Everytime AI repost this misleading/dishonest illustration I am forced to debunk it...
Samsung SGH-F700, introduced prior to the iPhone, aka prior art... "A Korean design patent for this black, rectangular, round-cornered phone was filed by Samsung in December 2006 prior to the release of the image of the iPhone".
Lol..I actually owned that phone. And to call it anything like the iPhone is ridiculous beyond words. Just at the external design level, how many Samsung phones have SAMSUNG and VODAFONE printed in bold across the front? And don't even get me started on the software. When you scrolled a list, the list scrolled in the opposite direction it does in phones today (so if you move your finger down, in current phones, you see things above in the list....in this phone, you saw things below in the list...absolutely unintuitive).
Lol..I actually owned that phone. And to call it anything like the iPhone is ridiculous beyond words. Just at the external design level, how many Samsung phones have SAMSUNG and VODAFONE printed in bold across the front? And don't even get me started on the software. When you scrolled a list, the list scrolled in the opposite direction it does in phones today (so if you move your finger down, in current phones, you see things above in the list....in this phone, you saw things below in the list...absolutely unintuitive).
The beauty of people 'getting it', is they 'get it'. Like Steve said in a Dsomenumber interview: "it's all in the software"
Hmm... interesting point. I can see how those users might feel inclined to go with an Apple product because of DRM but how many iPhone users had never bought extensively from the iTMS? It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that most hadn't and therefore the iPhone was successful for the advancements it offered over existing tech.
The argument can easily be refuted by the Motorola Rokr. It arrived well before the iPhone, and pre-iphone it was the only phone which could play iTMS music. And it failed. Miserably.
Clearly the lock-in factor didnt do anything at all for it. And this was during a period when Motorola was amongst the hottest phone manufacturers (largely because of the Razr) with only BlackBerry competing with them in terms of consumer desirability.
Great journalism. This really give a lot of confidence in what was written in the article."
hahaha, I see what you did there... you caught a typo !!! hahaha brilliant, You really PWNED them! Amazing ! oh god, i LOL'd for hours. i'll bet you never made a typo ! Ace!
I'm glad at least we have one person in the Apple camp who disagreed with Jobs and his tendencies to take things personally.
This is about business, afterall, not about life styles. Leave those to the fanboys who just love to debate nonsense online with no progress.
This just proves that Apple's relationship with Samsung was critical (in the words of Cook) to Apple's survival and its business.
Samsung, on the other hand, didnt quite need Apple as much as they needed Samsung.
Look at all the recent retooling and extra capital that Apple is spending just to keep its capacity up to Samsung's level.
Having to spend capital just to prop up a supplier's capacity is a pathetic method of doing business. It's like paying Best Buy extra money just to get good customer service from them ( never happening).
What utter nonsense, just read what you wrote. Its so opinionated and not backed up with any facts, just your whimsical fantasies of hating everything Apple.
If Apple invented a cure for cancer and one of your loved ones could benefit from it, you would probably do a Gates and withhold it from them in sheer spite.
You can't steal IP, but like patents, you can also infringe it.
Uhm, patents are IP. And of course you can steal IP. It's not necessary that something be a physical object to be stolen. That's like saying it's not stealing if I empty your bank account with a wire transaction because I didn't take any physical money, no coins or bills, just an electronic representation of it. No, it's not directly analogous, it falls somewhere in the middle of physical objects and IP, but good luck drawing a rational line where on one side it's stealing and on the other it isn't.
The argument can easily be refuted by the Motorola Rokr. It arrived well before the iPhone, and pre-iphone it was the only phone which could play iTMS music. And it failed. Miserably.
Clearly the lock-in factor didnt do anything at all for it. And this was during a period when Motorola was amongst the hottest phone manufacturers (largely because of the Razr) with only BlackBerry competing with them in terms of consumer desirability.
How does that refute my argument. The ROKR was a piece of crap (and I'm a Moto fan) that Apple allowed to access iTunes, and it also wasn't a mini computer
Why the hell is this considered "News"? Becuase it's "controversial"? We've known since the beginning that Tim Cook isn't a fan of litigation. Part of the reason he followed up with it is probably out of respect for the wishes and principles of SJ, and to show that Apple is still "tough" without him and not willing to be walked over.
Sounds like Cook wants peace between the two companies. Might be a good thing, on fair terms. Samsung will always be a tough competitor.
Samsung isn't even in the same universe as Apple in terms of being a 'competitor'. Yeah, they sell a shitload of crap. But what major, complex, forward thinking endeavors have they ever made in the smartphone market? Apple built it's iOS from the ground up, as well its ecosystem and appstore. Samsung takes a whore-out OS and slaps a shitty skin on it, then produces a crapload of plastic phones that run it. Yes, Samsung is competing on sales. They've bled all the other Android makers dry and drowned them out with their insane marketing warchest, which deicmates Apple's own iPhone marketing. But that's it. The most solid part of Samsung's phones is the core OS, which they don't even have a hand in. Touchwiz is shit, as is the build quality of their phones (thin plastic). I'm not saying the end result is necessarily a bad product. I'm just saying that without Google and Android, they wouldn't be a blip in the smartphone race. You think Samsung is capable of producing a modern, world class mobile OS?
.......These lawsuits are similar to the one Apple waged against Microsoft over the Macintosh's look and feel. Microsoft ,eventually prevailed just as I predict .......
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
Everytime AI repost this misleading/dishonest illustration I am forced to debunk it...
Samsung SGH-F700, introduced prior to the iPhone, aka prior art... "A Korean design patent for this black, rectangular, round-cornered phone was filed by Samsung in December 2006 prior to the release of the image of the iPhone".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
Lol..I actually owned that phone. And to call it anything like the iPhone is ridiculous beyond words. Just at the external design level, how many Samsung phones have SAMSUNG and VODAFONE printed in bold across the front? And don't even get me started on the software. When you scrolled a list, the list scrolled in the opposite direction it does in phones today (so if you move your finger down, in current phones, you see things above in the list....in this phone, you saw things below in the list...absolutely unintuitive).
The beauty of people 'getting it', is they 'get it'. Like Steve said in a Dsomenumber interview: "it's all in the software"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Hmm... interesting point. I can see how those users might feel inclined to go with an Apple product because of DRM but how many iPhone users had never bought extensively from the iTMS? It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that most hadn't and therefore the iPhone was successful for the advancements it offered over existing tech.
The argument can easily be refuted by the Motorola Rokr. It arrived well before the iPhone, and pre-iphone it was the only phone which could play iTMS music. And it failed. Miserably.
Clearly the lock-in factor didnt do anything at all for it. And this was during a period when Motorola was amongst the hottest phone manufacturers (largely because of the Razr) with only BlackBerry competing with them in terms of consumer desirability.
Never heard of 'em.
oh. Maybe they mean Reuters?
Great journalism. This really give a lot of confidence in what was written in the article."
hahaha, I see what you did there... you caught a typo !!! hahaha brilliant, You really PWNED them! Amazing ! oh god, i LOL'd for hours.
i'll bet you never made a typo ! Ace!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
You can't steal IP
Are you serious ?
Why have a system that protects IP then ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
Maybe karma sucks, and Apple should consider writing Xerox a huge check for 30 years worth of unlicensed use of their IP.
Oh dear, please read the history and not rewrite it.
You also believe that MS saved Apple by giving them $300,000,000. Go and research I will not do it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
I'm glad at least we have one person in the Apple camp who disagreed with Jobs and his tendencies to take things personally.
This is about business, afterall, not about life styles. Leave those to the fanboys who just love to debate nonsense online with no progress.
This just proves that Apple's relationship with Samsung was critical (in the words of Cook) to Apple's survival and its business.
Samsung, on the other hand, didnt quite need Apple as much as they needed Samsung.
Look at all the recent retooling and extra capital that Apple is spending just to keep its capacity up to Samsung's level.
Having to spend capital just to prop up a supplier's capacity is a pathetic method of doing business. It's like paying Best Buy extra money just to get good customer service from them ( never happening).
What utter nonsense, just read what you wrote. Its so opinionated and not backed up with any facts, just your whimsical fantasies of hating everything Apple.
If Apple invented a cure for cancer and one of your loved ones could benefit from it, you would probably do a Gates and withhold it from them in sheer spite.
You are a very sad and angry person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Ironically, this forum has only one rule, prohibiting personal attacks on other forum members.
But apparently mods are held to a different standard.
The only consistency is that double-standards pretty much define most conversations here.
Funny this coming from you, the ultimate troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Fuuuck! This thread has been taking over by trolls. :sigh:
Thats their modus operandi.
To distract, derail from the topic of discussion as they know it:
1) Annoys people
2) They enjoy it
3) They have no life
Their presence on this site proves this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Is there any way to block Appleinsider moderators?
Please go away. You stink up the place with your presence.
This thread should be locked. Taken down by trolls, droid dorks, and totally misinformed posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
You can't steal IP, but like patents, you can also infringe it.
Uhm, patents are IP. And of course you can steal IP. It's not necessary that something be a physical object to be stolen. That's like saying it's not stealing if I empty your bank account with a wire transaction because I didn't take any physical money, no coins or bills, just an electronic representation of it. No, it's not directly analogous, it falls somewhere in the middle of physical objects and IP, but good luck drawing a rational line where on one side it's stealing and on the other it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Explain how you can debunk a court document.
It's just an chart submitted by Apple to help the jury see their side of things. Samsung likewise submitted their own contrasting version.
Quote:
Seriously, is this what you people really want to see? Trolling like this?
I think some people here use "troll" way too much as a way to stop discussions.
How does that refute my argument. The ROKR was a piece of crap (and I'm a Moto fan) that Apple allowed to access iTunes, and it also wasn't a mini computer
An interesting tidbit from the original Reuters article cited by AI:
Rather than 100's of different phones "Samsung, by contrast, has 37 phone products that are tweaked for regional tastes"
Why the hell is this considered "News"? Becuase it's "controversial"? We've known since the beginning that Tim Cook isn't a fan of litigation. Part of the reason he followed up with it is probably out of respect for the wishes and principles of SJ, and to show that Apple is still "tough" without him and not willing to be walked over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypercommunist
Sounds like Cook wants peace between the two companies. Might be a good thing, on fair terms. Samsung will always be a tough competitor.
Samsung isn't even in the same universe as Apple in terms of being a 'competitor'. Yeah, they sell a shitload of crap. But what major, complex, forward thinking endeavors have they ever made in the smartphone market? Apple built it's iOS from the ground up, as well its ecosystem and appstore. Samsung takes a whore-out OS and slaps a shitty skin on it, then produces a crapload of plastic phones that run it. Yes, Samsung is competing on sales. They've bled all the other Android makers dry and drowned them out with their insane marketing warchest, which deicmates Apple's own iPhone marketing. But that's it. The most solid part of Samsung's phones is the core OS, which they don't even have a hand in. Touchwiz is shit, as is the build quality of their phones (thin plastic). I'm not saying the end result is necessarily a bad product. I'm just saying that without Google and Android, they wouldn't be a blip in the smartphone race. You think Samsung is capable of producing a modern, world class mobile OS?
That is one great sentence!
He's using the word 'stolen' in it's literal sense. Usually when something is stolen the original owner no longer possesses it.