Internal Samsung memo shows iPhone caused 'crisis of design' - Page 3

Why did they have all those variants anyway?

Those models aren't the ones in the trial.

 

"So that everyone can have exactly the phone they want!"

Yes - I understand. So does anyone have a photo of an SGSII that doesn't look like an iPhone?

Honestly, I think they were trying to avoid the litigation they're in now.

Provided they are willing to move to another country to get it, of course.

I wondered about that. Seems like they may not have tried hard enough though.

Well that's one argument you won't get from me.

At the risk of sounding "racist," does anyone disagree, that Asian companies find it easier to "copy" than "innovate?" There, I said it. :)

They had all those variants because samsung didn't have the same clout with carriers at the time that apple did. Each carrier wanted it tricked out and named according to their desires. A lot of the fragmentation that exists within the Android ecosystem is actually due to carriers rather than hardware developrs or google. That being said, now with the Galaxy SIII samsung has stood firm and stopped all of this nonsense.

 

I wholly agree that certain elements of the UI  have apple design in it, but I also believe that its a bit silly to slam samsung in general. I use a GSIII and I can tell you first hand that no one with any passing familiarity with the smartphone market would confuse it with an iphone.

I think it is obviously easier for anyone to copy rather than innovate. The question of whether there are cultural or, more likely, political (regulatory) factors that make it more likely to happen in certain regions may not be racist, but is definitely a bit of a sensitive issue, and probably best avoided.

Edit: I meant "innovate", not "imitate".
Edited by muppetry - 8/6/12 at 8:13pm

Makes sense, although Apple somehow resisted those pressures. I agree that they have made the III look different, but that doesn't excuse what they did with the II.

Deleted

Very thoughtful and intelligent response...but, i stand by my original premise. :)

And, yet, even with the Galaxy SIII, there are multiple different variants.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that Samsung mentioned in their 'crisis of design' memo that they were releasing 350 different phones in one six month period. You can't blame that on the carriers.

That ignores:
1. Samsung's own evidence says that Samsung's products were a close enough match to Apple's products that the #1 reason for returns at Best Buy was that users thought they were buying an Apple product.

2. Samsung's own attorneys couldn't tell the difference (this was tablets, but the principle is the same)

3. Look at all the evidence that has come to light so far in this trial. Look at the Samsung phones before the iPhone and after. Look at the generic Android icons and look at what Samsung changed them to. It's pretty clear that Samsung has gone out of its way to copy the iPhone and iPad.

"What was intended to put Samsung in a positive light became fodder for Apple counsel William Lee, who noted the comparisons being made between the two companies' products."

I am a bit confused why Samsung introduced this email. Surely it is self defeating.

Does anyone know what they were hoping to achieve?

 

It's surely a cunning plan, because as some posters noted last week, the lawyer leading Samsung's case is a really smart guy, hence the declaration to the public, continually aggravating the judge, etc etc.

 

Racist?  Perhaps.  I don't think that kind of generalization helps very often.  

 

But as to your question, yes, I disagree.  I think Sony has a nice history of innovation and Microsoft has shamelessly copied Apple.

 

 

 

First 3 posts said it all!

 

A crucial unknown in this trial is how the jury will respond. Apparently they have the authority to lay aside patents in their determination and so, even blindingly obvious impropriety by Samesung could be excused by an Apple's design is obvious finding.  I cannot understand a legal system in which expert determinations by the USTPO could be set aside by inexpert jurors, if in fact my understanding is correct.

 

In short, this being a trial by jury means that the outcome is anything but clear.

But why were they rushed?

If the full touchscreen was truly the natural progression... it should have happened organically. They shouldn't have to rush if it was going to happen anyway.

The fact that they did rush some less-than-stellar products to market suggests that they were, in fact, feeling pressure from the iPhone.

I'd love to have seen RIM's and Palm's product roadmaps prior to January 2007. RIM could have easily added a touchscreen to the Blackberry... since they control the hardware and software. But I still have my doubts whether RIM was planning on going down that route at all... since the Blackberry was known for its keyboard.

But Palm had a more difficult task. They were still using Windows Mobile and PalmOS on their phones... and that software might have limited their development.

I found this quote: "Palm was way behind the times. They needed a leader to come up with a brand new consumer product that was a whole lot fresher than the outdated Treo smartphone. In 2007 they found Jon Rubinstein, one of the architects of the original iPod, who had retired from Apple in 2006. They put him in charge of developing the yet-unannounced Palm Pre and the WebOS software it would run."

So... Palm hired Jon Rubinstein after Apple announced the iPhone. Was that just a big coincidence?

I don't think it was a coincidence. Palm announced its latest Treo on January 7, 2007 and they already had the Centro in the pipeline for a Fall release. It was a normal day at Palm.

Then 2 days later Apple announced the iPhone.

I imagine alarms went off at Palm... and at every other manufacturer too.

What's the big takeaway from all of this? No company was prepared for what Apple brought to the table. Even if these companies thought full-touchscreen smartphones were the future... none of them were ready to move in any sort of timely manner.

If the next step in smartphones was the full touchscreen... Apple had it in 2007. And that was with their very first phone.

The old guard... RIM, Palm and everyone else... didn't go to that next step until a year later or beyond. And that's shocking since they all should have had their finger on the pulse all these years.

Nobody should have been rushed... unless there was some new guy causing a stir in the industry.

 

Great counter-point to the "natural evolution" rubbish spouted by some.

Samsung didn't introduce the email. In fact, they fought to keep it out - and were apparently successful until a Samsung executive referred to the email during his testimony. Once Samsung had referred to the email, Apple was able to have it brought into testimony.

That Samsung executive is undoubtedly kicking himself tonight - if there are any parts of his body that the attorneys have not already beaten to a pulp. His mention of the memo was a MAJOR mistake.

 

Awesome comment.

 

A minor historical quibble - the (non-paraphrased) line was originated by Adlai Stevenson, US Ambassador to the UN, when he confronted the Soviet ambassador at a Security Council meeting in the midist of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The Hollywood version was a recreation of the confrontation, not a fictionalized or "improved" dramatization. 

Thanks!

I often hear things like "that wasn't innovation... all phones were heading in that direction..."

There were plenty of companies who could have announced a radical new phone in January 2007...

But they didn't... and these were companies who have been making phones for years.

And the fact that these companies didn't have anything close to comparable until over a year later means they were a little behind the curve. The sad thing for them is... Apple was the "new guy" in all of this.

So if Apple didn't do anything special... what was everyone else doing at the time? I've already shown that Palm announced yet another Treo in the same week Apple shocked the world with their new iPhone. Clearly Palm wasn't thinking too far ahead. They even had other new models to come out later that year... further proving that they hadn't been thinking about the next big thing.

Apple pretty much bet the farm on a brand new touchscreen-only phone with a brand new OS... while everyone else was still clinging to QWERTY keyboards and antiquated interfaces and software.

If Apple's first iPhone wasn't an innovation... I don't know what is.

 

Just a fan of Christopher Plummer's villain in that movie. Shakespeare-quoting Klingons! Who'da thunk it?

Gruber's take: "Not sure what they were worried about. It’s just black rectangles."

 

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/08/07/samsung-crisis

 

http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/04/26/samsung.denying.kt.phones.due.to.iphone/

Monday, Apr 26, 2010 12:35pm Samsung 'punishing' KT for carrying iPhone

Samsung has been retaliating against Korean cell carrier KT for its success with the iPhone, the provider's chairman Lee Suk-chae said today. Following the popularity of Apple's phone at KT, Samsung has allegedly been diverting most of its best phones to SK Telecom and deliberately offering slack support for the few phones that do reach the number two carrier. Lee went so far as to accuse Samsung and other phone makers of collaborating on an anti-iPhone strategy that uses SK Telecom as its front. The executive cited KT's version of the Omnia II as an example of active discrimination: Samsung banned KT from referring to its model as part of the Omnia II family and has been software updates for the Windows Mobile phone where SK Telecom has been kept up to date. The KT version, the Show Omnia, is an "illegitimate son" in Samsung's eyes, Lee said. Much of the supposed hostility stems from Samsung's embarrassment at its relatively poor performance. KT is now believed to have sold 500,000 iPhones in Korea since its late November launch, or 30,000 more than the Omnia II despite launching later and on only one carrier. The damage to Samsung is believed bad enough that the copmany may have actually lost money on phone sales in its home market, where it and LG have had a virtual stranglehold until last year. Samsung's fight to get credibility in smartphones has been attributed in part to its near-exclusive dependence on Windows Mobile until last year. It began getting traction with the launch of its first Android phones in the second half of 2009 and, in 2010, is now avoiding Windows Mobile on its flagship phones. The Galaxy S and Wave run Android and Bada respectively, and Samsung's only major Microsoft-based phone known so far won't arrive until Windows Phone 7 is ready in the fall.

Now imagine the emails that were actually destroyed..

Actually, yes I do disagree to a certain extent.  

 

You asked for it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew4Y5HLyT6c

 

It's a German car company with an "Asian" idea.

 

Yes this is real.

 

Magnetism is our future...

So, the Judge is basically saying that if a new player (or a competitor) comes and changes the rules of the game with a new product, you're not allowed to take that crisis into account and evolve your strategy?

 

Either AppleInsider fails at "reporting", either the Judge is biased. Or possibly, every industry in the United States will have to become a monopoly, but for _some reason_ I doubt this will happen...

 

You're more than welcome to modify your strategy.

 

You just can't 'copy and paste' your competitor's who own patents.

 

Well said Sir! Couldn't agree more. 

It's funny cos it's true. Samesung spent the first half of the previous decade making Nokia knock-offs. Slavish imitation is in their corporate DNA.

You're absolutely right. For anyone who actually consciously lived during that period and bought phones cannot say that there was a natural progression towards a design that resembled an iPhone. If there was a natural progression it was towards a Blackberry inspired design or the slider keyboards HTC used to design its phones around. In 2007 I had an i780 Samsung phone and it was all keyboard and didn't resemble an iPhone design at all. If Samsung would've announced an iPhone look alike in 2007 or early 2008 I would've bought it! In my neck of the woods (Netherlands) you couldn't buy an iPhone in those days. So if there would've been an iPhone look alike I surely would've bought it. But there wasn't. The only type of smartphones one could buy were Nokia/HTC or Blackberry inspired phones. 

 

Thanks for the link in your follow up post. I finally found some other information as well.

 

The approval issue was not targeting the iPhone directly. Korea had a required standard for all phones (WIPI) that most foreign handset makers chose not to support. In April 2009 that requirement was dropped and the iPhone was approved a few months later. Some people describe the WIPI requirement as a trade barrier, but it is a stretch to say the iPhone specifically was blocked for two years.

 

As for Samsung punishing the carrier KT, that was a description supplied by the head of KT. Again, it sounds plausible but is not exactly a smoking gun.

I'd say you've concluded what you believe, and tried to stitch together reasons that don't support your conclusions.

How is the judge saying that? Where did the judge say that? What were her exact words? The problem with your argument is that the judge made no such statement. You started from the conclusion that she is biased, and made up (imagined) the "what she is basically saying" part.

Secondly, you're missing the point by claiming "you're not allowed to take crisis into account." Suppose you are a student and the instructor says there's a pop quiz, and you haven't been studying. Crisis!! Do you justify COPYING the answers from the smart student by saying "am I not allowed to take crisis into account for my actions?"

 

 

Yes, multiple variants do exist, but not in the same mannner, and not for the same reason. Multiple variants exist for the same reason why the verizon iPhone 4 differed from the AT&T one.  Three models exist:

 

1. the i747 which is the North American variant which supports North American LTE. Samsung's Exynos 4212 processor does not support North American LTE, which is why within North American markets the Galaxy S3 uses the Snapdragon S4. Its a dual core instead of a quad core chip, but using a newer fabrication process and doubles up the RAM to 2 GB to make it feel closer in terms of performance to the international version.

2. the i9300 is the version used outside of North America, for exactly the reasons described above.

3. the SC-06D was released only within Japan on the NTT Docomo carrier which had both the increase in RAM as well as the Exynos chip.  I guess they struck a deal to get special treatment much like AT&T and Apple did.

 

The point, however, is that unlike the Galaxy SII, carriers weren't allowed to take the platform and bastardize it to their specifications. All three of these variants are absolutely indistinguishable from one another and unless you are running benchmarks to get numbers, they feel alike to one another in terms of smoothness. 

 

Insofar as releasing 350 phones in a 6 month period, its a combination of Samsung's doing and the carriers. Apple's business model revolves around a very small set of products that appeal to the largest possible audience. It works very well, but it doesn't mean that other business models can't be successful as well. Samsung obviously makes a number of different phones on a number of different platforms (Windows Phone, Android, Dumbphone, etc.), and numerous phones are only sold in certain countries.  Furthermore, as I said above, carriers then took the phones and decided they wanted to differentiate their Galaxy SII model from other carriers. And voila, a cluster **** of phones are released.