AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Internal Samsung memo shows iPhone caused 'crisis of design'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Internal Samsung memo shows iPhone caused 'crisis of design' - Page 2

post #41 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

It's truly baffling that this companies don't try copying the most important thing about Apple, especially when it's completely LEGAL! Copy Apple's actual goals! They spell them out constantly: make the best possible product for your target customer. That's actually what Apple does and it's not freaking magic!

 

It is easy, but takes time, it took Apple almost a decade. No?

 

Some lazy Chinese car companies are doing the same, copying European and USA cars with NO shame.

They know that in the West most people GO crazy for anything cheap.

Reply
Reply
post #42 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Do you deny that Samsung had a crisis of design when the iPhone shipped?? Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I think there's just a little less at stake than the Cuban Missle Crisis.

 

Don't mess with this. This is the greatest comment I've read here in a long time.
 
 
 
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:27pm

Apple's goal isn't ultimately to "leverage resources" or "maximize user experience metrics" or any other buzz word jargon. They created each of the parts that came together to make the iPhone what it was all in service of the goal to make products they believed customers truly wanted. Yes, they had to do that for a long time before it finally culminated in a host of products working together but every step of the way they were guided by that central goal. Focusing anything else would have stopped them long ago.

Reply
Reply
post #44 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Don't hold your breath for that $2.5B.

 

 

With the buy-cheap-to-have-ALL mentality of the new Westerners you may be right. Even those who opposed the selling of Chinese photocopied cars are defending Samsung. Using the same lame square argument.

I just hope one of these people copy any of Gibson trademarked shape guitar, you´ll know what is trouble. 

Reply
Reply
post #45 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


Maybe part of Apple's success is their tightly integrated solution. Apple makes the hardware, software and controls the platform.
On the other hand... Samsung makes the hardware... but uses someone else's software, store and other services.
It works... but the result might not be the best possible product or user experience.
As others have said... Apple has many services that they roll into their products... iTunes and the App Store being a couple of the big ones.
If Apple's goal is to leverage all of their services into a great user experience... not many other companies can duplicate that.

 

Apple's goal isn't ultimately to "leverage resources" or "maximize user experience metrics" or any other buzz word jargon. They created each of the parts, that came together to make the iPhone what it was, ALL in service of the goal to make products they believed customers truly wanted. Yes, they had to do that for a long time before it finally culminated in a host of products working together, but every step of the way they were guided by that central goal. Focusing on anything else would have stopped them long ago.

Reply
Reply
post #46 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Don't mess with this. This is the greatest comment I've read here in a long time.
 
 
 

Would be better if the Samsung execs didn't speak English.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:39pm
Originally Posted by jwdav View Post
Had Samsung done any one or two of them differently, Apple would not have had a case.

 

Sure they wouldn't've.

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #48 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

"Absolutely nothing innovative. Just a natural progression of what all phones were doing at the time."

I'm not so sure... that Treo is a prime example of what phones were doing at the time. It looked pretty much like the last Treo.

Who knows if Palm had originally planned to scrap all their legacy Treos and switch wholly to the Palm Pre and Pixi in 2009. That kind of radical change seems out of the ordinary unless they were provoked by something new.

So was RIM planning the touchscreen Storm all along too?

I dunno... the Storm seemed kinda rushed and awful. Are you sure the Storm wasn't a response to the wildly popular iPhone?

My example of the Treo shows that Palm and Apple were both working on a new phone to announce during the same week.

Even though Apple was about to launch their first phone... they were obviously aware of this supposed natural progression... while Palm was launching yet another QWERTY Treo.

I have no aversion to the concept of natural progression... but it sure seems like the iPhone was the catalyst that sparked the next generation of smartphones.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:50pm
It's hard to imagine you can have a "crisis of design" when building a phone that looks and acts like the iPhone is not only the natural way phones would have been built had the iPhone not ever come to pass, but clearly obvious on every level that Apple deserves no credit or recognition for its accomplishments.... at least that is what certain posters keep telling me.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #50 of 117
8/6/12 at 4:56pm
  • hmm
  • Keylogger
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This is amazing! Every day it just looks worse and worse for Samsung.
At this point, no matter how much you love your Samsung kit or hate Apple's business philosphies if you can't see that Samsung is in the wrong you are a bigoted anti-Appleite.

Wait and see how it plays out. They size up the competition. You can take this as copying, but whether they infringe on these design patents will still be discussed. I don't see this case as over just yet, and I wonder if the words "crisis in design" were initially written in Korean. Arguing internal semantics of email here will likely help Apple. It's just that this alone isn't going to close the case, especially given the legal teams hired on both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You're right. 

 

$25 billion.


Heh.. it still has to be based off something. You're looking at this in a punitive sense, which isn't very logical. If they win it becomes a matter of determining what it's worth. How much did Samsung make in the US on this? If you look at the breakdown, 500 million of what was requested was due to "lost sales". They probably have some supporting math on these estimates, but nothing adds up to what you are suggesting. I don't really care about sides. You just aren't posting logic :P. Hehe.

Reply
Reply
post #51 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:03pm
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Heh.. it still has to be based off something. You're looking at this in a punitive sense, which isn't very logical. If they win it becomes a matter of determining what it's worth. How much did Samsung make in the US on this? If you look at the breakdown, 500 million of what was requested was due to "lost sales". They probably have some supporting math on these estimates, but nothing adds up to what you are suggesting. I don't really care about sides. You just aren't posting logic :P. Hehe.

 

When Samsung loses and has to pay Apple $5 for every device sold in the US (and buy back all the ones not sold), I can't wait for them to start releasing their actual sales numbers to show that "wait a minute, all these ones that you all thought we sold were just sitting in warehouses! We don't have to pay Apple for these!"

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #52 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Don't hold your breath for that $2.5B.

 

 

With the buy-cheap-to-have-ALL mentality of the new Westerners you may be right. Even those who opposed the selling of Chinese photocopied cars are defending Samsung. Using the same lame square argument.

I just hope one of these people copy any of Gibson trademarked shape guitar, you´ll know what is trouble. 

Companies have been copying Les Pauls and SGs for decades.  I don't understand your comment.

Reply
Reply
post #53 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Do you deny that Samsung had a crisis of design when the iPhone shipped?? Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!!

Translation?  The guy's name is Justin Denison!  I don't think that there was much translation required!  :-)

Reply
Reply
post #54 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:07pm

Haha!

Reply
Reply
post #55 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:09pm

In an effort to prevent subsequent 'crisis of design' litigation, Sansung moves to present further evidence supporting its case. Samsung cites a 1991 company memo referring to the firm's alternate name of "Copycats-R-Us". Based on belief and information, their position appears to be that Apple (as well as other companies) should have been aware of this moniker and/or associated tactics, and taken appropriate action to protect intellectual property.

Reply
Reply
post #56 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Samsung: Your honour, in our defense, we would like to submit to the court that we don't just copy Apple. We've been copying people for years and since nobody else has had a problem with it, we feel Apple shouldn't either. Fact is, by copying Nokia, our products looked like junk compared to Apple so we had to throw out everything and do what Apple was doing as evidenced by the abrupt shift in our product designs. Hopefully this will prove to you that Apple in no way influenced... wait, which side am I on again? Sorry, I get so easily confused about which company I'm working for as I can't tell the products apart from a reasonable viewing distance.
Why on Heaven and Earth did they submit this evidence in their defense? Ah well, shouldn't be long until they wrap this case up and all Samsung's old products stay off the shelves.

Samsung will have to settle this before it gets to the jury. If they have any brains at all, they'll agree to stop making phones that closely mimic Apple's products, take some of the more egregious copies off the shelf (if there are any that haven't sold yet) and pay some token fine without admitting guilt. Apple would probably go for it. And since Samsung has already started moving away from the slavish copying theme, it wouldn't hurt them that badly.

OTOH, Samsung's attorneys look like idiots. After being sanctioned 4 times in this trial and thoroughly reamed by the judge in the data release matter, they continue to violate the court's orders:


http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/samsungs-lawyers-breached-rules-again.html

"Samsung's lawyers just avoided being sanctioned for a controversial press statement (they merely got an earful from Judge Koh, who may look at their overall conduct again when the trial is over) but continue to annoy Judge Koh and to breach the rules of the #iCourt,"

While this particular transgression doesn't appear to have caused any harm, what in the world makes their attorneys believe that the rules don't apply to them?
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

I'm not so sure... that Treo is a prime example of what phones were doing at the time. It looked pretty much like the last Treo.
Who knows if Palm had originally planned to scrap all their legacy Treos and switch wholly to the Palm Pre and Pixi in 2009. That kind of radical change seems out of the ordinary unless they were provoked by something new.
So was RIM planning the touchscreen Storm all along too?
I dunno... the Storm seemed kinda rushed and awful. Are you sure the Storm wasn't a response to the wildly popular iPhone?
My example of the Treo shows that Palm and Apple were both working on a new phone to announce during the same week.
Even though Apple was about to launch their first phone... they were obviously aware of this supposed natural progression... while Palm was launching yet another QWERTY Treo.
I have no aversion to the concept of natural progression... but it sure seems like the iPhone was the catalyst that sparked the next generation of smartphones.

I think both Palm and RIM rushed into making a touch screen phone and both might be still be doing well had they come out with more inspired and usable hardware. If you remember before smartphones cell phones were getting smaller and smaller as famously satirized in Zoolander. Then Palm and BlackBerrys came out. Some smartphones had limited touchscreen abilities and used a stylus. Ideas are rarely unique, and I think that along with Apple, that LG and Samsung knew there was something in a almost entirely touchscreen phone. Their error was not refining the hardware nor software to the level Apple did. Out of all other manufacturers I believe HP was in the best position to compete with the iPhone, but while WebOS was fantastic the Pre was utter garbage.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #58 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Easier said than done. Building a great product isn't the end of it, it has to have a great user experience plus be very functional in more than one area. The iPod and itunes had been around for quite a few years before the iPhone came out. Combining a iPod and a cell phone was sure to sell well, then the app store, adding more and more functionality with every iteration. That's gonna be a hard formula for someone to copy.

 

SJ is on record saying how he admired Sony. It's not a leap of faith to see how Apple followed Sony's lead but took it the extra mile not only in product design, but in building the system that includes iTunes, the Apple stores, and the wonderful ordering and tracking system for their product. And they did it by providing unique, innovative products that barely resemble anything made by Sony. You don't see these two sniping at each other.

 

While I'm at it, I'll express some mixed feelings about RIM. On the one hand, they didn't try to slavishly copy Apple, and retained their product identity. Again no litigation necessary for "look and feel". On the other, the lack of inspired leadership will lead to RIM's demise. The core of Blackberry enthusiasts was, and is, as strong as those of Apple, but the lack of evolution and innovation in the company is disappointing to say the least.

Reply
Reply
post #59 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

 

1000

 

 

"Absolutely nothing innovative. Just a natural progression of what all phones were doing at the time."

 

 

This should be a sticky in every Apple-Samsung thread. 

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
post #60 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Wait and see how it plays out. They size up the competition. You can take this as copying, but whether they infringe on these design patents will still be discussed. I don't see this case as over just yet, and I wonder if the words "crisis in design" were initially written in Korean. Arguing internal semantics of email here will likely help Apple. It's just that this alone isn't going to close the case, especially given the legal teams hired on both sides.

Good points all around.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #61 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Combining a iPod and a cell phone was sure to sell well, 

When Motorola released the Rokr the version of iTunes that Apple let them use was totally crippled because Apple was already working on the iPhone and they weren't about to let them get in there first. It did however give the consumers a glimpse of what was possible

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I'm not surprised at all, I'm sure there were "holy shit" memos sent through every manufacturer. 

 

The whole notion of computer guys can't just come into the cell business without any experience attitude caught them all flatfooted.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #62 of 117
8/6/12 at 5:52pm
You have to admit Samsung had the eye to tell what is good. Other companies were so blind they could not see the lights when it was directly shone into their eyes. I was working at Rim at the time and the idiots were nitpicking tiny problems. It was like heaven and earth, or day and night. See Samsung shamelessly chased the leader and others just walked into oblivion.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santoanderson View Post

I admit that I side with Apple when it comes to complaints about similar UIs, packaging, and timing, but I think the "You can't make a rectangular phone! Only we can make a rectangular phone!" argument is bullcrap.

 

How is it that intelligent people (I presume all people have intelligence) are being suckered into this whole rectangle argument. Apple hasn't argued that none of it's competitors can use rectangles. This defence offered by Samsung is textbook use of reductio ad absurdum. They've taken Apple's argument, drawn the most extreme and unreasonable interpretation and mocked it. At the end of the day, looking at the homepage of both iOS and the android UI, you can't deny a striking resemblance and the bottom line is that Apple owns patents for this design. 

 

When you break down any design it will result in circles, rectangles and squares. As a first year design student I learnt that and I'm so disappointed that Samsung would resort tot this argument.

Reply
Reply
post #64 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:04pm

Is this a rip-off ?

 

 

700

 

 

related to this discussion i'm confused a bit, seems that someone stole my design of a mascot, designed in 2001. I have no certain evidence, proving my authorship but my grandma can witness, that i designed it.  Can DaHarder or someone else help me in case of any trouble with big players, complaining about this design?

Platanas IT Intelligence: digging for truth

Reply

Platanas IT Intelligence: digging for truth

Reply
post #65 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming View Post

 

It is easy, but takes time, it took Apple almost a decade. No?

 

Some lazy Chinese car companies are doing the same, copying European and USA cars with NO shame.

They know that in the West most people GO crazy for anything cheap.

Ever read about counterfeit Lexus cars? They're the equivalent Toyota with some pieces swapped from written-off damaged Lexus models, or in some cases, just people who bought the Toyota model and some Lexus badging. Then they neglect to tell who they sell it to that's its not a real Toyota.

 

With Apple, and the knock-off products, you have look-alikes with different branding (eg Samsung) and then there are iClone type of devices. Back in 2007, when the iPhone was released, all the Chinese knockoff factories started churning out counterfeit Nokia N95's and iPhones. At the time, the iPhone was inferior hardware but good software. It wasn't until the 3GS that the iPhone was feature parity with phones available by other manufacturers. 

 

In fact I'll just summarize this link: http://www.cellmad.com/celebrity-fake-list-top-10-iphone-clones/ , Note this article is 2008

1. Samsung Instinct

2. Sony Xperia

3. Deeda Pi

4. LG Voyager

5. LG Vu

6. Cect P168 (This is the device that looks identical to the iPhone with the weird touch-strip and was sold frequently on eBay as ""iPhone replica")

7. HiPhone (This is the other device that would frequently be sold on eBay as "HiPhone" to keyword spam people looking for iPhone)

8. Meizu M8 Mini one

9. HTC Touch Dual

10. Desay N8

 

From what you can gleam off Youtube, the counterfeits are not even useable devices (#6,#7) they're just meant to rip off people wanting to buy an iPhone. 

 

And yet Samsung doesn't seem to realize that it's products are clearly confusing to customers. 

http://pinterest.com/pin/266908715385909865/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hYCVRbyjE8

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bb.iphone&hl=en

All three of these links call out the Samsung Galaxy.

Reply
Reply
post #66 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

Don't mess with this. This is the greatest comment I've read here in a long time.
 
 
 

I have to admit, I read that line with Christopher Plummer's voice in my head! 

Reply
Reply
post #67 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Would be better if the Samsung execs didn't speak English.

I think it would sound better in the original Klingon.

 

Ok, I'm taking this movie-nerd hat off!

Reply
Reply
post #68 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Constance View Post

Remember Samsung had the first iphone blocked in Korea for well over 2 years so they can catch up to Apple.  When the iphone finally got approved by their FCC, Samsung punished  the carrier that carried the iphone.

Superb point.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

It's truly baffling that this companies don't try copying the most important thing about Apple, especially when it's completely LEGAL! Copy Apple's actual goals! They spell them out constantly: make the best possible product for your target customer. That's actually what Apple does and it's not freaking magic!

Totally agree but the simple truth is they simply don't have the talent or originality to be able to pull that off. Samsung excel only at two things—(attempts at) copying true innovators and then aggressively marketing those attempted copies to the world.

Reply
Reply
post #70 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xggrand View Post

I think it would sound better in the original Klingon.

Ok, I'm taking this movie-nerd hat off!

That quote was from Thirteen Days, no Klingons just Russians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c96Rr_Aixfk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Skip to 3:10. It's pretty hard to out movie nerd me lol.
Edited by dasanman69 - 8/6/12 at 6:49pm
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #71 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:33pm
68 posts, and not one defending Samsung. Must be a record on this forum - where are the usual suspects? I'd give it a go myself just for the hell of it, but Samsung's legal team appear to be sitting on the self-destruct button. The Apple team must think Christmas has come early.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I think there's just a little less at stake than the Cuban Missle Crisis.

But this is thermonuclear war, isn't it?
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

 

Yeah, +1. Come on, Apple, innovate don't litigate!

Actually I'd say that Apple does innovate, and SHOULD litigate when bottom-feeders like Samdung try to rip them off!

Reply
Reply
post #73 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

68 posts, and not one defending Samsung. Must be a record on this forum - where are the usual suspects? I'd give it a go myself just for the hell of it, but Samsung's legal team appear to be sitting on the self-destruct button. The Apple team must think Christmas has come early.
But this is thermonuclear war, isn't it?

Well I'll defend Samsung in saying that I believe that the SGS 2 in question was 1. Not available in the US and 2. A variant of the F700. But I definitely think they modeled Touch Wiz to almost exactly like iOS plus they totally changed their packaging and accessories to look exactly like Apple's.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #74 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:53pm
In case anyone's interested, here is the full memo. It doesn't look good for Samsung:

http://allthingsd.com/20120806/iphone-caused-crisis-of-design-at-samsung-memo/


Interestingly, they did get some things right in the meeting, but were apparently unable to act on them. For example:

"Right now we’re expecting to do around 350 models in just the first half of this year. If you ask the companies, the Operators we deal with, whether they like that we launch one model right after the another, [the answer is] absolutely not. Quantity isn’t what’s important, what’s important is putting on the market models with a high level of perfection, one to two Excellent ones." That's one of Apple's keys to success that they could easily have copied, but chose not to.
Edited by jragosta - 8/6/12 at 7:02pm
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 117
8/6/12 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

68 posts, and not one defending Samsung. Must be a record on this forum - where are the usual suspects? I'd give it a go myself just for the hell of it, but Samsung's legal team appear to be sitting on the self-destruct button. The Apple team must think Christmas has come early.
But this is thermonuclear war, isn't it?

Even the normal Samsung shills are having a hard time defending Samsung now. And (as shown above), the Samsung attorneys CONTINUE to violate the court's orders. It's almost as if they WANT to lose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

Ever read about counterfeit Lexus cars? They're the equivalent Toyota with some pieces swapped from written-off damaged Lexus models, or in some cases, just people who bought the Toyota model and some Lexus badging. Then they neglect to tell who they sell it to that's its not a real Toyota.

With Apple, and the knock-off products, you have look-alikes with different branding (eg Samsung) and then there are iClone type of devices. Back in 2007, when the iPhone was released, all the Chinese knockoff factories started churning out counterfeit Nokia N95's and iPhones. At the time, the iPhone was inferior hardware but good software. It wasn't until the 3GS that the iPhone was feature parity with phones available by other manufacturers. 

In fact I'll just summarize this link: http://www.cellmad.com/celebrity-fake-list-top-10-iphone-clones/ , Note this article is 2008
1. Samsung Instinct
2. Sony Xperia
3. Deeda Pi
4. LG Voyager
5. LG Vu
6. Cect P168 (This is the device that looks identical to the iPhone with the weird touch-strip and was sold frequently on eBay as ""iPhone replica")
7. HiPhone (This is the other device that would frequently be sold on eBay as "HiPhone" to keyword spam people looking for iPhone)
8. Meizu M8 Mini one
9. HTC Touch Dual
10. Desay N8

From what you can gleam off Youtube, the counterfeits are not even useable devices (#6,#7) they're just meant to rip off people wanting to buy an iPhone. 

And yet Samsung doesn't seem to realize that it's products are clearly confusing to customers. 
http://pinterest.com/pin/266908715385909865/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hYCVRbyjE8
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bb.iphone&hl=en
All three of these links call out the Samsung Galaxy.

In all fairness, many of those don't look that much like the iPhone. Of course, other than the obvious counterfeit (the HiPhone), the Samsung is the closest copy - which may explain why Samsung is the one in court today.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 117
8/6/12 at 7:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

68 posts, and not one defending Samsung. Must be a record on this forum - where are the usual suspects? I'd give it a go myself just for the hell of it, but Samsung's legal team appear to be sitting on the self-destruct button. The Apple team must think Christmas has come early.
But this is thermonuclear war, isn't it?

Well I'll defend Samsung in saying that I believe that the SGS 2 in question was 1. Not available in the US and 2. A variant of the F700. But I definitely think they modeled Touch Wiz to almost exactly like iOS plus they totally changed their packaging and accessories to look exactly like Apple's.

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong SGSII, but it looks just like an iPhone, nothing like an F700, and according to WP it was released in the US. What am I missing?
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 117
8/6/12 at 7:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Would be better if the Samsung execs didn't speak English.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

That quote was from Thirteen Days, no Klingons just Russians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c96Rr_Aixfk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Skip to 3:10. It's pretty hard to out movie nerd me lol.

It works either way...
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 117
8/6/12 at 7:06pm
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong SGSII, but it looks just like an iPhone, nothing like an F700, and according to WP it was released in the US. What am I missing?

No there were 3 American variants of the SGS 2. The one they keep showing was never sold in the US.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#American_variants
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #79 of 117
8/6/12 at 7:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong SGSII, but it looks just like an iPhone, nothing like an F700, and according to WP it was released in the US. What am I missing?

No there were 3 American variants of the SGS 2. The one they keep showing was never sold in the US.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#American_variants

OK - got it - thanks. They still all look like iPhones, and not much like the F700 IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 117
8/6/12 at 7:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I
No there were 3 American variants of the SGS 2. The one they keep showing was never sold in the US.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#American_variants

*cough* fragmentation *cough*

Oh, wait. The Samsung and Google fans insist that fragmentation doesn't exist.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Internal Samsung memo shows iPhone caused 'crisis of design'