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Forcing companies to create their own products rather than copying others is what fosters innovation. Allowing blatant copying does not.

 

That goes on the assumption that Android and Samsung have done no innovations.  They have even to the fact that Apple was inspired by some of it (notifications).

 

I'm sorry, I don't use Android but I agree with Samsung here.  Let us compete.  That will bring innovation.  The fact is that the iPhone wouldn't be possibly without Samsung parts inside.  Sure some of it is standards based.  But only standards based because the EU in a huge party pushed GSM as a EU wide standard to allow for better competition.  This created the patents that are essential towards the operation of such standards.  That doesn't negate the fact that the iPhone would not exist had it not been for the innovation of others before it.  And now Apple wants to refuse anyone to use iPhone tech.  Sure its not considered standards based, but something like a proximity sensor is pretty much standard requirements for any modern smartphone.

 

The fact is, you can not out innovate the iPhone without borrowing the simplicity it brought to the market.  I know I brushed it off when it appeared on the market due to the lack of features ignoring the 'magic' and revolution was in simplicity.  Things like a proximity sensor or multitouch or capactive display.

Nokia Lumia 920, iPhone, Surface RT, Intel i3 Desktop with Windows 7 & Hackintosh, Power Cube G4

Reply

Nokia Lumia 920, iPhone, Surface RT, Intel i3 Desktop with Windows 7 & Hackintosh, Power Cube G4

Reply
post #33 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

...but something like a proximity sensor is pretty much standard requirements for any modern smartphone.

 

Yeah, pretty much a standard requirement now, after Apple demonstrated how to put all of those parts together to make something other than a Blackberry clone...

post #34 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie View Post

 

That goes on the assumption that Android and Samsung have done no innovations.  They have even to the fact that Apple was inspired by some of it (notifications).

 

I'm sorry, I don't use Android but I agree with Samsung here.  Let us compete.  That will bring innovation.  The fact is that the iPhone wouldn't be possibly without Samsung parts inside.  ...

That doesn't negate the fact that the iPhone would not exist had it not been for the innovation of others before it.

 
By your logic brick and timber merchants will have the right to use any building built with materials they've sold.
 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple nearly scrapped iPhone "multiple times" says designer Sir Jonathan Ive
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple nearly scrapped iPhone "multiple times" says designer Sir Jonathan Ive