or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Nokia rumored to join Apple in dumping Samsung as a supplier
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nokia rumored to join Apple in dumping Samsung as a supplier - Page 2

post #41 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

What's the hot new trendy term for "outsourcing" these days?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

"Business as usual."

 

Oh that! That's not new or trendy. In fact I find the phrase "Business as usual" to be far more antiquated than "outsourcing."

"Business men" have used the term "Business as usual" to justify their "business practices" since the dawn of time — everything from slavery to fraud can be described as "business as usual."

post #42 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans. I remember sitting in a Best Buy once by a Samsung phone display. Two people in the five minutes I was there thought the phone was an iPhone. They were right it looked just like one. That was intentional and a jury agreed.

 

To see how much Samsung copies Apple, have a look here: http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com

Shameless

post #43 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by boriscleto View Post

And Apple just stole the Macintosh GUI from Xerox...

Right, "stole" in exchange for Apple stock...

"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 #44 of 62

Samsung should be sued out of existence.  So should google.  They're both rogue companies that steal and engage in foul, unfair business practices.

post #45 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans.
 
That idea makes no sense.
 
How would selling chips tell a supplier what the iPhone case looked like, its software, or its packaging?
 
The fact is, Samsung didn't start following the iPhone theme until around 2010, years after the iPhone was available to anyone to look at.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post

Packaging?

So what package shape do you think Samsung should have chosen?

 

The whole packaging debate is ridiculous anyway:

 

Apple used to use a book-like box for its small devices.  Device on one side.

 

Months before the iPhone came out, the LG Prada used a new style of box where you took off the lid and the smartphone was staring you in the face, with accessories underneath.

 

Apple (and others) later did the same.

 

post #46 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

You left out Microsoft. Windows Mobile had the ability and even some nice hardware. In retrospect, it was a mistake for MS to abandon the user base they had by dumping WinMo for Windows Phone.

The mistake was abandoning it sooner, for thinking that making a PDA/phone OS work the same way as a desktop OS, and for not working to make a single unified platform for which to work from. They finally did the right thing, just way too late.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #47 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The mistake was abandoning it sooner, for thinking that making a PDA/phone OS work the same way as a desktop OS, and for not working to make a single unified platform for which to work from. They finally did the right thing, just way too late.

 

I agree.  They should've made the kernel better, sooner.  (It was planned, but took too long.)

 

They did try to make things source compatible, and so did third parties.  There was a really nice .Net implementation for WM and CE, that allowed you to pretty much write code that had major pieces that worked on desktop or mobile.

 

Too little, too late.

post #48 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


Right, "stole" in exchange for Apple stock...

It wasn't quite as friendly and simple as that. But yes, there was a payment in stock for something. Xerox and Apple just didn't perfectly agree on what that was.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html

 

COMPANY NEWS; Xerox Sues Apple Computer Over Macintosh Copyright

By LAWRENCE M. FISHER, Special to The New York Times
Published: December 15, 1989


The Xerox Corporation filed suit here today against Apple Computer Inc., accusing it of unlawfully using Xerox copyrights in its Macintosh and Lisa computers.

Xerox's suit, which was filed in Federal District Court, charges Apple with copyright misrepresentation and seeks more than $150 million in royalties and damages.

Xerox contends that the Lisa and Macintosh software stems from work originally done by Xerox scientists and that it was used by Apple without permission . . .
 

Edit: There's a very thorough history here, and a really informative read. Nothing in it that should bother any Apple fan.

http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

I agree.  They should've made the kernel better, sooner.  (It was planned, but took too long.)

They did try to make things source compatible, and so did third parties.  There was a really nice .Net implementation for WM and CE, that allowed you to pretty much write code that had major pieces that worked on desktop or mobile.

Too little, too late.

The only thing MS has going for it is a lot of money and the willingness to invest in seemingly failed products. They could push Win Phone along with no adoption for years and perhaps when there is a paradigm shift be ready to jump in to take the lead.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #50 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It wasn't quite as friendly and simple as that. But yes, there was a payment in stock for something. Xerox and Apple just didn't perfectly agree on what that was.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html

That case was dismissed before it ever got started and as you note it wasn't about any licensing for the GUI but specific aspects that were in disagreement, which is considerably different from the Apple v MS case, which we know Apple lost.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #51 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That case was dismissed before it ever got started.

But you're not claiming that Xerox and Apple saw eye-to-eye on what Xerox IP Apple was permitted to use are you? The suit was evidence Xerox thought something was "stolen".

 

EDIT: Kudos for using Google Scholar! I doubt most here have any idea it exists.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

But you're not claiming that Xerox and Apple saw eye-to-eye on what Xerox IP Apple was permitted to use are you? The suit was evidence Xerox thought something was "stolen".

EDIT: Kudos for using Google Scholar! I doubt most here have any idea it exists.

1) Sure, they certainly didn't see eye-to-eye or there would have been no lawsuit, warranted or not. I do seem to recall that the issue wasn't so much over what was used but how it was used. specifically not giving the proper credit for what they were allowed to use when they shipped their systems. I could be completely wrong on that but I don't feel like researching it as it was a very long time ago and have a lunch date to attend.

2) I found that link via a citation in Wikipedia. I never would have thought to use GS directly.

3) Remember when widescreen was vertical and it made perfect sense because it mirrored a piece of paper?


This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #53 of 62
You betcha Samsung are worried about losing component orders - where else are they going to get the ideas to put into their highly profitable 'no research needed' copying business?
post #54 of 62
While the evidence that Samsung was methodically copying its largest customer's products only became public after Apple sued to stop Samsung, sources within other companies indicate that Samsung has behaved similarly with its other customers. The Low-hanging fruit situation for Samsung is over. They are already convincing themselves that they got to their position by innovation and are now developing their own OS for their smart phones independent of Google. Good luck with that.

Other manufacturers learning this hard lesson is going to be a good thing going forward. Samsung will lose their low manufacturing costs due to large volumes -- and lose the competitive advantage they've had for years; getting everyone else to do the grunt work of component development and FAB research.

The story in the press was incredibly annoying; Apple was lawsuit happy, pretended they invented everything. All their fans are "acolytes". And of course, they cheered on Samsung because they were slightly cheaper and NOT Apple. There was no bigger cheerleader of these PR attacks than Forbes magazine. But the rest of the electronics industry that happily used Chinese sweat shops -- and including the largest sweat shop (Samsung) all got to ride out the storm that was leveled at Apple -- and the reporters didn't bother to note that Apple was one of the few companies pushing for change. Apple left the US Chamber of Commerce and I've yet to read a mainstream article on that festering cauldron of outsourcing plutocrats.

I think a lot of us commenting on this -- the Apple Fans -- aren't that blind to what was really going on. The one thing I'm looking forward to is that the media may finally see that the Nexus of abuse here is with Samsung. And I'm hoping the movement away from everyone using the largest sweat shop clone manufacturer on the planet will hurt them dearly.
post #55 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

But you're not claiming that Xerox and Apple saw eye-to-eye on what Xerox IP Apple was permitted to use are you? The suit was evidence Xerox thought something was "stolen".

 

EDIT: Kudos for using Google Scholar! I doubt most here have any idea it exists.

 

It's 2013 -- can we stop beating this dead horse? The people who always go back to the trough to say; "But Apples stole from Xerox" don't ever bother to get their facts right, nor do they understand that nothing was COPIED -- they only used the ideas.
Both Microsoft and later Samsung were in a "privileged ongoing relationship" and they had design specs, and they copied look and feel and interactions and many things more specific than ideas.


Please stop bringing up Xerox. It's always the TAG for people to know how stupid the following comments are going to be -- like saying; "Glenn Beck said;" -- you know everything that follows that statement is going to be a waste of time.
post #56 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post

Packaging?
So what package shape do you think Samsung should have chosen?
- I think choosing a cuboid like package for a cuboid shaped object makes sense.
What dimensions should have been chosen?

- I say adding a bit on the sides of a product (protection) and a quite a bit up or down so you can place all other accessories is a sensible choice for a size of the box.
What color should have been chosen?

- Well the phone is black...  1bugeye.gif ...
Do you think black should have been reserved to Apple alone?

I thought so.
Just making a point. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looky here - not copying eh?

I thought so. 

Just making a point.

post #57 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

 

It's 2013 -- can we stop beating this dead horse? The people who always go back to the trough to say; "But Apples stole from Xerox" don't ever bother to get their facts right, nor do they understand that nothing was COPIED -- they only used the ideas.Both Microsoft and later Samsung were in a "privileged ongoing relationship" and they had design specs, and they copied look and feel and interactions and many things more specific than ideas.Please stop bringing up Xerox. It's always the TAG for people to know how stupid the following comments are going to be -- like saying; "Glenn Beck said;" -- you know everything that follows that statement is going to be a waste of time.

I didn't bring up Xerox. Never have in fact. I think this is probably the only thread I've even replied to someone who did.

 

I think I deserve a thank you for including a link to the backstory, which pretty much vindicates Apple. You're welcome.

For those that missed it the first time here it is again:

http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/15/13 at 8:25am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 62
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post
It's 2013 -- can we stop beating this dead horse? The people who always go back to the trough to say; "But Apples stole from Xerox" don't ever bother to get their facts right, nor do they understand that nothing was COPIED -- they only used the ideas.

 

Out of context, and not referring to anyone specifically about this, but can it be assumed that we just don't want to see this statement anymore, except in jest?

post #59 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissMac2 View Post

You betcha Samsung are worried about losing component orders - where else are they going to get the ideas to put into their highly profitable 'no research needed' copying business?

 

Speaking of incorrect memes, this one needs to die as well.

 

Component orders don't give a chip supplier the info needed to copy search boxes, icons, bezels, packaging or any of the other things that people accuse some companies of doing.  To do that, they have to buy the product after it goes on sale.   

 

The only suppliers who know ahead of time what a product is physically going to look like are the ones who make the touchscreen, cover glass and case.

 

The only companies who know what a product will act like before it goes on sale, are the ones designing it (Apple), or building it (Foxconn) or testing it (carriers). 

post #60 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The whole packaging debate is ridiculous anyway:

Apple used to use a book-like box for its small devices.  Device on one side.


Months before the iPhone came out, the LG Prada used a new style of box where you took off the lid and the smartphone was staring you in the face, with accessories underneath.

Apple (and others) later did the same.



What absolute fucking bullshit. I'd ban you for trying to pass that off as a valid argument.

  1. Apple used a certain style for their iPods which is not the same kind of product as their iPhone.
  2. Sales started in May 2007 with the iPhone going on sale in June 2007. You really think in less than a month Apple redesigned their iPod-like boxes for the iPhone to have a top lid? The fucking thing took 18 months to sell 1 million units so it wasn't exactly a competitor in any sense of the term.
  3. Apple used boxes with the accessories below the device with their Macs long before shitty-shitty-bang-bang id est the LG Prada was ever conceived.
  4. Apple made a more sophisticated, high-end device that cost considerably more than the average iPod so they made a box the appropriate box for it. It's that's fucking simple. Apple didn't steal box technology from LG. Apple didn't crap months of pre-production to design, make and repackage from iPod-like boxes for the iPhone. In fact, the square footprint of the old iPod Classic box closely resembles LG's box than it does the iPhone box but in no way would I imply LG stole the idea of a squared box that doesn't mirror the included CE from Apple.

Edited by SolipsismX - 2/18/13 at 6:22pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #61 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

... Apple didn't steal box technology from LG ...

 

Well, duh.

 

Seriously, you couldn't figure out that the before-and-after picture was mocking all the other idiotic before-and-after pictures that people post?

 

The point is, neither LG nor Apple invented pictures on boxes, or accessories underneath, or items right on top... or as some people claim, all black or all white colors.

post #62 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post



Don't make me laugh. A picture of different products on different packages, different names on different packages, the sizes are also different (most probably).
You need to re-define the word "copy" in your vocabulary.

 

Why should I re-define it when, according to the English dictionary, it means this: 

 

1: "a thing made to be similar or identical to another". 2: "Imitate the style or behaviour of".

 

Here another two examples to make you smile. Must be bliss to live in denial.

 

 

 

Btw, should you be visually impaired, don't feel ashamed to say so. We're here for you!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Nokia rumored to join Apple in dumping Samsung as a supplier