- Fornecedor de verdade
- Joined: Mar 2011
- Posts: 12,156
- Select All Posts By This User
The Tab was the one of the primary subjects of the first lawsuit. I was referring to the damages assessed for the first lawsuit.
The point still stands. Where did the money from the lost Apple sales claimed in that trial go? Was Samsung wildly profitable with garbage-bin devices like the Galaxy Ace?
It will be interesting to watch where they go with it, and all the opportunities for counterarguments it begs for. Samsung tablets stunk in 2011. These were pre Ice Cream Sandwich and had few apps- and they sold commensurate with their crappiness. Not many sales at all. Hardware-wise these were as 'iPad' clone as it gets.
The landscape is quite different in 2013, so what has changed? The design/shape of the tablet hasn't changed all that much, and if anything it is less like the iPad, so what's the real driver of their success? The software and ecosystem....? Samsung: "Hey Apple, go sue Google. Good luck with that."
The Galaxy Tab was accused of copying the literal look and feel of Apple's devices, not just some underlying software functions. If the Tab was not able to steal Apple's customers even with that level of copying, then doesn't that undermine the credibility of the damage estimates from either that trial or this one?
The copied elements of iOS disputed in this trial were there from the very beginning. If anything, Android has only gotten less similar from iOS since the first trial. They replaced the bouncy scrolling with their own overscroll animation, they replaced the iOS style sliding bar with their own implementation of slide-to-unlock, etc.
I should have been more clear. Is that not empirical evidence against either of the two damage estimates? If I claimed that tablet A will cost me a billion dollars by ripping off my look and feel, and that later turns out to not happen, would someone be as convinced if I repeat the claim later?
Ah, I misremembered the facts then. Also, this trial concerns a newer version of Galaxy Tab than is referred to by this article.
"How can an OS with that much share have such low usage numbers?"
Simple, by counting all those cheap 'picutre frame' tablets that use Android to display the photos people have on the SD cards that they pull from their point and shoot cameras; by counting all the cheap 'game tablets' found at Toys-R-Us; and by counting all the new Android based gaming and ordering terminals found on the dining tables of restaurants that have no connection to the Internet whatsoever.
I wish I could make sense of your post. It seems you have something to say, I'm just not sure what it is. In the future, instead of all the "shouting" and charts and such, why don't you just make a simple, declarative statement of your opinion? I understand English is not your first language, and I'm sure I would fare badly if I tried to communicate in your native tongue as well. As such, sarcasm, humor, and irony are much more difficult to convey. So just keep it simple. :)