or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › German court to reportedly rule Samsung exploited 'image' of Apple's iPhone and iPod
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

German court to reportedly rule Samsung exploited 'image' of Apple's iPhone and iPod

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
A German court is preparing to issue a tentative ruling on an Apple assertion that Samsung is guilty of unfair competition practices in deliberately copying the look of the iPhone and iPod, and one report claims the court will side with Apple.

Citing an "absolutely reliable and independent source," FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller said the D?sseldorf Regional Court is tentatively planning to make a ruling on August 8, which will reportedly find Samsung to have unlawfully imitated the iPhone and iPod with a number of legacy products.

The Samsung devices in question include the Galaxy S, Galaxy S Plus, Galaxy S II, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy R, and Galaxy Wave M smartphones, as well as the Galaxy S WiFi 4.0 media player.

Galaxy


Unlike many other high-profile suits involving Apple and Samsung, the case in Germany pertains to competition law and not patent or design rights. The Cupertino company asserts Samsung's products served to confuse consumers as to what company made the devices.

Mueller notes Apple's claims are based on Section 4 paragraph 9 of Germany's unfair competition law, which reads:

[Unfairness shall have occurred in particular where a person]

9. offers goods or services that are replicas of goods or services of a
competitor if he
a) causes avoidable deception of the purchaser regarding their commercial origin;
b) unreasonably exploits or impairs the assessment of the replicated goods or
services; or
c) dishonestly obtained the knowledge or documents needed for the replicas;


German law prohibits one company from imitating or copying a competitor's product or service, Mueller says, with analysis based on "overall impression" of said products. There are three degrees to which the court can find imitation: identical imitation, near-identical imitation and derivative imitation.

"The key test for the derivative imitation the court is inclined to find here is whether the design elements the defendant adopted (i.e., copied) are those who are characteristic of the plaintiff's asserted product," Mueller writes.

While not a death blow to Samsung by any means, mostly because the products in suit are older models, Apple could come away with substantial compensatory damages. Perhaps more important, a pro-Apple decision would further cement Samsung's role as a "copycat" in the court of public opinion.
post #2 of 43
I like this law.
post #3 of 43
Of course they served to confuse consumers. When even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference, it's obvious that there was an intent to make near-exact copies of Apple's products.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #4 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Of course they served to confuse consumers. When even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference, it's obvious that there was an intent to make near-exact copies of Apple's products.

I think the most damning thing are the chargers, cables, and packages. I mean, come on.
post #5 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I think the most damning thing are the chargers, cables, and packages. I mean, come on.

Shameless.

"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 #6 of 43

This is great news.  Anything to tighten the noose around Samsung's neck is better for everyone.

post #7 of 43
Anything that makes Samsung copy less and innovate more means good things for competition, and good things for the consumer! Samsung Android fans should be the happiest about this of anyone.
post #8 of 43
"Copy Cat" Duh....
post #9 of 43
"a pro-Apple decision would further cement Samsung's role as a copycat"

But we already knew that.
post #10 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I think the most damning thing are the chargers, cables, and packages. I mean, come on.
 
Only one wart charger version looked vaguely like Apple's, but it was actually better designed, with a lip to aid in pulling it from the wall.  Ditto for some of the tablet cables, but smartphones didn't use those anyway.  They used mini or micro USB cables.
 
In any case, nobody buys a phone based on what chargers, cables and packages look like.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Of course they served to confuse consumers. When even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference, it's obvious that there was an intent to make near-exact copies of Apple's products.

 

There's no doubt that Samsung intended to use the same basic style as an attraction.  Where that's against the law, they should get nailed for it.

 

As to confusing customers, it's not believable for someone to walk into a store to buy an iPhone and "accidentally" buy a Samsung instead.

 

It's not like they're buying a box of cereal.  For one thing, stores don't leave boxes of expensive phones laying around.  You have to ASK a salesperson for the phone model you want, so they can bring it out of locked storage.

 

So if someone comes in wanting an iPhone and leaves with a different phone, that's an outcome caused by salespeople getting involved and talking the customer into something else.   Everyone knows this happens.

post #11 of 43

ABOUT TIME - got to love the german courts!

post #12 of 43
Samcrap would be much better at making copiers. That is what they do best.
post #13 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

There's no doubt that Samsung intended to use the same basic style as an attraction.  Where that's against the law, they should get nailed for it.


As to confusing customers, it's not believable for someone to walk into a store to buy an iPhone and "accidentally" buy a Samsung instead.

It's not like they're buying a box of cereal.  For one thing, stores don't leave boxes of expensive phones laying around.  You have to ASK a salesperson for the phone model you want, so they can bring it out of locked storage.


So if someone comes in wanting an iPhone and leaves with a different phone, that's an outcome caused by salespeople getting involved and talking the customer into something else.   Everyone knows this happens.
How naive can you possibly be? If you've ever stood in a mobile phone store and listened to the paid Samsung shills push their devices as just like iPhones in features and functionality, to a consumer whose family members have recommended that they get an iPhone, and who is already told the sales person they use iTunes, and who then walk away totally confused in which choice to make because they look the same and are told they are the same in feature and function, you would know damn well that your statement is pure nonsense!
post #14 of 43
I don't see how this is a surprise. I mean didn't Samsung have a smartphone that looked like a blackberry that functioned like a blackberry that they called the blackjack? I mean, if anything is surprising, it is that they didn't call theirs android overlay iAndroid...
post #15 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

How naive can you possibly be? If you've ever stood in a mobile phone store and listened to the paid Samsung shills push their devices as just like iPhones in features and functionality, to a consumer whose family members have recommended that they get an iPhone, and who is already told the sales person they use iTunes, and who then walk away totally confused in which choice to make because they look the same and are told they are the same in feature and function, you would know damn well that your statement is pure nonsense!

You are totally correct I have stood and witnessed this many times. Perhaps he is a paid Samsung shill, or Microsoft shill or perhaps just whatever his anti Apple company de jour is.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #16 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

There's no doubt that Samsung intended to use the same basic style as an attraction.  Where that's against the law, they should get nailed for it.


As to confusing customers, it's not believable for someone to walk into a store to buy an iPhone and "accidentally" buy a Samsung instead.

It's not like they're buying a box of cereal.  For one thing, stores don't leave boxes of expensive phones laying around.  You have to ASK a salesperson for the phone model you want, so they can bring it out of locked storage.


So if someone comes in wanting an iPhone and leaves with a different phone, that's an outcome caused by salespeople getting involved and talking the customer into something else.   Everyone knows this happens.

You've never looked more ridiculous in your time posting here than today.
post #17 of 43

This law seems similar to what US patent law tries to achieve with design patents.

post #18 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I like this law.

Sounds kinda broad to me. If you have a car repair shop I can't have one because it's the same service?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #19 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

If you have a car repair shop I can't have one because it's the same service?
Quote:
unfair competition practices in deliberately copying the look
Please just stop speaking entirely.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #20 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Please just stop speaking entirely.

And what part of this didn't you understand?
Quote:
German law prohibits one company from imitating or copying a competitor's product or service

You don't think that language is overly broad, open to interpretation, and ripe for misuse?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

How naive can you possibly be? If you've ever stood in a mobile phone store and listened to the paid Samsung shills push their devices as just like iPhones in features and functionality, to a consumer whose family members have recommended that they get an iPhone, and who is already told the sales person they use iTunes, and who then walk away totally confused in which choice to make because they look the same and are told they are the same in feature and function, you would know damn well that your statement is pure nonsense!

 

Which statement?   

 

The one where I said that it was the salespeople who talked customers in buying something other than an iPhone?

 

We're saying basically the same thing.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

I don't see how this is a surprise. I mean didn't Samsung have a smartphone that looked like a blackberry that functioned like a blackberry that they called the blackjack?

 

The Blackjack competed directly with the Motorola Q, which had come out a year before  They both ran Windows Mobile, so no, they didn't act like a Blackberry.   Neither did they look exactly like the Blackberrys that had come before, although the screen + keyboard combo was meant to attract RIM users, as well as WinMo users... and the name "Blackjack" helped do both.

 

 

(Pictures and dates from gsmarena)


Edited by KDarling - 6/25/13 at 6:52pm
post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Sounds kinda broad to me. If you have a car repair shop I can't have one because it's the same service?

You should read the whole thing...
Quote:
Unfairness shall have occurred in particular where a person]

9. offers goods or services that are replicas of goods or services of a
competitor if he
a) causes avoidable deception of the purchaser regarding their commercial origin;
b) unreasonably exploits or impairs the assessment of the replicated goods or
services; or
c) dishonestly obtained the knowledge or documents needed for the replicas;

Offering the same service would not be an offense whatsoever. Misguiding customers by pretending you belong to, say, a chain of reputable repair shops by mimicking their shop design, uniforms etc. would be a violation. This is neither broad, nor hard to understand.

And actually it is pretty common business ethics, valid even in most countries without such a law or regulation. Why was this law created in Germany? Because Germany creates most of its GDP from small and medium sized businesses, which simply can't afford to file patents, trademarks etc. for each and everything they do. This regulation guarantees them some kind of protection at no cost. We can argue the actual contents and wording, but I think the idea has some merit.
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Sounds kinda broad to me. If you have a car repair shop I can't have one because it's the same service?

I'm guessing if you advertised your car service as being identical as mine, which similar signage, storefronts, slogans, etc. which could confuse someone. Remember it has to meet the criteria listed and give an "overall impression".

That said, yes it's broad. That's why I like it. Broad laws, in the hands of competent judges, allow common sense to win out. But yes it can be abused. So can narrow laws, which suffer from loopholes and technicalities.
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I'm guessing if you advertised your car service as being identical as mine, which similar signage, storefronts, slogans, etc. which could confuse someone. Remember it has to meet the criteria listed and give an "overall impression".

That said, yes it's broad. That's why I like it. Broad laws, in the hands of competent judges, allow common sense to win out. But yes it can be abused. So can narrow laws, which suffer from loopholes and technicalities.

Thanks as well, I can always count on you for a straight answer. Though I agree the courts could also see a slew of lawsuits with such broad language.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 43
Samesong has copied Apple's brilliant 'Apple- Intention' video, too. As with previous copyright claims against them, they made slight changes and reposted. See if you can spot the difference(s).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aqc8NGrhnw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxUEr0SaUNI

Samsung - Imitation

if Apple
is busy making perfection
we don't need to innovate anything.
we can confuse convenience
with glitz%u2028
abundance
with choice.
designing only requires
cloning%u2028
the first thing we ask is%u2028 what is Apple creating?
we deconstruct
imitate
replicate
flood the market
then we slowly litigate in the courts.
it takes time%u2026
there are a thousand appeals
to every defeat.
we countersue
we slander
we ship
until court decisions are irrelevant
and we've made our profit
and paid our shills.
only then do we look for more to copy.%u2028
Cloned by Samesong in Korea
post #26 of 43

The Walmart near me in Dallas had a Galaxy Tab in the iPad display for a month until I told a manager.

post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

The Walmart near me in Dallas had a Galaxy Tab in the iPad display for a month until I told a manager.

that should never happen....but c'mon.....it was Walmart! 1wink.gif

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #28 of 43

Let's hope there are many more strikes against Samsung in the near future. Could make a company second guess their decision to be in the ripoff phone and tablet market altogether.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


I think the most damning thing are the chargers, cables, and packages. I mean, come on.

 

That is absolutely true. Before you could always pick out an Apple product owing to the iconic white packaging. While white was used by other manufacturers as well, it was never as dominant as it was on Apple packaging.

 

Now with the Samsung phones and tablets, there are rows and rows of white boxes and everybody seems to be using it.

post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

There's no doubt that Samsung intended to use the same basic style as an attraction.  Where that's against the law, they should get nailed for it.


As to confusing customers, it's not believable for someone to walk into a store to buy an iPhone and "accidentally" buy a Samsung instead.

It's not like they're buying a box of cereal.  For one thing, stores don't leave boxes of expensive phones laying around.  You have to ASK a salesperson for the phone model you want, so they can bring it out of locked storage.


So if someone comes in wanting an iPhone and leaves with a different phone, that's an outcome caused by salespeople getting involved and talking the customer into something else.   Everyone knows this happens.

As for being called ridiculous, that makes two of us. I totally agree with this. How the hell can you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy??? It's not like they sold you a fake iPhone but a phone of a total different brand!! Do you see the word iPhone on the box when you buy it?? Do you see the Apple logo?? Don't you see Samsung, galaxy or whatever on the box of the phone you just bought??? How stupid are they??
post #31 of 43

We'll have to wait and see what actually ends up happening on August 8th.

post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by En Sabah Nur View Post


As for being called ridiculous, that makes two of us. I totally agree with this. How the hell can you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy??? It's not like they sold you a fake iPhone but a phone of a total different brand!! Do you see the word iPhone on the box when you buy it?? Do you see the Apple logo?? Don't you see Samsung, galaxy or whatever on the box of the phone you just bought??? How stupid are they??

 

You ask, "How do you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy?"

 

I have lost count of the times I have heard sales staff tout other devices as being 'really just the same as an iPhone', and then swaying the potential buyer with a price difference or extras thrown in... in most cases, it seemed to me, the person buying was indeed convinced that, yes, they had bought something that was really just like the iPhone

Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad View Post

 

You ask, "How do you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy?"

 

I have lost count of the times I have heard sales staff tout other devices as being 'really just the same as an iPhone', and then swaying the potential buyer with a price difference or extras thrown in... in most cases, it seemed to me, the person buying was indeed convinced that, yes, they had bought something that was really just like the iPhone

You are exactly right......the sales people do that.....so how is that kind of consumer manipulation an IP infringement?

If you came in and asked for an iPhone...then through discussion with a sales person walked out with another brand then that was the result of a discussion between consumer and sales person. Not IP infringement. 

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #34 of 43

In itself it isn't, though you could of course argue that Samsung's phones violate all sorts of things. 1wink.gif 

 

I was just making that point that there are many consumers who don't really know too much other than what they want (in a rather limited sense). They want an iPhone.

 

Sales staff convince them that XXXX phone is really just like an iPhone, but is perhaps cheaper, etc. So they buy it. And perhaps only later realize that what they got really isn't like the thing they wanted. 

 

The situation isn't helped when the XXXX phone looks like an iPhone physically, has an interface that looks pretty similar, comes in packaging that looks really similar too, and even has the same looking chargers. 

 

Sneaky Samsung, Sneaky Sales Staff. 1oyvey.gif

Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad View Post

In itself it isn't, though you could of course argue that Samsung's phones violate all sorts of things. 1wink.gif

 

I was just making that point that there are many consumers who don't really know too much other than what they want (in a rather limited sense). They want an iPhone.

 

Sales staff convince them that XXXX phone is really just like an iPhone, but is perhaps cheaper, etc. So they buy it. And perhaps only later realize that what they got really isn't like the thing they wanted. 

 

The situation isn't helped when the XXXX phone looks like an iPhone physically, has an interface that looks pretty similar, comes in packaging that looks really similar too, and even has the same looking chargers. 

 

Sneaky Samsung, Sneaky Sales Staff. 1oyvey.gif

But then all phones basically have the same shape and form factor......you can't distinguish by form factor. the basic form is what the consumer wants. Like TVs all have the basic shape.....you go into a store and buy one based on your needs wants and price point. they all have the same shape.....work the same......deliver content the same way. 

How is it a phone makers fault if a consumer asks a sales person for an iphone and then buys another brand?

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

But then all phones basically have the same shape and form factor......you can't distinguish by form factor. the basic form is what the consumer wants. Like TVs all have the basic shape.....you go into a store and buy one based on your needs wants and price point. they all have the same shape.....work the same......deliver content the same way. 
How is it a phone makers fault if a consumer asks a sales person for an iphone and then buys another brand?

All phones do not look alike, and they certainly didn't all look like the iPhone back in 2007. And Samsung phones don't really look like iPhones now, either. But back around the Galaxy and Galaxy S days, back when Samsung was just starting to get a foothold in the market, their phones (including their UI skin) did look remarkably like... an iPhone. More so than other Android phones. Did this help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


All phones do not look alike, and they certainly didn't all look like the iPhone back in 2007. And Samsung phones don't really look like iPhones now, either. But back around the Galaxy and Galaxy S days, back when Samsung was just starting to get a foothold in the market, their phones (including their UI skin) did look remarkably like... an iPhone. More so than other Android phones. Did this help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?

I'm sure it did....doesn't all companies do that? Doesn't Apple incorporate some of the things from Android? Like bigger screens? Or did they give the consumer what they wanted? Apple leads in the mobile, tablet and I would say laptop spaces (might be a stretch) and they transformed the smartphone space. Other companies followed their lead...that is just business. Everyone follows the leader in the space they compete in. But they should not just blatantly copy......they were found guilty of that and should pay.

But looking at smart phones today....most shapes follow the candy bar shape........do you think that existed before the iPhone in 2007? It did......

Maybe Samsung established themselves by giving people what they wanted......maybe by producing great products. If the consumer did not like their products they would not buy them.....

But if i walk into BestBuy and ask for a iPhone and walk out with another brand...thats on me.....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Did this help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?

That's a good question, one without a clear cut answer. The SGS 2 usually shown in pics was not available in the USA, and was one of the first Android devices to be sold worldwide and even then it didn't sell that well because we all saw the pitiful sales numbers. It wasn't until the SGS 3 in which Samsung went away from the look and feel of the iPhone (I'm not discounting the utility patents) that they really took off in sales which at that time a great many of the early Android adoptees were due for a upgrade and most chose the SGS 3.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #39 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
Did (similar looks) help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?
 
Apparently not.  I believe the early Android dominators were Motorola and HTC.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It wasn't until the SGS 3 in which Samsung went away from the look and feel of the iPhone (I'm not discounting the utility patents) that they really took off in sales ...

 

This, at least for high end phones.  The more that Samsung went different, the more attractive their devices seemed to become.

 

Apple had a grid of static icons on a static background.  Samsung's phones focused on a homescreen based around widgets and live wallpapers, and later on, multiple and overlay windows.
 
They also went separate ways with their body style.  Apple went boxy starting with the iPhone 4, whereas Samsung went with light and curvy.
 
Most importantly, perhaps, Samsung provided ever larger screens.   The 4" display S did okay, the 4.3" S2 did better, but it was with the 4.8" screen S3, and the even larger Note... with its active pen support that totally differentiated itself from an iPhone... that Samsung high end sales really took off.
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


This, at least for high end phones.  The more that Samsung went different, the more attractive their devices seemed to become.


Apple had a grid of static icons on a static background.  Samsung's phones focused on a homescreen based around widgets and live wallpapers, and later on, multiple and overlay windows.
 
They also went separate ways with their body style.  Apple went boxy starting with the iPhone 4, whereas Samsung went with light and curvy.
 
Most importantly, perhaps, Samsung provided ever larger screens.   The 4" display S did okay, the 4.3" S2 did better, but it was with the 4.8" screen S3, and the even larger Note... with its active pen support that totally differentiated itself from an iPhone... that Samsung high end sales really took off.

Exactly, Samsung got more popular when they went away from copying Apple.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › German court to reportedly rule Samsung exploited 'image' of Apple's iPhone and iPod