Side-by-side iPhone, Galaxy S comparison revealed in internal Samsung 'evaluation report' - Page 3

Just because I happen to own dozens upon dozens of Apple products doesn't mean that they do no wrong.... It's a Tech Company, Not A Cult.

What DeHarder was describing is called "incremental design." It's quite common. Before Apple entered the phone and tablet markets incremental design was de rigueur. Remember the phones before the iPhone where trying to surf the internet was a total joke? Remember how almost impossible it was to download an optional app? Incremental design really never rethinks anything. 

Innovative design, which is how Apple designs, comes at the problem differently and starts afresh. No keyboard?? Such an idea made the CEOs of MS and RIM laugh... they couldn't imagine such a thing. 

Great advances don't come about incrementally. As Einstein said, "You cannot solve a problem with the same mentality that created it." I would add, you cannot even see a problem with the old mentality that created it.

Why the **** are you here if you don't think Apple as a company deserves a shred of credit and don't like any of their products? I'm serious. Why? Why waste your time on an Apple fan site?

Cult? The only people who use that term use it in the pejorative.

No, you don't hate Apple as much as you don't like people who love Apple.

...and it appears that Apple had been 'inspired' by Samsung designs long before the iPhone ever existed:

In 2005 Samsung had just released the SGH-E910 "fashion phone" with a similar arrangement, and iPod head Tony Fadell sent an Engadget blog post about the phone to Jobs and other Apple execs. "Weird way to hold the cellphone," said Fadell, but using the round center control pad "seems comfortable." Upon seeing the design, Jobs was typically direct. "This may be our answer — we could put the number pad around our click wheel," he wrote to Jony Ive and Apple designer Bas Ording. "Of course we should orient it like a watch, with 3, 6, 9, and * in the pure horizontal and vertical positions, just like any clock." 

*The Verge

Reasonable question. The tax thing for one. Other US companies do this and I don't like them either. My dislike is very much centered on Apple building itself up on the backs of other, in this case students, and then forgetting about them. Case in point. When the iPod came out Apple was giving discounts to students who purchased them. Apple also gave discounts to students who bought computers. As the iPod became more ubiquitous Apple stopped giving students a discount. Apple has also continued to reduce the discount that students receive when buying a computer. Finally, Apple used to give a free iPod to students who bought a new system for the fall. First they reduced the value of the credit to a new iPod and now have switched over to giving $100 credit on iTunes.

I am sure some folks will claim students are lucky to get anything at all (true) and that the students who bring this up (of which I am one - returning student) are self-centered/self-important/self-entitled. Those statements might hold water if Apple had never given better discounts to students in the past. But as Apple's profits and market share have risen, they have reduced what the students who supported them receive. 

Also, I have been using Apple computers since my first Apple IIc, and I have never gotten over how Apple overprices their systems. Yes, they last and yes they are easy to use, but the elitest attitude of Apple and Jobs always rubbed me the wrong way. 

Why do I keep buying Apple products? Because, up to now, they have been the best choice for use on a day to day basis. But, I am really starting to reconsider whether that is true or not anymore, especially considering the direction that OSX seems to be heading. As it stands, we are going to be stuck with Snow Leopard until our Mac Mini dies. :(

Just because I happen to own dozens upon dozens of Apple products doesn't mean that they do no wrong.... It's a Tech Company, Not A Cult.

I find this case very interesting and look forward to the outcome, whatever it may be. However, that's not why I'm posting.

It's self-evident you post comments to be attention grabbing, not to add to the conversation... or maybe you just have poor communication skills at trying to get the logical message in your head across. You seem intelligent so it can't be the latter. So you're an attention whore. That's ok. I understand there are personality types that thrive on it. It's when you deny it by arguing that you are adding anything reasonable to the conversation, that's when people get upset at you. And you seem to like when people get upset with you as well.

Oh Really... You. Fail. Yet. Again.

Anyway... The sooner all of this nonsensical litigation ends - The better for the entire industry.

Interesting little tirade you posted there.... though completely off-base on every level.

I'm merely an avid gadget-enthusiast without preference for inane things like brands etc., always taking into consideration that none of them are perfect.

If something appeals to me... I Buy It & Enjoy It without one iota of concern for those more brand-partisan, who too often use brand-affiliation as some kind of proof that they're in the 'cool club' or some other such nonsense.

I Define My Possessions... Never Do They Define Me... and that makes all the difference. :-)

Reasonable question. The tax thing for one. Other US companies do this and I don't like them either. My dislike is very much centered on Apple building itself up on the backs of other, in this case students, and then forgetting about them. Case in point. When the iPod came out Apple was giving discounts to students who purchased them. Apple also gave discounts to students who bought computers. As the iPod became more ubiquitous Apple stopped giving students a discount. Apple has also continued to reduce the discount that students receive when buying a computer. Finally, Apple used to give a free iPod to students who bought a new system for the fall. First they reduced the value of the credit to a new iPod and now have switched over to giving $100 credit on iTunes.

I am sure some folks will claim students are lucky to get anything at all (true) and that the students who bring this up (of which I am one - returning student) are self-centered/self-important/self-entitled. Those statements might hold water if Apple had never given better discounts to students in the past. But as Apple's profits and market share have risen, they have reduced what the students who supported them receive. 

I find this case very interesting and look forward to the outcome, whatever it may be. However, that's not why I'm posting.

Why don't you just take this argument to its logical conclusion? No one invents anything because, in fact, natural elements make up all products any one entity produces and those entities didn't 'invent' the elements, did they? No, like so many other entities before it, Apple took separate elements that were previously available and combined them into an unique and new combination, inventing a new product. Was it the first touchscreen mobile phone? No. Was it the first mobile device with full internet browsing capabilities? No. Was it the first candy bar mobile phone? No. Was it the first mobile phone with music and video player functionality? No.

But it was the first mobile phone with all those features and more, and whose features were inarguably very accessible and easy to use. You can't point to another mobile phone that came before the iPhone that had all those capabilities in one product that was so user friendly. So Apple did invent something.

If there is one person that can be documented as being on more sides of an issue than you, it's Mitt Romney (whatever you think about the man, it's true). And that's a close call.

It's self-evident you post comments to be attention grabbing, not to add to the conversation... or maybe you just have poor communication skills at trying to get the logical message in your head across. You seem intelligent so it can't be the latter. So you're an attention whore. That's ok. I understand there are personality types that thrive on it. It's when you deny it by arguing that you are adding anything reasonable to the conversation, that's when people get upset at you. And you seem to like when people get upset with you as well.

Passive-aggressively belittling me is pointless to the conversation, although it's fair you act aggressively and dismissively when I accuse you personally of unseemly character flaws. I pointed to evidence that clearly defines your current behavior as a troll. You say I'm off-base. You're reasoning? Because you're an avid gadget-enthusiast without brand loyalty. You do realize you can be both at the same time, right? A person that buys lots of stuff and a forum troll. Then you ramble on about possessions, etc. without really responding to my comment directly, and noticeably not defending your Apple Invents Nothing statement, all while throwing around what appears to be an air of superiority.

Typical politician's response of not actually responding to accusations made against you, just deflecting as you've done in the past. I don't care what you buy, I don't care what or who defines you, I don't care how much of a cool rebel you are because you don't join in with others' passions of the trials and tribulations of specific companies. All I was commenting on was your troll-like posts. Just your negative and disprovable posts that serve no purpose but to get responses like the one I'm typing to you right now.

I'd ask you some direct questions as to why you post stuff like you do in venues like this, but no one else has been able to get reasonably anywhere with you and it's late where I am, so I'll just let you get back to that gilded bridge under which you hide all your electronics you don't let define you (yet, inexplicably, letting your troll posts define you). Until the morrow.

First, Apple wasn't built on student purchasing.  It was built of public purchasing.  Meaning all segments not just limited students or educators.  And while its always nice to get a discount, no company is required nor should be expected to maintain the same level of discounts for the life of a company.  Nor do I remember any consumer level education discounts back in the company's early history.  I know they did large school reduction of price for schools to purchase in bulk, but I don't recall ever seeing them for the individual consumer (back in the late 70's and early 80's).  Those perks aren't done out of the companies goodness, but to get a consumer when they are new to making choses on products.  When companies are having a hard time (iMac G3, early I pod period) Apple needed to grab a larger customer base.  Now that need is dramatically smaller (so much as to be laughable).  

As for being over priced, what is over priced?  Where is the national standard for what % markup companies can put on their products and still be considered a fair price?  I am quite sure you use and consume products with fair greater markup then what Apple has, and probably rarely even think about it (in some cases I am sure as a consumer you are completely unaware of it, as some aren't widely reported).