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."

 

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

Shameless

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

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

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

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

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.

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.

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3538913398421433687

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?

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?

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looky here - not copying eh?

I thought so. 

Just making a point.

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

 

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?

 

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). 

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

 

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.

 

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!