OK I was reading The Verge's article on this and one of the comments said:
Is this true? I've never heard before. And it seems unlikely Apple would agree to something where other manufacturers were allows access to the same design.
That isn't anywhere close to being true. If so, then Apple owes all it's unibody designs to Intel, a company that has no experience in PCs and Apple which has plenty needed Intel to make their PCs? What Intel did supply was a SFF (Small Form Factor) ULV (Ultra-Low Voltage) CPU for the MBA. This was reportedly asked for my Apple. It wasn't that Intel had to design it from scratch as they had already done so and even presented it in at least one slide at one event a year before, they just hadn't put it into production until Apple asked for it.
That isn't anywhere close to being true. If so, then Apple owes all it's unibody designs to Intel, a company that has no experience in PCs and Apple which has plenty needed Intel to make their PCs? What Intel did supply was a SFF (Small Form Factor) ULV (Ultra-Low Voltage) CPU for the MBA. This was reportedly asked for my Apple. It wasn't that Intel had to design it from scratch as they had already done so and even presented it in at least one slide at one event a year before, they just hadn't put it into production until Apple asked for it.
That's what I thought but man you get these people who write as if they really know their shit, when clearly they don't. I must say though the comments at The Verge are much more balanced than anything you'd get at Engadget or CNET. You get more intelligent conversation and less trolling. I guess the good posters left Engadget and flocked to The Verge.
I'm not sure what Samsung hopes to accomplish by bringing up old Apple designs. What counts is what made it to production - not countless prototypes and design studies while they were experimenting. Not only do companies copy other designs - they even go so far as to buy competitor products and look at them to see how to improve their own.
The only thing I really see of any benefit is that Apple had prototypes that looked similar to the original iPhone long before the F700 ever came out. That should shut up all the idiots who keep saying Apple copied the F700.
That isn't anywhere close to being true. If so, then Apple owes all it's unibody designs to Intel, a company that has no experience in PCs and Apple which has plenty needed Intel to make their PCs? What Intel did supply was a SFF (Small Form Factor) ULV (Ultra-Low Voltage) CPU for the MBA. This was reportedly asked for my Apple. It wasn't that Intel had to design it from scratch as they had already done so and even presented it in at least one slide at one event a year before, they just hadn't put it into production until Apple asked for it.
You meant after Apple copied this from everyone else's stuff, like Sony [then Sony Ericsson], Nokia or even LG phones? When it comes to aesthetic, nobody beats Sony. And, even to this day, Apple is no match to Sony's design aesthetic portfolios, Who's the copycat again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Here you go Sammy, something to copy since you have zero design and innovation ability, have at it!
Makes me wonder if Steve had his hands on some of these designs and used them in private out of the publics eye? Also wonder about the iOS developed for them. Wonder how infantile it was in design. Maybe stuff that was eventually fazed out.
Just copy the stuff not too "slavishly" you Apple...,you... Uhm..., maybe not.
On the left, Sony Ericsson 63. On the right LG Prada. Both of these are
from 2006.
If you marry the two, you will get a bastard phone...., called...., yes my child Iphone....
It goes to show how "innovative" Apple really is. Or, if you prefer you can fill in the blank below.
Apple is "innovative" in ............
Um, actually the iPhone 4 appears to be based on this 2006 Apple prototype. If they copied anyone it was themselves.
The reason we didn't see it until 2010 was most likely due to engineering and production kinks that needed to be worked out (and they didn't actually get perfect until the 4s).
Uhm ya..., 2006 Apple had the i-bastard "prototype", but in 2006 both Sony Ericsson C-63 and LG Prada's final products were already released. When these two already released their products by 2006, you can bet their respective prototypes ought to have been existed way before then. I guess you have trouble to think chronologically. As if shooting yourself in a foot, you also admitted that it was not until 2010 when Apple perfected the i-bastard. And, here's the kicker, of all possible "prototypes", you chose the one with Sony logo on it. Of course, you'll say the logo meant "inspired by..." instead of "copied from..." Sony. Hilarious. I don;t know whether Sony should feel "flattered" or "flabbergasted" by this blatant ["inspiration"/"copy"] of their products by Apple.
LG had decided not to sue Apple in 2007 because LG supplied certain parts for I-bastard, ehr..., Iphone, but now after the phenomenal success of Apple-inspired-by device, LG should start thinking about suing Apple for billions of dollars, and LG will win the claim hands down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Um, actually the iPhone 4 appears to be based on this 2006 Apple prototype. If they copied anyone it was themselves.
The reason we didn't see it until 2010 was most likely due to engineering and production kinks that needed to be worked out (and they didn't actually get perfect until the 4s).
Comments
That isn't anywhere close to being true. If so, then Apple owes all it's unibody designs to Intel, a company that has no experience in PCs and Apple which has plenty needed Intel to make their PCs? What Intel did supply was a SFF (Small Form Factor) ULV (Ultra-Low Voltage) CPU for the MBA. This was reportedly asked for my Apple. It wasn't that Intel had to design it from scratch as they had already done so and even presented it in at least one slide at one event a year before, they just hadn't put it into production until Apple asked for it.
I thought I read that Apple was granted a design patent on the Air. Impossible if they licensed it from anyone
Originally Posted by charlituna
I thought I read that Apple was granted a design patent on the Air. Impossible if they licensed it from anyone
There's absolutely no way Intel made the MacBook Air. The mistake here is actually listening to those idiotic comments.
I'm not sure what Samsung hopes to accomplish by bringing up old Apple designs. What counts is what made it to production - not countless prototypes and design studies while they were experimenting. Not only do companies copy other designs - they even go so far as to buy competitor products and look at them to see how to improve their own.
The only thing I really see of any benefit is that Apple had prototypes that looked similar to the original iPhone long before the F700 ever came out. That should shut up all the idiots who keep saying Apple copied the F700.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) You guys didn't show the BSG phone. "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
Samsungs now look like us. And they have a plan.
prove it
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Here you go Sammy, something to copy since you have zero design and innovation ability, have at it!
because Apple didn't copy anything...http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/paul-thurrotts-wininfo/microsoft-exec-correct-apple-copying-windows-phone-ios-5-136403
You meant after Apple copied this from everyone else's stuff, like Sony [then Sony Ericsson], Nokia or even LG phones? When it comes to aesthetic, nobody beats Sony. And, even to this day, Apple is no match to Sony's design aesthetic portfolios, Who's the copycat again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Here you go Sammy, something to copy since you have zero design and innovation ability, have at it!
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/27/3192614/samsungs-beat-apple-strategy-copying-court-documents
Makes me wonder if Steve had his hands on some of these designs and used them in private out of the publics eye? Also wonder about the iOS developed for them. Wonder how infantile it was in design. Maybe stuff that was eventually fazed out.
Just copy the stuff not too "slavishly" you Apple...,you... Uhm..., maybe not.
On the left, Sony Ericsson 63. On the right LG Prada. Both of these are
from 2006.
If you marry the two, you will get a bastard phone...., called...., yes my child an Iphone....
It goes to show how "innovative" Apple really is. Or, if you prefer you can fill in the blank below.
Apple is "innovative" in .............[my personal favorite is: bastardizing other people's products]
The reason we didn't see it until 2010 was most likely due to engineering and production kinks that needed to be worked out (and they didn't actually get perfect until the 4s).
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9116/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
Thanks for the downsizing Huddler¡
Uhm ya..., 2006 Apple had the i-bastard "prototype", but in 2006 both Sony Ericsson C-63 and LG Prada's final products were already released. When these two already released their products by 2006, you can bet their respective prototypes ought to have been existed way before then. I guess you have trouble to think chronologically. As if shooting yourself in a foot, you also admitted that it was not until 2010 when Apple perfected the i-bastard. And, here's the kicker, of all possible "prototypes", you chose the one with Sony logo on it. Of course, you'll say the logo meant "inspired by..." instead of "copied from..." Sony. Hilarious. I don;t know whether Sony should feel "flattered" or "flabbergasted" by this blatant ["inspiration"/"copy"] of their products by Apple.
LG had decided not to sue Apple in 2007 because LG supplied certain parts for I-bastard, ehr..., Iphone, but now after the phenomenal success of Apple-inspired-by device, LG should start thinking about suing Apple for billions of dollars, and LG will win the claim hands down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Um, actually the iPhone 4 appears to be based on this 2006 Apple prototype. If they copied anyone it was themselves.
The reason we didn't see it until 2010 was most likely due to engineering and production kinks that needed to be worked out (and they didn't actually get perfect until the 4s).
FWIW.
True... but it shows the process Apple took to get the iPhone/iPad design where it is today.
What about the other guys? What path did they take?
Thank you very much.
_____________________________
[url=http://www.3ds-r4i.fr]r4[/url][url=http://www.3ds-r4i.fr]r4i[/url][url=http://www.3ds-r4i.fr]r4i 3ds[/url][url=http://www.3ds-r4i.fr]r4 3ds[/url]4.3.0-10 update relased!
I want... no... DEMAND, the two tone version. I think it looks amazing!
Well, the back of it does, anyway.