They had all those variants because samsung didn't have the same clout with carriers at the time that apple did. Each carrier wanted it tricked out and named according to their desires. A lot of the fragmentation that exists within the Android ecosystem is actually due to carriers rather than hardware developrs or google. That being said, now with the Galaxy SIII samsung has stood firm and stopped all of this nonsense.
I wholly agree that certain elements of the UI have apple design in it, but I also believe that its a bit silly to slam samsung in general. I use a GSIII and I can tell you first hand that no one with any passing familiarity with the smartphone market would confuse it with an iphone.
At the risk of sounding "racist," does anyone disagree, that Asian companies find it easier to "copy" than "innovate?" There, I said it.
I think it is obviously easier for anyone to copy rather than innovate. The question of whether there are cultural or, more likely, political (regulatory) factors that make it more likely to happen in certain regions may not be racist, but is definitely a bit of a sensitive issue, and probably best avoided.
They had all those variants because samsung didn't have the same clout with carriers at the time that apple did. Each carrier wanted it tricked out and named according to their desires. A lot of the fragmentation that exists within the Android ecosystem is actually due to carriers rather than hardware developrs or google. That being said, now with the Galaxy SIII samsung has stood firm and stopped all of this nonsense.
I wholly agree that certain elements of the UI have apple design in it, but I also believe that its a bit silly to slam samsung in general. I use a GSIII and I can tell you first hand that no one with any passing familiarity with the smartphone market would confuse it with an iphone.
Makes sense, although Apple somehow resisted those pressures. I agree that they have made the III look different, but that doesn't excuse what they did with the II.
I think it is obviously easier for anyone to copy rather than imitate. The question of whether there are cultural or, more likely, political (regulatory) factors that make it more likely to happen in certain regions may not be racist, but is definitely a bit of a sensitive issue, and probably best avoided.
Very thoughtful and intelligent response...but, i stand by my original premise.
They had all those variants because samsung didn't have the same clout with carriers at the time that apple did. Each carrier wanted it tricked out and named according to their desires. A lot of the fragmentation that exists within the Android ecosystem is actually due to carriers rather than hardware developrs or google. That being said, now with the Galaxy SIII samsung has stood firm and stopped all of this nonsense.
And, yet, even with the Galaxy SIII, there are multiple different variants.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that Samsung mentioned in their 'crisis of design' memo that they were releasing 350 different phones in one six month period. You can't blame that on the carriers.
I wholly agree that certain elements of the UI have apple design in it, but I also believe that its a bit silly to slam samsung in general. I use a GSIII and I can tell you first hand that no one with any passing familiarity with the smartphone market would confuse it with an iphone.
That ignores:
1. Samsung's own evidence says that Samsung's products were a close enough match to Apple's products that the #1 reason for returns at Best Buy was that users thought they were buying an Apple product.
2. Samsung's own attorneys couldn't tell the difference (this was tablets, but the principle is the same)
3. Look at all the evidence that has come to light so far in this trial. Look at the Samsung phones before the iPhone and after. Look at the generic Android icons and look at what Samsung changed them to. It's pretty clear that Samsung has gone out of its way to copy the iPhone and iPad.
"What was intended to put Samsung in a positive light became fodder for Apple counsel William Lee, who noted the comparisons being made between the two companies' products."
I am a bit confused why Samsung introduced this email. Surely it is self defeating.
Does anyone know what they were hoping to achieve?
"What was intended to put Samsung in a positive light became fodder for Apple counsel William Lee, who noted the comparisons being made between the two companies' products."
I am a bit confused why Samsung introduced this email. Surely it is self defeating.
Does anyone know what they were hoping to achieve?
It's surely a cunning plan, because as some posters noted last week, the lawyer leading Samsung's case is a really smart guy, hence the declaration to the public, continually aggravating the judge, etc etc.
Translation: "Crap! We've been spending all of our time copying Nokia when we should've been copying Apple!" Stay classy Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
BOMBSHELL.
First 3 posts said it all!
A crucial unknown in this trial is how the jury will respond. Apparently they have the authority to lay aside patents in their determination and so, even blindingly obvious impropriety by Samesung could be excused by an Apple's design is obvious finding. I cannot understand a legal system in which expert determinations by the USTPO could be set aside by inexpert jurors, if in fact my understanding is correct.
In short, this being a trial by jury means that the outcome is anything but clear.
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.
But why were they rushed?
If the full touchscreen was truly the natural progression... it should have happened organically. They shouldn't have to rush if it was going to happen anyway.
The fact that they did rush some less-than-stellar products to market suggests that they were, in fact, feeling pressure from the iPhone.
I'd love to have seen RIM's and Palm's product roadmaps prior to January 2007. RIM could have easily added a touchscreen to the Blackberry... since they control the hardware and software. But I still have my doubts whether RIM was planning on going down that route at all... since the Blackberry was known for its keyboard.
But Palm had a more difficult task. They were still using Windows Mobile and PalmOS on their phones... and that software might have limited their development.
I found this quote: "Palm was way behind the times. They needed a leader to come up with a brand new consumer product that was a whole lot fresher than the outdated Treo smartphone. In 2007 they found Jon Rubinstein, one of the architects of the original iPod, who had retired from Apple in 2006. They put him in charge of developing the yet-unannounced Palm Pre and the WebOS software it would run."
So... Palm hired Jon Rubinstein after Apple announced the iPhone. Was that just a big coincidence?
I don't think it was a coincidence. Palm announced its latest Treo on January 7, 2007 and they already had the Centro in the pipeline for a Fall release. It was a normal day at Palm.
Then 2 days later Apple announced the iPhone.
I imagine alarms went off at Palm... and at every other manufacturer too.
What's the big takeaway from all of this? No company was prepared for what Apple brought to the table. Even if these companies thought full-touchscreen smartphones were the future... none of them were ready to move in any sort of timely manner.
If the next step in smartphones was the full touchscreen... Apple had it in 2007. And that was with their very first phone.
The old guard... RIM, Palm and everyone else... didn't go to that next step until a year later or beyond. And that's shocking since they all should have had their finger on the pulse all these years.
Nobody should have been rushed... unless there was some new guy causing a stir in the industry.
Comments
Why did they have all those variants anyway?
Those models aren't the ones in the trial.
Originally Posted by muppetry
Why did they have all those variants anyway?
"So that everyone can have exactly the phone they want!"
Yes - I understand. So does anyone have a photo of an SGSII that doesn't look like an iPhone?
Honestly, I think they were trying to avoid the litigation they're in now.
Provided they are willing to move to another country to get it, of course.
I wondered about that. Seems like they may not have tried hard enough though.
Well that's one argument you won't get from me.
At the risk of sounding "racist," does anyone disagree, that Asian companies find it easier to "copy" than "innovate?" There, I said it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Why did they have all those variants anyway?
They had all those variants because samsung didn't have the same clout with carriers at the time that apple did. Each carrier wanted it tricked out and named according to their desires. A lot of the fragmentation that exists within the Android ecosystem is actually due to carriers rather than hardware developrs or google. That being said, now with the Galaxy SIII samsung has stood firm and stopped all of this nonsense.
I wholly agree that certain elements of the UI have apple design in it, but I also believe that its a bit silly to slam samsung in general. I use a GSIII and I can tell you first hand that no one with any passing familiarity with the smartphone market would confuse it with an iphone.
I think it is obviously easier for anyone to copy rather than innovate. The question of whether there are cultural or, more likely, political (regulatory) factors that make it more likely to happen in certain regions may not be racist, but is definitely a bit of a sensitive issue, and probably best avoided.
Edit: I meant "innovate", not "imitate".
Makes sense, although Apple somehow resisted those pressures. I agree that they have made the III look different, but that doesn't excuse what they did with the II.
Deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I think it is obviously easier for anyone to copy rather than imitate. The question of whether there are cultural or, more likely, political (regulatory) factors that make it more likely to happen in certain regions may not be racist, but is definitely a bit of a sensitive issue, and probably best avoided.
Very thoughtful and intelligent response...but, i stand by my original premise.
And, yet, even with the Galaxy SIII, there are multiple different variants.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that Samsung mentioned in their 'crisis of design' memo that they were releasing 350 different phones in one six month period. You can't blame that on the carriers.
That ignores:
1. Samsung's own evidence says that Samsung's products were a close enough match to Apple's products that the #1 reason for returns at Best Buy was that users thought they were buying an Apple product.
2. Samsung's own attorneys couldn't tell the difference (this was tablets, but the principle is the same)
3. Look at all the evidence that has come to light so far in this trial. Look at the Samsung phones before the iPhone and after. Look at the generic Android icons and look at what Samsung changed them to. It's pretty clear that Samsung has gone out of its way to copy the iPhone and iPad.
I am a bit confused why Samsung introduced this email. Surely it is self defeating.
Does anyone know what they were hoping to achieve?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rulebreaker
"What was intended to put Samsung in a positive light became fodder for Apple counsel William Lee, who noted the comparisons being made between the two companies' products."
I am a bit confused why Samsung introduced this email. Surely it is self defeating.
Does anyone know what they were hoping to achieve?
It's surely a cunning plan, because as some posters noted last week, the lawyer leading Samsung's case is a really smart guy, hence the declaration to the public, continually aggravating the judge, etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
At the risk of sounding "racist," does anyone disagree, that Asian companies find it easier to "copy" than "innovate?" There, I said it.
Racist? Perhaps. I don't think that kind of generalization helps very often.
But as to your question, yes, I disagree. I think Sony has a nice history of innovation and Microsoft has shamelessly copied Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffyzDead
OOOPS !!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santoanderson
Translation: "Crap! We've been spending all of our time copying Nokia when we should've been copying Apple!" Stay classy Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
BOMBSHELL.
First 3 posts said it all!
A crucial unknown in this trial is how the jury will respond. Apparently they have the authority to lay aside patents in their determination and so, even blindingly obvious impropriety by Samesung could be excused by an Apple's design is obvious finding. I cannot understand a legal system in which expert determinations by the USTPO could be set aside by inexpert jurors, if in fact my understanding is correct.
In short, this being a trial by jury means that the outcome is anything but clear.
But why were they rushed?
If the full touchscreen was truly the natural progression... it should have happened organically. They shouldn't have to rush if it was going to happen anyway.
The fact that they did rush some less-than-stellar products to market suggests that they were, in fact, feeling pressure from the iPhone.
I'd love to have seen RIM's and Palm's product roadmaps prior to January 2007. RIM could have easily added a touchscreen to the Blackberry... since they control the hardware and software. But I still have my doubts whether RIM was planning on going down that route at all... since the Blackberry was known for its keyboard.
But Palm had a more difficult task. They were still using Windows Mobile and PalmOS on their phones... and that software might have limited their development.
I found this quote: "Palm was way behind the times. They needed a leader to come up with a brand new consumer product that was a whole lot fresher than the outdated Treo smartphone. In 2007 they found Jon Rubinstein, one of the architects of the original iPod, who had retired from Apple in 2006. They put him in charge of developing the yet-unannounced Palm Pre and the WebOS software it would run."
So... Palm hired Jon Rubinstein after Apple announced the iPhone. Was that just a big coincidence?
I don't think it was a coincidence. Palm announced its latest Treo on January 7, 2007 and they already had the Centro in the pipeline for a Fall release. It was a normal day at Palm.
Then 2 days later Apple announced the iPhone.
I imagine alarms went off at Palm... and at every other manufacturer too.
What's the big takeaway from all of this? No company was prepared for what Apple brought to the table. Even if these companies thought full-touchscreen smartphones were the future... none of them were ready to move in any sort of timely manner.
If the next step in smartphones was the full touchscreen... Apple had it in 2007. And that was with their very first phone.
The old guard... RIM, Palm and everyone else... didn't go to that next step until a year later or beyond. And that's shocking since they all should have had their finger on the pulse all these years.
Nobody should have been rushed... unless there was some new guy causing a stir in the industry.