Would you not say the refrigerator was revolutionary over the ice box? A can list many more inventions that were more revolutionary than the iPhone.
The ice box to rebid greater is quite a bit like the cellphone to the Blackberry and smartphone to the iPhone. Each device had basic characteristics where the haters can say "Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but whatevs my icebox keeps my food cold, too, so sod off ya wanker."*
The point each of those changed the industry and how our lives use these devices which resulted in cultural changes.
1) The source cited in this article was Samsung. Samsung's number one priority seems to be - at present - to defend the charge that they copied the iPad. Would it be in Samsung's best immediate interests, to spin the results of the internal survey they conducted by taking a hit on quality - versus consumer deception?
2) The breakdown for the numbers (as reported) seems to be dissatisfaction based on the following categories:
10% - design limitations (software - operating system - assuming lack of operator error)
9% - exchanges for iPads (for undisclosed reasons - perhaps consumers were confused by similarities at point of purchase - perhaps they weren't - we don't know)
8% - customer support (software apps)
6% - performance dissatisfaction
The nature of the "survey" is suspect as to it's inherent reliability. For instance, was this a follow-up Likert-style survey that Samsung commissioned - i.e., that contacted consumers that had returned the product and asked them to respond to the exact categories above? Or, perhaps more probably, was this merely a "compilation" by Samsung who received return comments from consumers who were asked at the time of return to cite a reason as to why they were returning it. It has been my experience, when returning something to Best Buy, that the store employee asks me why I am returning it, and then edits what I say in a short pithy phrase on their return form.
Also, if we are to believe the actual words used (which may be an unfair assumption - given the laxness with which media reports are given here in the U.S. of A. (no disrespect intended) - the words "The study, conducted last year at 30 Best Buy stores in New York, Los Angeles, and Florida to determine why consumers were returning the tablet" makes it sound (improbably so) like Samsung might have had in-store personnel waiting to conduct a survey on consumers who returned their tablets.
Otherwise, if not conducted in the store right at the point of return, any subsequent determination "in store" after the return without the actual consumer being present to be able to say why they were returning it, would necessarily be suspect because the respondent would not be present.
If they contacted the consumers who returned the product later at home, it would not have been conducted "in-store," and - depending on the lag in time between the return and the survey, this may further compound concerns about validity and reliability.
If this is the case, it might just as well be summarized in the following manner:
75% - dissatisfying consumer experience with the product
25% - unreported category (I wonder what this category might have been)
However, a different situation may exist where the diligent Best Buy employee writes down everything the consumer says, which might be a combination of any two or more of the categories reported (e.g., Best Buy: What is wrong with the product? Consumer: "Wow! Where do I begin? The thing doesn't work worth a %@#!* (25% malfunction, 6% performance dissatisfaction), the touch panel is unresponsive (17% design limitation-hardware), the operating system sucks (10% design limitations-software), and there is no support for the apps for the thing! (8% customer support)"
Rather than being individual categories that summarize an individual consumer's single reason for return, the categories reported may very well be combination reasons cited to Best Buy. If so, that drives the percentage down (diminishes downward from 75%) for the categories stated, and increases the mystery category (increases from 25% upward) that is unreported. Given this distinction, it might not be surprising (given that some of these categories seem to be subsets of another) that quite a different picture may in treuth develop.
One fantasy speculation (because we have no way of knowing one way or the other) may very well be something as simple as this:
50% of products retruned for a combination of reasons cited;
50% of products returned for undocumented reasons.
Whatever the case, the results seem to skew away from Samsung's favor once combination reasons are allowed (and we have no reason to believe they were excluded).
Of course, as already stated, much of this is just idle speculation on my part, but I am somewhat familiar with how surveys should be conducted and, without trying to be overly laborious, this is how the article - void as it is of meaningful data - strikes me.
I apologize if this is too poorly written to easily understand - please share any concerns with this meager presentation and I will try to write with greater clarity.
The ice box to rebid greater is quite a bit like the cellphone to the Blackberry and smartphone to the iPhone. Each device had basic characteristics where the haters can say "Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but whatevs my icebox keeps my food cold, too, so sod off ya wanker."*
The point each of those changed the industry and how our lives use these devices which resulted in cultural changes.
* Little Britian reference.
But you'd agree that the invention of the refrigerator revolutionized that industry and forced ice box makers into a "design crisis". None of this is new, its happened in just about every industry.
For an example of a non-infringing, distinctive design, just take a look at a Lumia 900.
Unique physical attributes: color, shape, and overall form factor very different from iPhone.
Unique software design: Metro (I mean "Windows 8-style UI") is innovative, unique, and highly regarded (even by Apple fans.)
Samsung doesn't have to copy anybody. They could, if they wanted to, design a better UI than Apple.
But no, they chose the quick-and-dirty route. They panicked and rushed to fix the "crisis of design," as their head of
mobile communications, JK Shin said in a memo brought forth as evidence in the trial. And as we all know,
the fastest way to make your smartphone look better is to rip off Apple.
Yea and how's that working for MS versus the route Samsung took? Numbers don't lie. I'm not saying what Samsung did was right but it is proving to be highly profitable.
If Samsung feels so hard done by and if they had any principles, then they can withdraw all their products from the US and refuse to do business there.
Of course that won't happen because your fantasy is just that a fantasy.
I sometimes think Samsung's greatness and efforts are indeed wasted in the country of god and guns...
Nevertheless, for now, it is still a big market, and probably worth the fight against Applekoh.
I don't think Samsung buyers are fooled into buying the knockoffs - they know very well they are not Apple products. I think they simply want to try to fool those around them into believing they own cool Apple products when they do not.
Do you really think this? Because even the dumbest of the dumb can plainly tell the difference from the back side of the device (which is what other people generally see). There is a single similarity between the devices-- the front area and only when the displays are turned off. As soon as you look at the backs or turn the displays on, any confusion about what you're looking at should be immediately dispelled. I haven't even taken into account the fact that the samsung tablets are taller. Since I know that the aspect ratio is different, the only remote and unlikely chance I would confuse the two is if I could only see the turned off displays, from a long distance, at odd angles that obfuscate the aspect ratio. I think anyone who feels differently about this is clearly biased for one company or the other.
I'll let Solip answer your question, Rabbit_Coach.
You're the making the stupid comment so you defend yourself. I'm going to fight your pathetic position for you. Ive said he was inspired by the Rams, he did not copy Rams.
Your argument is the same as saying musicians steal from The Beatles and show a lyrics with the word 'help' in it as proof. Show us prove that Ives products function the same way any of Rams 60's products instead of grabbing the sole angle and lightening between two images that prove anything more than your apoohenia.
Citing as prior art items that have very different functions, very different technologies, are used in very different ways, and actually look very different from the products in question. Why not cite the Luxo lamp as prior art for the original iMac? Jobs and Ives said that was an inspiration for them too (of course it's a lamp, not a computer.)
eric475, you might want to learn to talk less from your lower mouth and instead spend some time learning something about utility patents, design patents, the nature of prior art on each, and also the nature of trade dress. Then you might be able to contribute something to the forum. Until then consider that the *desire to speak,* doesn't mean you have anything *interesting to say* (or even *anything at all to say.*)
I don't see how not witnessing someone mistake a product for another is "faltering."
No one who makes such a mistake usually announces it to the world at the top of their lungs -- "I made a mistake and purchased the wrong thing!!!"
usually, they just return to the store for an exchange or live with it.
Stupid cross examination.
And no doubt, when you get into the tiny details, major differences appear, where Apple's attention to detail shine through.
BUT where it counts in terms of "curb appeal," where customers or potential customers see a jpeg of the item on the internet or behind glass at the store or in the box, or even side by side, it's obvious that the Samsung looks near identical unless you are specifically looking for differences.
So Samsung's argument about specifically looking at the small details is erroneous at the conceptual level. they are basically making an argument against themselves if the differences they have to point out are at the level only a designer or Samsung engineer would notice.
If only Apple's lawyers would point this out in a strong way.
Samsung really doesn't have a case. Surprised it's dragging out this long.
In terms of fees, the courts and lawyers must think Christmas came early.
When I was at Walmart about 4 months ago, there was a Samsung Galaxy Tab in the iPad 2 display case. I told a manager and they did nothing because it was still there a week later.
OK, so now it's not the details that count (though it is Apple's trademark - and I, for one, am impressed with their focus on detail) but the 'curb appeal'.
So, it's getting generic again. But then again, we're back into rectangles-territory... which is not good either. The thin thing doesn't stick. Just follow the thinning-pattern over the years. EVERY producer designed, smaller lighter and thinner over the years (though 3,5 inch is now deemed too small, which I don't have a problem with: it's a phone... I use an iPad to read)
BTW: at the conceptual level, we have a rectangular touch screen.
Do you really think this? Because even the dumbest of the dumb can plainly tell the difference from the back side of the device (which is what other people generally see). There is a single similarity between the devices-- the front area and only when the displays are turned off. As soon as you look at the backs or turn the displays on, any confusion about what you're looking at should be immediately dispelled. I haven't even taken into account the fact that the samsung tablets are taller. Since I know that the aspect ratio is different, the only remote and unlikely chance I would confuse the two is if I could only see the turned off displays, from a long distance, at odd angles that obfuscate the aspect ratio. I think anyone who feels differently about this is clearly biased for one company or the other.
Blah blah, Samsung's own lawyers, blah blah, at least ten percent of Best Buy returns, blah FRICKING BLAH.
I'm getting sick of repeating myself to these broken record players.
Citing as prior art items that have very different functions, very different technologies, are used in very different ways, and actually look very different from the products in question. Why not cite the Luxo lamp as prior art for the original iMac? Jobs and Ives said that was an inspiration for them too (of course it's a lamp, not a computer.)
eric475, you might want to learn to talk less from your lower mouth and instead spend some time learning something about utility patents, design patents, the nature of prior art on each, and also the nature of trade dress. Then you might be able to contribute something to the forum. Until then consider that the *desire to speak,* doesn't mean you have anything *interesting to say* (or even *anything at all to say.*)
hard to talk through your lower mouth when it is dedicated to the single purpose of breathing.
Blah blah, Samsung's own lawyers, blah blah, at least ten percent of Best Buy returns, blah FRICKING BLAH.
I'm getting sick of repeating myself to these broken record players.
I can't figure out if you are trying to refute what I said, agree with me or are just whining. I will just reply based on the first guess (refuting), though clearly there's a bit of whining too. Lots of bla bla, broken record baseless defense? To cut through the crap, do you disagree with what I said? Can you not tell the difference between an iPad and a Samsung Galaxy Tab? Do you think anyone of average or even below intelligence would have trouble distinguishing them in the ways I described? Please refrain from references to ambiguous 'statistics' and awful lawyers.
Please refrain from references to ambiguous 'statistics' and awful lawyers.
So ignore all the facts and what actually happened and give me an answer that doesn't line up with anyone's perception of reality but my own broken one, got it.
Comments
The ice box to rebid greater is quite a bit like the cellphone to the Blackberry and smartphone to the iPhone. Each device had basic characteristics where the haters can say "Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but whatevs my icebox keeps my food cold, too, so sod off ya wanker."*
The point each of those changed the industry and how our lives use these devices which resulted in cultural changes.
* Little Britian reference.
Interesting numbers. A few casual observations:
1) The source cited in this article was Samsung. Samsung's number one priority seems to be - at present - to defend the charge that they copied the iPad. Would it be in Samsung's best immediate interests, to spin the results of the internal survey they conducted by taking a hit on quality - versus consumer deception?
2) The breakdown for the numbers (as reported) seems to be dissatisfaction based on the following categories:
25% - malfunctions
17% - design limitations (hardware - assuming lack of operator error)
10% - design limitations (software - operating system - assuming lack of operator error)
9% - exchanges for iPads (for undisclosed reasons - perhaps consumers were confused by similarities at point of purchase - perhaps they weren't - we don't know)
8% - customer support (software apps)
6% - performance dissatisfaction
The nature of the "survey" is suspect as to it's inherent reliability. For instance, was this a follow-up Likert-style survey that Samsung commissioned - i.e., that contacted consumers that had returned the product and asked them to respond to the exact categories above? Or, perhaps more probably, was this merely a "compilation" by Samsung who received return comments from consumers who were asked at the time of return to cite a reason as to why they were returning it. It has been my experience, when returning something to Best Buy, that the store employee asks me why I am returning it, and then edits what I say in a short pithy phrase on their return form.
Also, if we are to believe the actual words used (which may be an unfair assumption - given the laxness with which media reports are given here in the U.S. of A. (no disrespect intended) - the words "The study, conducted last year at 30 Best Buy stores in New York, Los Angeles, and Florida to determine why consumers were returning the tablet" makes it sound (improbably so) like Samsung might have had in-store personnel waiting to conduct a survey on consumers who returned their tablets.
Otherwise, if not conducted in the store right at the point of return, any subsequent determination "in store" after the return without the actual consumer being present to be able to say why they were returning it, would necessarily be suspect because the respondent would not be present.
If they contacted the consumers who returned the product later at home, it would not have been conducted "in-store," and - depending on the lag in time between the return and the survey, this may further compound concerns about validity and reliability.
If this is the case, it might just as well be summarized in the following manner:
75% - dissatisfying consumer experience with the product
25% - unreported category (I wonder what this category might have been)
However, a different situation may exist where the diligent Best Buy employee writes down everything the consumer says, which might be a combination of any two or more of the categories reported (e.g., Best Buy: What is wrong with the product? Consumer: "Wow! Where do I begin? The thing doesn't work worth a %@#!* (25% malfunction, 6% performance dissatisfaction), the touch panel is unresponsive (17% design limitation-hardware), the operating system sucks (10% design limitations-software), and there is no support for the apps for the thing! (8% customer support)"
Rather than being individual categories that summarize an individual consumer's single reason for return, the categories reported may very well be combination reasons cited to Best Buy. If so, that drives the percentage down (diminishes downward from 75%) for the categories stated, and increases the mystery category (increases from 25% upward) that is unreported. Given this distinction, it might not be surprising (given that some of these categories seem to be subsets of another) that quite a different picture may in treuth develop.
One fantasy speculation (because we have no way of knowing one way or the other) may very well be something as simple as this:
50% of products retruned for a combination of reasons cited;
50% of products returned for undocumented reasons.
Whatever the case, the results seem to skew away from Samsung's favor once combination reasons are allowed (and we have no reason to believe they were excluded).
Of course, as already stated, much of this is just idle speculation on my part, but I am somewhat familiar with how surveys should be conducted and, without trying to be overly laborious, this is how the article - void as it is of meaningful data - strikes me.
I apologize if this is too poorly written to easily understand - please share any concerns with this meager presentation and I will try to write with greater clarity.
I thank you beforehand for your kind patience.
For an example of a non-infringing, distinctive design, just take a look at a Lumia 900.
Unique physical attributes: color, shape, and overall form factor very different from iPhone.
Unique software design: Metro (I mean "Windows 8-style UI") is innovative, unique, and highly regarded (even by Apple fans.)
Samsung doesn't have to copy anybody. They could, if they wanted to, design a better UI than Apple.
But no, they chose the quick-and-dirty route. They panicked and rushed to fix the "crisis of design," as their head of
mobile communications, JK Shin said in a memo brought forth as evidence in the trial. And as we all know,
the fastest way to make your smartphone look better is to rip off Apple.
But you'd agree that the invention of the refrigerator revolutionized that industry and forced ice box makers into a "design crisis". None of this is new, its happened in just about every industry.
Yea and how's that working for MS versus the route Samsung took? Numbers don't lie. I'm not saying what Samsung did was right but it is proving to be highly profitable.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The ice box to rebid greater…
Frigging auto-correct, eh? "Um gumbo thirty years, I guess. I'm'a go do levvytown."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
If Samsung feels so hard done by and if they had any principles, then they can withdraw all their products from the US and refuse to do business there.
Of course that won't happen because your fantasy is just that a fantasy.
I sometimes think Samsung's greatness and efforts are indeed wasted in the country of god and guns...
Nevertheless, for now, it is still a big market, and probably worth the fight against Applekoh.
South Korea 5ting!
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMacGuy
I don't think Samsung buyers are fooled into buying the knockoffs - they know very well they are not Apple products. I think they simply want to try to fool those around them into believing they own cool Apple products when they do not.
Do you really think this? Because even the dumbest of the dumb can plainly tell the difference from the back side of the device (which is what other people generally see). There is a single similarity between the devices-- the front area and only when the displays are turned off. As soon as you look at the backs or turn the displays on, any confusion about what you're looking at should be immediately dispelled. I haven't even taken into account the fact that the samsung tablets are taller. Since I know that the aspect ratio is different, the only remote and unlikely chance I would confuse the two is if I could only see the turned off displays, from a long distance, at odd angles that obfuscate the aspect ratio. I think anyone who feels differently about this is clearly biased for one company or the other.
You're the making the stupid comment so you defend yourself. I'm going to fight your pathetic position for you. Ive said he was inspired by the Rams, he did not copy Rams.
Your argument is the same as saying musicians steal from The Beatles and show a lyrics with the word 'help' in it as proof. Show us prove that Ives products function the same way any of Rams 60's products instead of grabbing the sole angle and lightening between two images that prove anything more than your apoohenia.
Yeah, but it's ultimately my fault for not proof reading what I type on my iPad.
That's funny!
Citing as prior art items that have very different functions, very different technologies, are used in very different ways, and actually look very different from the products in question. Why not cite the Luxo lamp as prior art for the original iMac? Jobs and Ives said that was an inspiration for them too (of course it's a lamp, not a computer.)
eric475, you might want to learn to talk less from your lower mouth and instead spend some time learning something about utility patents, design patents, the nature of prior art on each, and also the nature of trade dress. Then you might be able to contribute something to the forum. Until then consider that the *desire to speak,* doesn't mean you have anything *interesting to say* (or even *anything at all to say.*)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475
J. Ive, Dieter Rams wants his designs back.
I don't see how not witnessing someone mistake a product for another is "faltering."
No one who makes such a mistake usually announces it to the world at the top of their lungs -- "I made a mistake and purchased the wrong thing!!!"
usually, they just return to the store for an exchange or live with it.
Stupid cross examination.
And no doubt, when you get into the tiny details, major differences appear, where Apple's attention to detail shine through.
BUT where it counts in terms of "curb appeal," where customers or potential customers see a jpeg of the item on the internet or behind glass at the store or in the box, or even side by side, it's obvious that the Samsung looks near identical unless you are specifically looking for differences.
So Samsung's argument about specifically looking at the small details is erroneous at the conceptual level. they are basically making an argument against themselves if the differences they have to point out are at the level only a designer or Samsung engineer would notice.
If only Apple's lawyers would point this out in a strong way.
Samsung really doesn't have a case. Surprised it's dragging out this long.
In terms of fees, the courts and lawyers must think Christmas came early.
When I was at Walmart about 4 months ago, there was a Samsung Galaxy Tab in the iPad 2 display case. I told a manager and they did nothing because it was still there a week later.
Ives isn't screwing Rams out of billions of dollars in business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475
J. Ive, Dieter Rams wants his designs back.
And do you honestly and truly believe Samsung is screwing Apple out of billions? And that strippers oh excuse me exotic dancers really like you?
OK, so now it's not the details that count (though it is Apple's trademark - and I, for one, am impressed with their focus on detail) but the 'curb appeal'.
So, it's getting generic again. But then again, we're back into rectangles-territory... which is not good either. The thin thing doesn't stick. Just follow the thinning-pattern over the years. EVERY producer designed, smaller lighter and thinner over the years (though 3,5 inch is now deemed too small, which I don't have a problem with: it's a phone... I use an iPad to read)
BTW: at the conceptual level, we have a rectangular touch screen.
There was prior art to that... a lot of it.
Originally Posted by Neo42
Do you really think this? Because even the dumbest of the dumb can plainly tell the difference from the back side of the device (which is what other people generally see). There is a single similarity between the devices-- the front area and only when the displays are turned off. As soon as you look at the backs or turn the displays on, any confusion about what you're looking at should be immediately dispelled. I haven't even taken into account the fact that the samsung tablets are taller. Since I know that the aspect ratio is different, the only remote and unlikely chance I would confuse the two is if I could only see the turned off displays, from a long distance, at odd angles that obfuscate the aspect ratio. I think anyone who feels differently about this is clearly biased for one company or the other.
Blah blah, Samsung's own lawyers, blah blah, at least ten percent of Best Buy returns, blah FRICKING BLAH.
I'm getting sick of repeating myself to these broken record players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
That's funny!
Citing as prior art items that have very different functions, very different technologies, are used in very different ways, and actually look very different from the products in question. Why not cite the Luxo lamp as prior art for the original iMac? Jobs and Ives said that was an inspiration for them too (of course it's a lamp, not a computer.)
eric475, you might want to learn to talk less from your lower mouth and instead spend some time learning something about utility patents, design patents, the nature of prior art on each, and also the nature of trade dress. Then you might be able to contribute something to the forum. Until then consider that the *desire to speak,* doesn't mean you have anything *interesting to say* (or even *anything at all to say.*)
hard to talk through your lower mouth when it is dedicated to the single purpose of breathing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Blah blah, Samsung's own lawyers, blah blah, at least ten percent of Best Buy returns, blah FRICKING BLAH.
I'm getting sick of repeating myself to these broken record players.
I can't figure out if you are trying to refute what I said, agree with me or are just whining. I will just reply based on the first guess (refuting), though clearly there's a bit of whining too. Lots of bla bla, broken record baseless defense? To cut through the crap, do you disagree with what I said? Can you not tell the difference between an iPad and a Samsung Galaxy Tab? Do you think anyone of average or even below intelligence would have trouble distinguishing them in the ways I described? Please refrain from references to ambiguous 'statistics' and awful lawyers.
Originally Posted by Neo42
Please refrain from references to ambiguous 'statistics' and awful lawyers.
So ignore all the facts and what actually happened and give me an answer that doesn't line up with anyone's perception of reality but my own broken one, got it.