The other sneaky thing apple did was to have the app drawer open so it looks more like iOS. Honeycomb looks nothing like that. While I love my ipad, the ipad design is the same black rectangle on many tvs and monitors for the last several years including ones made by Samsung from before even the iphone existed.
These images have also been tweaked -- the border is thinner and the camera is centered in the aluminum:
Whereas you can see that the camera is properly off-center (up/down within the aluminum frame) on these, and the aluminum frame is wider. They look like un-altered shots:
Good find. I would think that Apple would be proud enough of the design to use real pics, and not altered ones. I am very surprised.
Well done. Every other site on the Internet blew this story completely. You at least managed to take the time to put a little research into the story.
I agree that this is the best telling of the story so far, but it's a bit sad that what is the key point in the whole mess is still in doubt. Apple Insider says there is no mention of the actual dimensions in the document, but people on this thread are saying there is. If there are any kind of dimensions listed in print, then the whole issue is really nothing at all. The legal weight is in the description of the device. Whether or not one of the pictures has been inexpertly re-sized is irrelevant if that's true.
I don't see how this can really be anything at all anyway. I mean ask yourself ...
If some company came out with a computer that looked exactly the same as the iMac but was 10% shorter in every vertical dimension, would it still be a copy violation? Of course it would.
The fact that the Tab has a different aspect ratio has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that has relevance is if Apple can be proven to be deceptive in it's filing and there seems little evidence for that.
These images have also been tweaked -- the border is thinner and the camera is centered in the aluminium: ... Whereas you can see that the camera is properly off-center (up/down within the aluminum frame) on these, and the aluminum frame is wider. They look like un-altered shots: ...
To my eye (and my eyes are exceptional), the camera is off centre (top to bottom) in all of those shots although it varies as to how much.
It's seems likely that these kind of errors are not only not intentional, but a result of the camera's point of view, the way pixels work in general, and the placement of the screen image over the top of the image of the computer. On images that size, a few pixels either way can change the whole look of things.
These pictures are an excellent argument for the altered picture in the court document being *un* intentional in that this is the kind of minor alteration that happens all the time.
IMO this is just another case of the "Apple is evil" meme. If it were any other company no one would think anything of it, but because it's Apple, of course it has to be some kind of evil plot directed by Steve Jobs himself.
He's probably laughing at all of us from his giant brushed aluminium (blood spattered) throne in Hades as we speak.
Apple Insider says there is no mention of the actual dimensions in the document, but people on this thread are saying there is. If there are any kind of dimensions listed in print, then the whole issue is really nothing at all.
You can go grab the PDF and look for yourself. (Translated into English: )
Quote:
Finally, in this context to note that the dimensions of the two products are very similar (iPad 2 (width / height / depth): 241.2 x 185.7 x 8.8 mm; Galaxy Tab 10.1 (Width / Height / Depth ): 257 x 175 x 8.6 mm).
It is actually on page 29, still in context of talking about the image in question on page 28.
A Dutch magazine run by IDC has accused Apple of faking evidence of Samsung's "slavish" copying in its German complaint that the Galaxy Tab 10.2 is "practically identical" in design to the iPad
Apple's complain reveals that
Samsung previous stated publicly that
which originate from other products of the applicant - In particular the iPhone - to transfer elements
but even lays the device into a identical tray
Might be a record - five typos in one article. Is anyone proofreading? Really detracts from otherwise good writing.
1) Are you saying those aren't the accurate dimensions for that version of the Tab?
No, I think the question was, does the PDF state the dimensions of the Tab vs. iPad. And the answer is, yes.
Quote:
2) Why no mention of the other Tab?
There might be, I don't know, I didn't read everything in detail.
Quote:
3) Where is the link to this PDF?
I supplied one before your post. I got it from going to the source article which had it linked to, albeit in a in-browser reader, but you can download the original from there in a round about way.
Thanks for the link. I looked through the PDF. Here are the results. There are one or more images on pages 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 35. 36. 38, and 39.
On page 28, as you state, you find the one image of the Tab that looks closer to the iPad's aspect ratio. "One" image that looked distorted. Judging by the quality of this PDF only those looking for an argument will find one.
But that's not all… How about iPads that look closer to the Tab's aspect ratio? I found such images on pages 16, 17, 26, 27, 35, 36, and 39. How 'bout them Apples?¡
It's a really bad presentation all around. Images aren't centered, they aren't using similar scales when placed next to each other in most cases. This is just poor effort, not anything unhanded as far as I can tell. Apple's initial complaint still holds water.
Thanks for the link. I looked through the PDF. Here are the results. There are one or more images on pages 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 35. 36. 38, and 39.
Right, there's plenty of raw photos comparing the Tab accurately to the Community Design (CD), imho.
Quote:
On page 28, as you state, you find the one image of the Tab that looks closer to the iPad's aspect ratio. "One" image that looked distorted. Judging by the quality of this PDF only those looking for an argument will find one.
One theory I have is that the various aspects of the iPad have been split up into separate CDs. For example, the UI is a separate CD (double checking this.. I think this is true for the iPhone anyways). I wonder if they used an image prepared to defend the UI on page 28? In which it would be reasonable to discount the differences in form factor to highlight the similarities in the UI?
Quote:
But that's not all? How about iPads that look closer to the Tab's aspect ratio? I found such images on pages 16, 17, 26, 27, 35, 36, and *39. How 'bout them Apples?¡
It's a really bad presentation all around. Images aren't centered, they aren't using similar scales when placed next to each other in most cases. This is just poor effort, not anything unhanded as far as I can tell. Apple's initial complaint still holds water.
True, but I've seen worse from legal summaries which were found perfectly valid.
I cant imagine that Apple's $1000 an hour expert intellectual property lawyers unintentionally made the Tab look more like iPad than it does in a case that turns on how they look. That would be gross negligence. It is no coincidence that the app drawer of the Tab in that photo is open to make it look like iOS when Honeycomb looks nothing like it.
I agree that this is the best telling of the story so far, but it's a bit sad that what is the key point in the whole mess is still in doubt. Apple Insider says there is no mention of the actual dimensions in the document, but people on this thread are saying there is. If there are any kind of dimensions listed in print, then the whole issue is really nothing at all. The legal weight is in the description of the device. Whether or not one of the pictures has been inexpertly re-sized is irrelevant if that's true.
I don't see how this can really be anything at all anyway. I mean ask yourself ...
If some company came out with a computer that looked exactly the same as the iMac but was 10% shorter in every vertical dimension, would it still be a copy violation? Of course it would.
The fact that the Tab has a different aspect ratio has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that has relevance is if Apple can be proven to be deceptive in it's filing and there seems little evidence for that.
This injunction was granted over "Community Design" or, how the HARDWARE of a device is so similar that an "informed" user could be confused. That is why this picture is causing such a stir.
And asking ourselves is pointless. This is a Community Design issue, something with clear guidelines. (that the source site implies this page violates)
The size is important, or Samsung could sue because the ipad looks like a tiny TV
So it's either a case of willful misrepresentation, or Shoddy litigation prep. Either answer isn't acceptable. Granted, EU courts aren't like US courts, but I'm sure Samsung could use this to their advantage either way (or at least attempt to)
These images have also been tweaked -- the border is thinner and the camera is centered in the aluminum:
...Lot of images...
I'm working in advertising and this is a normal practice. It's also irrelevant on the issue at hand. Or do you think every product shots in ads are never be enhanced?
In case you're THAT naive (which, from your posts, is very likely). Here, open your eyes.
Comments
These images have also been tweaked -- the border is thinner and the camera is centered in the aluminum:
Whereas you can see that the camera is properly off-center (up/down within the aluminum frame) on these, and the aluminum frame is wider. They look like un-altered shots:
Good find. I would think that Apple would be proud enough of the design to use real pics, and not altered ones. I am very surprised.
Well done. Every other site on the Internet blew this story completely. You at least managed to take the time to put a little research into the story.
I agree that this is the best telling of the story so far, but it's a bit sad that what is the key point in the whole mess is still in doubt. Apple Insider says there is no mention of the actual dimensions in the document, but people on this thread are saying there is. If there are any kind of dimensions listed in print, then the whole issue is really nothing at all. The legal weight is in the description of the device. Whether or not one of the pictures has been inexpertly re-sized is irrelevant if that's true.
I don't see how this can really be anything at all anyway. I mean ask yourself ...
If some company came out with a computer that looked exactly the same as the iMac but was 10% shorter in every vertical dimension, would it still be a copy violation? Of course it would.
The fact that the Tab has a different aspect ratio has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that has relevance is if Apple can be proven to be deceptive in it's filing and there seems little evidence for that.
These images have also been tweaked -- the border is thinner and the camera is centered in the aluminium: ... Whereas you can see that the camera is properly off-center (up/down within the aluminum frame) on these, and the aluminum frame is wider. They look like un-altered shots: ...
To my eye (and my eyes are exceptional), the camera is off centre (top to bottom) in all of those shots although it varies as to how much.
It's seems likely that these kind of errors are not only not intentional, but a result of the camera's point of view, the way pixels work in general, and the placement of the screen image over the top of the image of the computer. On images that size, a few pixels either way can change the whole look of things.
These pictures are an excellent argument for the altered picture in the court document being *un* intentional in that this is the kind of minor alteration that happens all the time.
IMO this is just another case of the "Apple is evil" meme. If it were any other company no one would think anything of it, but because it's Apple, of course it has to be some kind of evil plot directed by Steve Jobs himself.
He's probably laughing at all of us from his giant brushed aluminium (blood spattered) throne in Hades as we speak.
Good find. I would think that Apple would be proud enough of the design to use real pics, and not altered ones. I am very surprised.
They aren't proud of it, but they sell it as one of their showcase products. :roll eyes:
Either way, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Apple Insider says there is no mention of the actual dimensions in the document, but people on this thread are saying there is. If there are any kind of dimensions listed in print, then the whole issue is really nothing at all.
You can go grab the PDF and look for yourself. (Translated into English: )
Finally, in this context to note that the dimensions of the two products are very similar (iPad 2 (width / height / depth): 241.2 x 185.7 x 8.8 mm; Galaxy Tab 10.1 (Width / Height / Depth ): 257 x 175 x 8.6 mm).
It is actually on page 29, still in context of talking about the image in question on page 28.
You can go grab the PDF and look for yourself.
Here's one place where you can download it, btw. Otherwise I think you need to jump through some hoops and have a scribd account or something.
http://www.studiogeologie.com/phil/6...y-Tab-10-1.pdf
You can go grab the PDF and look for yourself. (Translated into English: )
It is actually on page 29, still in context of talking about the image in question on page 28.
1) Are you saying those aren't the accurate dimensions for that version of the Tab?
2) Why no mention of the other Tab?
3) Where is the link to this PDF?
A Dutch magazine run by IDC has accused Apple of faking evidence of Samsung's "slavish" copying in its German complaint that the Galaxy Tab 10.2 is "practically identical" in design to the iPad
Apple's complain reveals that
Samsung previous stated publicly that
which originate from other products of the applicant - In particular the iPhone - to transfer elements
but even lays the device into a identical tray
Might be a record - five typos in one article. Is anyone proofreading? Really detracts from otherwise good writing.
1. no period at end of first sentence
2. complaint, not complain
3. should be previously
4. cap in the middle of a sentence
5. an identical, not a identical
Is anyone proofreading?
Good luck with that. I think AI is comfortable with their stories.
1) Are you saying those aren't the accurate dimensions for that version of the Tab?
No, I think the question was, does the PDF state the dimensions of the Tab vs. iPad. And the answer is, yes.
2) Why no mention of the other Tab?
There might be, I don't know, I didn't read everything in detail.
3) Where is the link to this PDF?
I supplied one before your post. I got it from going to the source article which had it linked to, albeit in a in-browser reader, but you can download the original from there in a round about way.
Here's one place where you can download it, btw. Otherwise I think you need to jump through some hoops and have a scribd account or something.
http://www.studiogeologie.com/phil/6...y-Tab-10-1.pdf
Thanks for the link. I looked through the PDF. Here are the results. There are one or more images on pages 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 35. 36. 38, and 39.
On page 28, as you state, you find the one image of the Tab that looks closer to the iPad's aspect ratio. "One" image that looked distorted. Judging by the quality of this PDF only those looking for an argument will find one.
But that's not all… How about iPads that look closer to the Tab's aspect ratio? I found such images on pages 16, 17, 26, 27, 35, 36, and 39. How 'bout them Apples?¡
It's a really bad presentation all around. Images aren't centered, they aren't using similar scales when placed next to each other in most cases. This is just poor effort, not anything unhanded as far as I can tell. Apple's initial complaint still holds water.
Thanks for the link. I looked through the PDF. Here are the results. There are one or more images on pages 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 35. 36. 38, and 39.
Right, there's plenty of raw photos comparing the Tab accurately to the Community Design (CD), imho.
On page 28, as you state, you find the one image of the Tab that looks closer to the iPad's aspect ratio. "One" image that looked distorted. Judging by the quality of this PDF only those looking for an argument will find one.
One theory I have is that the various aspects of the iPad have been split up into separate CDs. For example, the UI is a separate CD (double checking this.. I think this is true for the iPhone anyways). I wonder if they used an image prepared to defend the UI on page 28? In which it would be reasonable to discount the differences in form factor to highlight the similarities in the UI?
But that's not all? How about iPads that look closer to the Tab's aspect ratio? I found such images on pages 16, 17, 26, 27, 35, 36, and *39. How 'bout them Apples?¡
It's a really bad presentation all around. Images aren't centered, they aren't using similar scales when placed next to each other in most cases. This is just poor effort, not anything unhanded as far as I can tell. Apple's initial complaint still holds water.
True, but I've seen worse from legal summaries which were found perfectly valid.
I think we're on the same page here, so to speak.
I'd like to think the judge actually had both products in his hands and didn't rely on a written description and photographs from either party.
You need to have everything on documentation in the court of law.
I agree that this is the best telling of the story so far, but it's a bit sad that what is the key point in the whole mess is still in doubt. Apple Insider says there is no mention of the actual dimensions in the document, but people on this thread are saying there is. If there are any kind of dimensions listed in print, then the whole issue is really nothing at all. The legal weight is in the description of the device. Whether or not one of the pictures has been inexpertly re-sized is irrelevant if that's true.
I don't see how this can really be anything at all anyway. I mean ask yourself ...
If some company came out with a computer that looked exactly the same as the iMac but was 10% shorter in every vertical dimension, would it still be a copy violation? Of course it would.
The fact that the Tab has a different aspect ratio has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that has relevance is if Apple can be proven to be deceptive in it's filing and there seems little evidence for that.
This injunction was granted over "Community Design" or, how the HARDWARE of a device is so similar that an "informed" user could be confused. That is why this picture is causing such a stir.
And asking ourselves is pointless. This is a Community Design issue, something with clear guidelines. (that the source site implies this page violates)
The size is important, or Samsung could sue because the ipad looks like a tiny TV
/close thread.
So it's either a case of willful misrepresentation, or Shoddy litigation prep. Either answer isn't acceptable. Granted, EU courts aren't like US courts, but I'm sure Samsung could use this to their advantage either way (or at least attempt to)
These images have also been tweaked -- the border is thinner and the camera is centered in the aluminum:
...Lot of images...
I'm working in advertising and this is a normal practice. It's also irrelevant on the issue at hand. Or do you think every product shots in ads are never be enhanced?
In case you're THAT naive (which, from your posts, is very likely). Here, open your eyes.
http://www.photoshopbeforeandafter.c...ortfolio2.html