Not as a knock or to stereotype, but copying / borrowing ideas, products, etc is a common and accepted practice in the eyes of many Asians. Of course the same thing could be said of Europeans, North Americans, and others. If we look, whether it's obvious or not, we will see examples of copying in just about every market, every product.
Creating and executing on unique ideas, be they smart phones or store layouts, is not as easy as one would make it out to be. Sure, Apple has created its share of unique and successful things, including their stores, but they clearly got inspiration from others too. I'm not supporting Samsung here - I think they are quite blatantly copying a lot of things Apple does because why not use what has shown to be successful as the basis for what you do?
I'm not sure it harms Apple in any way, any more than Microsoft's stores harm Apple.
It is interesting, in these times of patent infringement and copying accusations, to consider - culturally - how the idea of intellectual property differs from one culture to another.
There is a type of wisdom that might allow that copying - per se - is not the problem, and never has been. Steve Jobs quoted a missive that is all too often misunderstood. Attributed by some to Pablo Picasso, it goes something like this "Good artists copy - great artists steal." Picasso, in context (and given the subsequent translation from his playful original tongue into other languages), was talking about the difference between what merely a good artist could do when taking another's idea (i.e., copying it slavishly without inspiration so that anyone could see where it had come from), and what a great artist could do when taking the same idea (i.e., putting an embellishment on it so that the source became obscured or hidden when viewing what the artist was capable of producing - hence, the outright theft right under one's nose." The idea is that the progenitor who owned the original idea, when viewing what a great artist did with their idea, would hardly be able to tell - if at all - be able to tell that the artist's result had been stolen from him right underneath his nose. Hence, the idea of theft.
If you take this premise, and it has a certain logic to it, and apply it to Apple, the Jobsian maxim would evolve to be - "sure, we got our original idea from (...fill in the blank - "Palo Alto Research Center", etc. ...), but what we did with it (as "great artists" is so much better than what we originally took that it cannot merely be called "copying" as might be done if someone else had copied it and left it pretty much exactly as they borrowed it."
In the same vein, from a Samsung cultural perspective, if Samsung had copied the desktop metaphor from the Xerox lab, then Samsung might truthfully say "sure, we got our original idea from "PARC" and while to the untrained eye it still looks pretty much identical to what we borrowed, we streamlined the entire instruction set for each icon and pioneered the way the processor draws the icon on the screen. And yes, it is true that our pioneering effort also copies Adobe display postscript visually, but we do the entire program in 23,000 lines of code with 460 errors returned, and the Adobe postscript display engine has 135000 lines of code with 3 errors returned.
In some cultures, if they can copy a Hasselblad camera to a "T", but build it at a fraction of what the Germans can and deliver the same quality, that to their mindset is a perfectly acceptable premise for copying. In this culture, there is little need to innovate on a theme - because innovation of the product means adding whatever bolt-on technology comes along (bigger screen, better camera, etc.) to make this year's model better than last year's model. To innovate on a theme and introduce a whole new concept is to do expensive pioneer work - something often done, but not for immediate monetary gain (hence Honda robotics, Toshiba ultra hyper-def TV panels, etc.).
In other cultures, even if they can copy a Hasselblad camera, they won't do it unless they can improve upon it as to design and function. While the spirit of the Hasselblad is in their product, the borrowing of Hasselblad's intellectual property for their own gain goes largely undetected (or better - unprovable in court). As such, stealing from Hasselblad and innovating on a theme is cool, but in this same culture, copying from Hasselblad is shameless, uncool, and proof that the copier has no cajones.
It's all a mater of perspective. It is interesting to note that in both respects, the world still seems to beat a path to each one's door.
"Samsung representatives insist that Apple had nothing to do with the location or the design of its new store."
Samesung sure has taken the art of lying to a whole new level.
The fact that they even have to field questions in this regard shows that everyone with even a hint of intelligence knows they're not only lying through their teeth in every aspect of their business but also that they're blatantly, obviously copying everything that Apple has done.
I have no idea what country you're in, but most mobile phone chain stores in the UK have had broadly equivalent store layouts, including grid-like wall displays for years, and certainly long before Apple opened a store in the UK (which was the Regents Street, London store in late 2004). Nearly everything listed is all pretty standard retailing fare, from small shops to giant department stores.
I mentioned John Lewis earlier (it's a chain of giant department stores in the UK). They have used the acrylic information holders on display cabinets for donkeys years... Ok, obviously not electronic tablets inside the display I grant you, but then again, in the 1970s, nobody had any concept of such a device.
Yes, Apple has a particular style. A very good style indeed, in fact. They have a retail design language that they have exported all over the world. BUT... none of the elements of the language are original and the only copyrightable elements of it are things like 'Genius Bar' which they're able to trademark. Bar stools at a counter is not exactly original... Pubs have been doing it for centuries!
I will repeat: I am an Apple fan. I have spent vast sums of money on Apple goods, to the exclusion of more or less every other brand, except by necessity. I am, however, not so tribal about it to accuse anything with superficial hints of Apple-ness as being automatically a blatant wilful copy. There's enough different about that Samsung store that it's not going to confuse anyone. It's clean, modern, stylish, and on-trend regarding current high-tech design, but that's as far as it goes. Note, that doesn't mean I don't think Samsung copied the iPhone blatantly and wilfully: I'm quite certain they did and I hope they pay handsomely for their ripping off. Just that this store is simply riding a trend that others ride as well.
Sorry, this is just nonsense.
When Apple opened the first Apple Store, there wasn't another electronics retail operation in the world that looked remotely like it. Anyone can see the allover design and style is unique; trying to blur the distinctions by getting vague ("information holders on display cabinets" as if that spoke to what makes an Apple Store an Apple Store) or doing the old post hoc inevitable tap dance ("clean, modern, stylish, and on-trend regarding current high-tech design" as if Apple hadn't absolutely defined exactly what those terms mean for the competition) doesn't make any kind of a rebuttal to that fact.
It's like Solly remarked earlier (and amusingly the very next post did exactly this) regarding the pathetic need to forever decide that everything Apple does is simply the obvious expression of an inevitable design. That somehow everything is always converging towards whatever Apple is doing, and Apple just happens to get there a little early. Combine that with "nothing is new in that we can always use broad enough descriptors to pretend it's been done before" (LOL store had doors and tables and windows and signs, give it up fanboys!) and you get the implacable machine of Apple Innovation Denial Syndrome.
EDIT: I should note I'm not actually trying to take CognitoDexter to task, particularly, this just happened to be the post where I decided to reply. There have been far more egregious examples in the thread, obviously.
Why does this not surprise me. Is there anything that Apple won't patent?
Any reasonable inventor would attempt to patent anything (s)he possibly can. The only question relevant issue is whether that patent is granted, and if so, challenged, and if so, stands.
Why does this not surprise me. Is there anything that Apple won't patent?
If they're smart they'll patent as much as they possibly can.
Looks like they are, and did.
They're quite open about it, too:
It appears other players in the industry are a little less vigilant about patenting their tech, or rather, the kind of implementations having to do with design. And design is half the battle for any device.
Is there anything Koreans don't copy? In my many years I have never purchased a Korean company labeled product.
They copy, they get preferential treatment from the USG for strategic reasons (North Korea). They can exist on otther people's money.
Lets not go down that path, please.
The Sony store did exist before the Apple store, by the way, and there are many similarities in terms of the shopping experience 'idea'. I think the 'design' of Apple's stores go way beyond the 'look', which was 'borrowed' from clothes stores. Modern minimalist clothes stores had been around for a long time. When I first realized the CEO of GAP was on the Apple board and I entered the first Apple store I just thought it was a GAP store where they had removed the clothes and replaced them with Apple products. I also remember thinking that alone was sheer genius, and as often is the case with genius it seemed so damned obvious.
And if Samsung insists on rolling out more of these retail outlets, we get to hear about how Apple and Apple defenders are claiming that "Apple invented tables" or "Apple invented glass front stores" or "Apple invented product displays" and how ridiculous Apple people are and how they have this need to pretend like Apple invented everything. Because there's no such thing, see, as a cumulative effect of lots and lots of design choices that work together to create the impression of the whole, just lots of little choices viewed one at a time, in isolation, described in the broadest and most generic terms possible. Rounded rectangles.
Only in the surreal world of Apple Derangement Syndrome would an obvious, shameless attempt to cash in on the huge success of the Apple Stores be viewed as evidence that Apple fans are idiots.
A striking thing about these kinds of threads is that weird undercurrent that Apple is actually being shitty for withholding their designs. That everything Apple does is right and good and proper and obvious, but that Apple itself is wrong and bad and greedy and pointlessly litigious. Like they're illegitimate squatters on some kind of innovation mine, and trying to hoard the proceeds goes against all notions of justice.
It must be terribly galling for the haters to notice that all this cool stuff has to be tainted by passing through Apple on its way to general access by decent people who would never demean themselves by purchasing "Crapple" products, which of course are for sheep. I wonder if they ever consider that if not for Apple we'd likely all be shopping in Best Buy for button studded shit boxes championed by tech zealot assholes? You know, like it was before Apple remade those markets.
Comments
Not as a knock or to stereotype, but copying / borrowing ideas, products, etc is a common and accepted practice in the eyes of many Asians. Of course the same thing could be said of Europeans, North Americans, and others. If we look, whether it's obvious or not, we will see examples of copying in just about every market, every product.
Creating and executing on unique ideas, be they smart phones or store layouts, is not as easy as one would make it out to be. Sure, Apple has created its share of unique and successful things, including their stores, but they clearly got inspiration from others too. I'm not supporting Samsung here - I think they are quite blatantly copying a lot of things Apple does because why not use what has shown to be successful as the basis for what you do?
I'm not sure it harms Apple in any way, any more than Microsoft's stores harm Apple.
It is interesting, in these times of patent infringement and copying accusations, to consider - culturally - how the idea of intellectual property differs from one culture to another.There is a type of wisdom that might allow that copying - per se - is not the problem, and never has been. Steve Jobs quoted a missive that is all too often misunderstood. Attributed by some to Pablo Picasso, it goes something like this "Good artists copy - great artists steal." Picasso, in context (and given the subsequent translation from his playful original tongue into other languages), was talking about the difference between what merely a good artist could do when taking another's idea (i.e., copying it slavishly without inspiration so that anyone could see where it had come from), and what a great artist could do when taking the same idea (i.e., putting an embellishment on it so that the source became obscured or hidden when viewing what the artist was capable of producing - hence, the outright theft right under one's nose." The idea is that the progenitor who owned the original idea, when viewing what a great artist did with their idea, would hardly be able to tell - if at all - be able to tell that the artist's result had been stolen from him right underneath his nose. Hence, the idea of theft.
If you take this premise, and it has a certain logic to it, and apply it to Apple, the Jobsian maxim would evolve to be - "sure, we got our original idea from (...fill in the blank - "Palo Alto Research Center", etc. ...), but what we did with it (as "great artists" is so much better than what we originally took that it cannot merely be called "copying" as might be done if someone else had copied it and left it pretty much exactly as they borrowed it."
In the same vein, from a Samsung cultural perspective, if Samsung had copied the desktop metaphor from the Xerox lab, then Samsung might truthfully say "sure, we got our original idea from "PARC" and while to the untrained eye it still looks pretty much identical to what we borrowed, we streamlined the entire instruction set for each icon and pioneered the way the processor draws the icon on the screen. And yes, it is true that our pioneering effort also copies Adobe display postscript visually, but we do the entire program in 23,000 lines of code with 460 errors returned, and the Adobe postscript display engine has 135000 lines of code with 3 errors returned.
In some cultures, if they can copy a Hasselblad camera to a "T", but build it at a fraction of what the Germans can and deliver the same quality, that to their mindset is a perfectly acceptable premise for copying. In this culture, there is little need to innovate on a theme - because innovation of the product means adding whatever bolt-on technology comes along (bigger screen, better camera, etc.) to make this year's model better than last year's model. To innovate on a theme and introduce a whole new concept is to do expensive pioneer work - something often done, but not for immediate monetary gain (hence Honda robotics, Toshiba ultra hyper-def TV panels, etc.).
In other cultures, even if they can copy a Hasselblad camera, they won't do it unless they can improve upon it as to design and function. While the spirit of the Hasselblad is in their product, the borrowing of Hasselblad's intellectual property for their own gain goes largely undetected (or better - unprovable in court). As such, stealing from Hasselblad and innovating on a theme is cool, but in this same culture, copying from Hasselblad is shameless, uncool, and proof that the copier has no cajones.
It's all a mater of perspective. It is interesting to note that in both respects, the world still seems to beat a path to each one's door.
Samsung model use iPhone LOL.
http://************/2012/08/24/note-to-samsung-tell-supermodel-kate-upton-to-leave-her-iphone-at-home-when-working-galaxy-events/
Parody that explains it all. Really awesome!!!
Conan O’Brien Breaks Down The Apple/Samsung Trial [VIDEO]
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/08/conan-obrien-breaks-down-the-applesamsung-trial-video
"Samsung representatives insist that Apple had nothing to do with the location or the design of its new store."
Samesung sure has taken the art of lying to a whole new level.
Originally Posted by mytdave
"Samsung representatives insist that Apple had nothing to do with the location or the design of its new store."
Samesung sure has taken the art of lying to a whole new level.
The fact that they even have to field questions in this regard shows that everyone with even a hint of intelligence knows they're not only lying through their teeth in every aspect of their business but also that they're blatantly, obviously copying everything that Apple has done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter
I have no idea what country you're in, but most mobile phone chain stores in the UK have had broadly equivalent store layouts, including grid-like wall displays for years, and certainly long before Apple opened a store in the UK (which was the Regents Street, London store in late 2004). Nearly everything listed is all pretty standard retailing fare, from small shops to giant department stores.
I mentioned John Lewis earlier (it's a chain of giant department stores in the UK). They have used the acrylic information holders on display cabinets for donkeys years... Ok, obviously not electronic tablets inside the display I grant you, but then again, in the 1970s, nobody had any concept of such a device.
Yes, Apple has a particular style. A very good style indeed, in fact. They have a retail design language that they have exported all over the world. BUT... none of the elements of the language are original and the only copyrightable elements of it are things like 'Genius Bar' which they're able to trademark. Bar stools at a counter is not exactly original... Pubs have been doing it for centuries!
I will repeat: I am an Apple fan. I have spent vast sums of money on Apple goods, to the exclusion of more or less every other brand, except by necessity. I am, however, not so tribal about it to accuse anything with superficial hints of Apple-ness as being automatically a blatant wilful copy. There's enough different about that Samsung store that it's not going to confuse anyone. It's clean, modern, stylish, and on-trend regarding current high-tech design, but that's as far as it goes. Note, that doesn't mean I don't think Samsung copied the iPhone blatantly and wilfully: I'm quite certain they did and I hope they pay handsomely for their ripping off. Just that this store is simply riding a trend that others ride as well.
Sorry, this is just nonsense.
When Apple opened the first Apple Store, there wasn't another electronics retail operation in the world that looked remotely like it. Anyone can see the allover design and style is unique; trying to blur the distinctions by getting vague ("information holders on display cabinets" as if that spoke to what makes an Apple Store an Apple Store) or doing the old post hoc inevitable tap dance ("clean, modern, stylish, and on-trend regarding current high-tech design" as if Apple hadn't absolutely defined exactly what those terms mean for the competition) doesn't make any kind of a rebuttal to that fact.
It's like Solly remarked earlier (and amusingly the very next post did exactly this) regarding the pathetic need to forever decide that everything Apple does is simply the obvious expression of an inevitable design. That somehow everything is always converging towards whatever Apple is doing, and Apple just happens to get there a little early. Combine that with "nothing is new in that we can always use broad enough descriptors to pretend it's been done before" (LOL store had doors and tables and windows and signs, give it up fanboys!) and you get the implacable machine of Apple Innovation Denial Syndrome.
EDIT: I should note I'm not actually trying to take CognitoDexter to task, particularly, this just happened to be the post where I decided to reply. There have been far more egregious examples in the thread, obviously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx
Parody that explains it all. Really awesome!!!
Conan O’Brien Breaks Down The Apple/Samsung Trial [VIDEO]
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/08/conan-obrien-breaks-down-the-applesamsung-trial-video
Classic!!!!!!!
Is it too much to ask for at least one original thought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead
Is there anything Apple makes or does which Samesung does not copy?
Is there anything Koreans don't copy? In my many years I have never purchased a Korean company labeled product.
They copy, they get preferential treatment from the USG for strategic reasons (North Korea). They can exist on otther people's money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
Samsung model use iPhone LOL.
http://************/2012/08/24/note-to-samsung-tell-supermodel-kate-upton-to-leave-her-iphone-at-home-when-working-galaxy-events/
(Removed link).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
Samsung are shameless.. they have no shame. I don't know how someone can defend Samsung with a straight face.
Apple did patent and trademark their retail store design.
Why does this not surprise me. Is there anything that Apple won't patent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by qualar
Why does this not surprise me. Is there anything that Apple won't patent?
Any reasonable inventor would attempt to patent anything (s)he possibly can. The only question relevant issue is whether that patent is granted, and if so, challenged, and if so, stands.
So your comment is vacuous.
Originally Posted by qualar
Why does this not surprise me. Is there anything that Apple won't patent?
Gosh, protecting the ideas that you perfect. How wretched. It's almost un-American.
"Generically (and with absolutely nothing put up as an idea in this regard) reform the patent system!" "Innovate, don't litigate!" What else…
Quote:
Originally Posted by qualar
Why does this not surprise me. Is there anything that Apple won't patent?
If they're smart they'll patent as much as they possibly can.
Looks like they are, and did.
They're quite open about it, too:
It appears other players in the industry are a little less vigilant about patenting their tech, or rather, the kind of implementations having to do with design. And design is half the battle for any device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eye Forget
Is there anything Koreans don't copy? In my many years I have never purchased a Korean company labeled product.
They copy, they get preferential treatment from the USG for strategic reasons (North Korea). They can exist on otther people's money.
Lets not go down that path, please.
The Sony store did exist before the Apple store, by the way, and there are many similarities in terms of the shopping experience 'idea'. I think the 'design' of Apple's stores go way beyond the 'look', which was 'borrowed' from clothes stores. Modern minimalist clothes stores had been around for a long time. When I first realized the CEO of GAP was on the Apple board and I entered the first Apple store I just thought it was a GAP store where they had removed the clothes and replaced them with Apple products. I also remember thinking that alone was sheer genius, and as often is the case with genius it seemed so damned obvious.
Lol, in the video the reporter asks him directly about layout being similar to the Apple Store.
I haven't heard the term "fast follow" strategy before either.
And if Samsung insists on rolling out more of these retail outlets, we get to hear about how Apple and Apple defenders are claiming that "Apple invented tables" or "Apple invented glass front stores" or "Apple invented product displays" and how ridiculous Apple people are and how they have this need to pretend like Apple invented everything. Because there's no such thing, see, as a cumulative effect of lots and lots of design choices that work together to create the impression of the whole, just lots of little choices viewed one at a time, in isolation, described in the broadest and most generic terms possible. Rounded rectangles.
Only in the surreal world of Apple Derangement Syndrome would an obvious, shameless attempt to cash in on the huge success of the Apple Stores be viewed as evidence that Apple fans are idiots.
A striking thing about these kinds of threads is that weird undercurrent that Apple is actually being shitty for withholding their designs. That everything Apple does is right and good and proper and obvious, but that Apple itself is wrong and bad and greedy and pointlessly litigious. Like they're illegitimate squatters on some kind of innovation mine, and trying to hoard the proceeds goes against all notions of justice.
It must be terribly galling for the haters to notice that all this cool stuff has to be tainted by passing through Apple on its way to general access by decent people who would never demean themselves by purchasing "Crapple" products, which of course are for sheep. I wonder if they ever consider that if not for Apple we'd likely all be shopping in Best Buy for button studded shit boxes championed by tech zealot assholes? You know, like it was before Apple remade those markets.
Samsung looks pathetic now... They even have no self-estime ?