Apple's goal isn't ultimately to "leverage resources" or "maximize user experience metrics" or any other buzz word jargon. They created each of the parts that came together to make the iPhone what it was all in service of the goal to make products they believed customers truly wanted. Yes, they had to do that for a long time before it finally culminated in a host of products working together but every step of the way they were guided by that central goal. Focusing anything else would have stopped them long ago.
With the buy-cheap-to-have-ALL mentality of the new Westerners you may be right. Even those who opposed the selling of Chinese photocopied cars are defending Samsung. Using the same lame square argument.
I just hope one of these people copy any of Gibson trademarked shape guitar, you´ll know what is trouble.
Maybe part of Apple's success is their tightly integrated solution. Apple makes the hardware, software and controls the platform.
On the other hand... Samsung makes the hardware... but uses someone else's software, store and other services.
It works... but the result might not be the best possible product or user experience.
As others have said... Apple has many services that they roll into their products... iTunes and the App Store being a couple of the big ones.
If Apple's goal is to leverage all of their services into a great user experience... not many other companies can duplicate that.
Apple's goal isn't ultimately to "leverage resources" or "maximize user experience metrics" or any other buzz word jargon. They created each of the parts, that came together to make the iPhone what it was, ALL in service of the goal to make products they believed customers truly wanted. Yes, they had to do that for a long time before it finally culminated in a host of products working together, but every step of the way they were guided by that central goal. Focusing on anything else would have stopped them long ago.
"Absolutely nothing innovative. Just a natural progression of what all phones were doing at the time."
I'm not so sure... that Treo is a prime example of what phones were doing at the time. It looked pretty much like the last Treo.
Who knows if Palm had originally planned to scrap all their legacy Treos and switch wholly to the Palm Pre and Pixi in 2009. That kind of radical change seems out of the ordinary unless they were provoked by something new.
So was RIM planning the touchscreen Storm all along too?
I dunno... the Storm seemed kinda rushed and awful. Are you sure the Storm wasn't a response to the wildly popular iPhone?
My example of the Treo shows that Palm and Apple were both working on a new phone to announce during the same week.
Even though Apple was about to launch their first phone... they were obviously aware of this supposed natural progression... while Palm was launching yet another QWERTY Treo.
I have no aversion to the concept of natural progression... but it sure seems like the iPhone was the catalyst that sparked the next generation of smartphones.
It's hard to imagine you can have a "crisis of design" when building a phone that looks and acts like the iPhone is not only the natural way phones would have been built had the iPhone not ever come to pass, but clearly obvious on every level that Apple deserves no credit or recognition for its accomplishments.... at least that is what [I]certain[/I] posters keep telling me.
This is amazing! Every day it just looks worse and worse for Samsung.
At this point, no matter how much you love your Samsung kit or hate Apple's business philosphies if you can't see that Samsung is in the wrong you are a bigoted anti-Appleite.
Wait and see how it plays out. They size up the competition. You can take this as copying, but whether they infringe on these design patents will still be discussed. I don't see this case as over just yet, and I wonder if the words "crisis in design" were initially written in Korean. Arguing internal semantics of email here will likely help Apple. It's just that this alone isn't going to close the case, especially given the legal teams hired on both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You're right.
$25 billion.
Heh.. it still has to be based off something. You're looking at this in a punitive sense, which isn't very logical. If they win it becomes a matter of determining what it's worth. How much did Samsung make in the US on this? If you look at the breakdown, 500 million of what was requested was due to "lost sales". They probably have some supporting math on these estimates, but nothing adds up to what you are suggesting. I don't really care about sides. You just aren't posting logic :P. Hehe.
Heh.. it still has to be based off something. You're looking at this in a punitive sense, which isn't very logical. If they win it becomes a matter of determining what it's worth. How much did Samsung make in the US on this? If you look at the breakdown, 500 million of what was requested was due to "lost sales". They probably have some supporting math on these estimates, but nothing adds up to what you are suggesting. I don't really care about sides. You just aren't posting logic :P. Hehe.
When Samsung loses and has to pay Apple $5 for every device sold in the US (and buy back all the ones not sold), I can't wait for them to start releasing their actual sales numbers to show that "wait a minute, all these ones that you all thought we sold were just sitting in warehouses! We don't have to pay Apple for these!"
With the buy-cheap-to-have-ALL mentality of the new Westerners you may be right. Even those who opposed the selling of Chinese photocopied cars are defending Samsung. Using the same lame square argument.
I just hope one of these people copy any of Gibson trademarked shape guitar, you´ll know what is trouble.
Companies have been copying Les Pauls and SGs for decades. I don't understand your comment.
In an effort to prevent subsequent 'crisis of design' litigation, Sansung moves to present further evidence supporting its case. Samsung cites a 1991 company memo referring to the firm's alternate name of "Copycats-R-Us". Based on belief and information, their position appears to be that Apple (as well as other companies) should have been aware of this moniker and/or associated tactics, and taken appropriate action to protect intellectual property.
Samsung: Your honour, in our defense, we would like to submit to the court that we don't just copy Apple. We've been copying people for years and since nobody else has had a problem with it, we feel Apple shouldn't either. Fact is, by copying Nokia, our products looked like junk compared to Apple so we had to throw out everything and do what Apple was doing as evidenced by the abrupt shift in our product designs. Hopefully this will prove to you that Apple in no way influenced... wait, which side am I on again? Sorry, I get so easily confused about which company I'm working for as I can't tell the products apart from a reasonable viewing distance.
Why on Heaven and Earth did they submit this evidence in their defense? Ah well, shouldn't be long until they wrap this case up and all Samsung's old products stay off the shelves.
Samsung will have to settle this before it gets to the jury. If they have any brains at all, they'll agree to stop making phones that closely mimic Apple's products, take some of the more egregious copies off the shelf (if there are any that haven't sold yet) and pay some token fine without admitting guilt. Apple would probably go for it. And since Samsung has already started moving away from the slavish copying theme, it wouldn't hurt them that badly.
OTOH, Samsung's attorneys look like idiots. After being sanctioned 4 times in this trial and thoroughly reamed by the judge in the data release matter, they continue to violate the court's orders:
"Samsung's lawyers just avoided being sanctioned for a controversial press statement (they merely got an earful from Judge Koh, who may look at their overall conduct again when the trial is over) but continue to annoy Judge Koh and to breach the rules of the #iCourt,"
While this particular transgression doesn't appear to have caused any harm, what in the world makes their attorneys believe that the rules don't apply to them?
I'm not so sure... that Treo is a prime example of what phones were doing at the time. It looked pretty much like the last Treo.
Who knows if Palm had originally planned to scrap all their legacy Treos and switch wholly to the Palm Pre and Pixi in 2009. That kind of radical change seems out of the ordinary unless they were provoked by something new.
So was RIM planning the touchscreen Storm all along too?
I dunno... the Storm seemed kinda rushed and awful. Are you sure the Storm wasn't a response to the wildly popular iPhone?
My example of the Treo shows that Palm and Apple were both working on a new phone to announce during the same week.
Even though Apple was about to launch their first phone... they were obviously aware of this supposed natural progression... while Palm was launching yet another QWERTY Treo.
I have no aversion to the concept of natural progression... but it sure seems like the iPhone was the catalyst that sparked the next generation of smartphones.
I think both Palm and RIM rushed into making a touch screen phone and both might be still be doing well had they come out with more inspired and usable hardware. If you remember before smartphones cell phones were getting smaller and smaller as famously satirized in Zoolander. Then Palm and BlackBerrys came out. Some smartphones had limited touchscreen abilities and used a stylus. Ideas are rarely unique, and I think that along with Apple, that LG and Samsung knew there was something in a almost entirely touchscreen phone. Their error was not refining the hardware nor software to the level Apple did. Out of all other manufacturers I believe HP was in the best position to compete with the iPhone, but while WebOS was fantastic the Pre was utter garbage.
Easier said than done. Building a great product isn't the end of it, it has to have a great user experience plus be very functional in more than one area. The iPod and itunes had been around for quite a few years before the iPhone came out. Combining a iPod and a cell phone was sure to sell well, then the app store, adding more and more functionality with every iteration. That's gonna be a hard formula for someone to copy.
SJ is on record saying how he admired Sony. It's not a leap of faith to see how Apple followed Sony's lead but took it the extra mile not only in product design, but in building the system that includes iTunes, the Apple stores, and the wonderful ordering and tracking system for their product. And they did it by providing unique, innovative products that barely resemble anything made by Sony. You don't see these two sniping at each other.
While I'm at it, I'll express some mixed feelings about RIM. On the one hand, they didn't try to slavishly copy Apple, and retained their product identity. Again no litigation necessary for "look and feel". On the other, the lack of inspired leadership will lead to RIM's demise. The core of Blackberry enthusiasts was, and is, as strong as those of Apple, but the lack of evolution and innovation in the company is disappointing to say the least.
Wait and see how it plays out. They size up the competition. You can take this as copying, but whether they infringe on these design patents will still be discussed. I don't see this case as over just yet, and I wonder if the words "crisis in design" were initially written in Korean. Arguing internal semantics of email here will likely help Apple. It's just that this alone isn't going to close the case, especially given the legal teams hired on both sides.
Combining a iPod and a cell phone was sure to sell well,
When Motorola released the Rokr the version of iTunes that Apple let them use was totally crippled because Apple was already working on the iPhone and they weren't about to let them get in there first. It did however give the consumers a glimpse of what was possible
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'm not surprised at all, I'm sure there were "holy shit" memos sent through every manufacturer.
The whole notion of computer guys can't just come into the cell business without any experience attitude caught them all flatfooted.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Do you deny that Samsung had a crisis of design when the iPhone shipped?? Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I think there's just a little less at stake than the Cuban Missle Crisis.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Don't mess with this. This is the greatest comment I've read here in a long time.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Apple's goal isn't ultimately to "leverage resources" or "maximize user experience metrics" or any other buzz word jargon. They created each of the parts that came together to make the iPhone what it was all in service of the goal to make products they believed customers truly wanted. Yes, they had to do that for a long time before it finally culminated in a host of products working together but every step of the way they were guided by that central goal. Focusing anything else would have stopped them long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Don't hold your breath for that $2.5B.
With the buy-cheap-to-have-ALL mentality of the new Westerners you may be right. Even those who opposed the selling of Chinese photocopied cars are defending Samsung. Using the same lame square argument.
I just hope one of these people copy any of Gibson trademarked shape guitar, you´ll know what is trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Maybe part of Apple's success is their tightly integrated solution. Apple makes the hardware, software and controls the platform.
On the other hand... Samsung makes the hardware... but uses someone else's software, store and other services.
It works... but the result might not be the best possible product or user experience.
As others have said... Apple has many services that they roll into their products... iTunes and the App Store being a couple of the big ones.
If Apple's goal is to leverage all of their services into a great user experience... not many other companies can duplicate that.
Apple's goal isn't ultimately to "leverage resources" or "maximize user experience metrics" or any other buzz word jargon. They created each of the parts, that came together to make the iPhone what it was, ALL in service of the goal to make products they believed customers truly wanted. Yes, they had to do that for a long time before it finally culminated in a host of products working together, but every step of the way they were guided by that central goal. Focusing on anything else would have stopped them long ago.
Would be better if the Samsung execs didn't speak English.
Originally Posted by jwdav
Had Samsung done any one or two of them differently, Apple would not have had a case.
Sure they wouldn't've.
I'm not so sure... that Treo is a prime example of what phones were doing at the time. It looked pretty much like the last Treo.
Who knows if Palm had originally planned to scrap all their legacy Treos and switch wholly to the Palm Pre and Pixi in 2009. That kind of radical change seems out of the ordinary unless they were provoked by something new.
So was RIM planning the touchscreen Storm all along too?
I dunno... the Storm seemed kinda rushed and awful. Are you sure the Storm wasn't a response to the wildly popular iPhone?
My example of the Treo shows that Palm and Apple were both working on a new phone to announce during the same week.
Even though Apple was about to launch their first phone... they were obviously aware of this supposed natural progression... while Palm was launching yet another QWERTY Treo.
I have no aversion to the concept of natural progression... but it sure seems like the iPhone was the catalyst that sparked the next generation of smartphones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This is amazing! Every day it just looks worse and worse for Samsung.
At this point, no matter how much you love your Samsung kit or hate Apple's business philosphies if you can't see that Samsung is in the wrong you are a bigoted anti-Appleite.
Wait and see how it plays out. They size up the competition. You can take this as copying, but whether they infringe on these design patents will still be discussed. I don't see this case as over just yet, and I wonder if the words "crisis in design" were initially written in Korean. Arguing internal semantics of email here will likely help Apple. It's just that this alone isn't going to close the case, especially given the legal teams hired on both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You're right.
$25 billion.
Heh.. it still has to be based off something. You're looking at this in a punitive sense, which isn't very logical. If they win it becomes a matter of determining what it's worth. How much did Samsung make in the US on this? If you look at the breakdown, 500 million of what was requested was due to "lost sales". They probably have some supporting math on these estimates, but nothing adds up to what you are suggesting. I don't really care about sides. You just aren't posting logic :P. Hehe.
Originally Posted by hmm
Heh.. it still has to be based off something. You're looking at this in a punitive sense, which isn't very logical. If they win it becomes a matter of determining what it's worth. How much did Samsung make in the US on this? If you look at the breakdown, 500 million of what was requested was due to "lost sales". They probably have some supporting math on these estimates, but nothing adds up to what you are suggesting. I don't really care about sides. You just aren't posting logic :P. Hehe.
When Samsung loses and has to pay Apple $5 for every device sold in the US (and buy back all the ones not sold), I can't wait for them to start releasing their actual sales numbers to show that "wait a minute, all these ones that you all thought we sold were just sitting in warehouses! We don't have to pay Apple for these!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Don't hold your breath for that $2.5B.
With the buy-cheap-to-have-ALL mentality of the new Westerners you may be right. Even those who opposed the selling of Chinese photocopied cars are defending Samsung. Using the same lame square argument.
I just hope one of these people copy any of Gibson trademarked shape guitar, you´ll know what is trouble.
Companies have been copying Les Pauls and SGs for decades. I don't understand your comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Do you deny that Samsung had a crisis of design when the iPhone shipped?? Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!!
Translation? The guy's name is Justin Denison! I don't think that there was much translation required! :-)
Haha!
In an effort to prevent subsequent 'crisis of design' litigation, Sansung moves to present further evidence supporting its case. Samsung cites a 1991 company memo referring to the firm's alternate name of "Copycats-R-Us". Based on belief and information, their position appears to be that Apple (as well as other companies) should have been aware of this moniker and/or associated tactics, and taken appropriate action to protect intellectual property.
Samsung will have to settle this before it gets to the jury. If they have any brains at all, they'll agree to stop making phones that closely mimic Apple's products, take some of the more egregious copies off the shelf (if there are any that haven't sold yet) and pay some token fine without admitting guilt. Apple would probably go for it. And since Samsung has already started moving away from the slavish copying theme, it wouldn't hurt them that badly.
OTOH, Samsung's attorneys look like idiots. After being sanctioned 4 times in this trial and thoroughly reamed by the judge in the data release matter, they continue to violate the court's orders:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/samsungs-lawyers-breached-rules-again.html
"Samsung's lawyers just avoided being sanctioned for a controversial press statement (they merely got an earful from Judge Koh, who may look at their overall conduct again when the trial is over) but continue to annoy Judge Koh and to breach the rules of the #iCourt,"
While this particular transgression doesn't appear to have caused any harm, what in the world makes their attorneys believe that the rules don't apply to them?
I think both Palm and RIM rushed into making a touch screen phone and both might be still be doing well had they come out with more inspired and usable hardware. If you remember before smartphones cell phones were getting smaller and smaller as famously satirized in Zoolander. Then Palm and BlackBerrys came out. Some smartphones had limited touchscreen abilities and used a stylus. Ideas are rarely unique, and I think that along with Apple, that LG and Samsung knew there was something in a almost entirely touchscreen phone. Their error was not refining the hardware nor software to the level Apple did. Out of all other manufacturers I believe HP was in the best position to compete with the iPhone, but while WebOS was fantastic the Pre was utter garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Easier said than done. Building a great product isn't the end of it, it has to have a great user experience plus be very functional in more than one area. The iPod and itunes had been around for quite a few years before the iPhone came out. Combining a iPod and a cell phone was sure to sell well, then the app store, adding more and more functionality with every iteration. That's gonna be a hard formula for someone to copy.
SJ is on record saying how he admired Sony. It's not a leap of faith to see how Apple followed Sony's lead but took it the extra mile not only in product design, but in building the system that includes iTunes, the Apple stores, and the wonderful ordering and tracking system for their product. And they did it by providing unique, innovative products that barely resemble anything made by Sony. You don't see these two sniping at each other.
While I'm at it, I'll express some mixed feelings about RIM. On the one hand, they didn't try to slavishly copy Apple, and retained their product identity. Again no litigation necessary for "look and feel". On the other, the lack of inspired leadership will lead to RIM's demise. The core of Blackberry enthusiasts was, and is, as strong as those of Apple, but the lack of evolution and innovation in the company is disappointing to say the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Absolutely nothing innovative. Just a natural progression of what all phones were doing at the time."
This should be a sticky in every Apple-Samsung thread.
Good points all around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Combining a iPod and a cell phone was sure to sell well,
When Motorola released the Rokr the version of iTunes that Apple let them use was totally crippled because Apple was already working on the iPhone and they weren't about to let them get in there first. It did however give the consumers a glimpse of what was possible
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'm not surprised at all, I'm sure there were "holy shit" memos sent through every manufacturer.
The whole notion of computer guys can't just come into the cell business without any experience attitude caught them all flatfooted.