As for being called ridiculous, that makes two of us. I totally agree with this. How the hell can you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy??? It's not like they sold you a fake iPhone but a phone of a total different brand!! Do you see the word iPhone on the box when you buy it?? Do you see the Apple logo?? Don't you see Samsung, galaxy or whatever on the box of the phone you just bought??? How stupid are they??
You ask, "How do you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy?"
I have lost count of the times I have heard sales staff tout other devices as being 'really just the same as an iPhone', and then swaying the potential buyer with a price difference or extras thrown in... in most cases, it seemed to me, the person buying was indeed convinced that, yes, they had bought something that was really just like the iPhone.
You ask, "How do you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy?"
I have lost count of the times I have heard sales staff tout other devices as being 'really just the same as an iPhone', and then swaying the potential buyer with a price difference or extras thrown in... in most cases, it seemed to me, the person buying was indeed convinced that, yes, they had bought something that was really just like the iPhone.
You are exactly right......the sales people do that.....so how is that kind of consumer manipulation an IP infringement?
If you came in and asked for an iPhone...then through discussion with a sales person walked out with another brand then that was the result of a discussion between consumer and sales person. Not IP infringement.
In itself it isn't, though you could of course argue that Samsung's phones violate all sorts of things.
I was just making that point that there are many consumers who don't really know too much other than what they want (in a rather limited sense). They want an iPhone.
Sales staff convince them that XXXX phone is really just like an iPhone, but is perhaps cheaper, etc. So they buy it. And perhaps only later realize that what they got really isn't like the thing they wanted.
The situation isn't helped when the XXXX phone looks like an iPhone physically, has an interface that looks pretty similar, comes in packaging that looks really similar too, and even has the same looking chargers.
In itself it isn't, though you could of course argue that Samsung's phones violate all sorts of things.
I was just making that point that there are many consumers who don't really know too much other than what they want (in a rather limited sense). They want an iPhone.
Sales staff convince them that XXXX phone is really just like an iPhone, but is perhaps cheaper, etc. So they buy it. And perhaps only later realize that what they got really isn't like the thing they wanted.
The situation isn't helped when the XXXX phone looks like an iPhone physically, has an interface that looks pretty similar, comes in packaging that looks really similar too, and even has the same looking chargers.
Sneaky Samsung, Sneaky Sales Staff.
But then all phones basically have the same shape and form factor......you can't distinguish by form factor. the basic form is what the consumer wants. Like TVs all have the basic shape.....you go into a store and buy one based on your needs wants and price point. they all have the same shape.....work the same......deliver content the same way.
How is it a phone makers fault if a consumer asks a sales person for an iphone and then buys another brand?
But then all phones basically have the same shape and form factor......you can't distinguish by form factor. the basic form is what the consumer wants. Like TVs all have the basic shape.....you go into a store and buy one based on your needs wants and price point. they all have the same shape.....work the same......deliver content the same way.
How is it a phone makers fault if a consumer asks a sales person for an iphone and then buys another brand?
All phones do not look alike, and they certainly didn't all look like the iPhone back in 2007. And Samsung phones don't really look like iPhones now, either. But back around the Galaxy and Galaxy S days, back when Samsung was just starting to get a foothold in the market, their phones (including their UI skin) did look remarkably like... an iPhone. More so than other Android phones. Did this help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?
All phones do not look alike, and they certainly didn't all look like the iPhone back in 2007. And Samsung phones don't really look like iPhones now, either. But back around the Galaxy and Galaxy S days, back when Samsung was just starting to get a foothold in the market, their phones (including their UI skin) did look remarkably like... an iPhone. More so than other Android phones. Did this help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?
I'm sure it did....doesn't all companies do that? Doesn't Apple incorporate some of the things from Android? Like bigger screens? Or did they give the consumer what they wanted? Apple leads in the mobile, tablet and I would say laptop spaces (might be a stretch) and they transformed the smartphone space. Other companies followed their lead...that is just business. Everyone follows the leader in the space they compete in. But they should not just blatantly copy......they were found guilty of that and should pay.
But looking at smart phones today....most shapes follow the candy bar shape........do you think that existed before the iPhone in 2007? It did......
Maybe Samsung established themselves by giving people what they wanted......maybe by producing great products. If the consumer did not like their products they would not buy them.....
But if i walk into BestBuy and ask for a iPhone and walk out with another brand...thats on me.....
Did this help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?
That's a good question, one without a clear cut answer. The SGS 2 usually shown in pics was not available in the USA, and was one of the first Android devices to be sold worldwide and even then it didn't sell that well because we all saw the pitiful sales numbers. It wasn't until the SGS 3 in which Samsung went away from the look and feel of the iPhone (I'm not discounting the utility patents) that they really took off in sales which at that time a great many of the early Android adoptees were due for a upgrade and most chose the SGS 3.
Did (similar looks) help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?
Apparently not. I believe the early Android dominators were Motorola and HTC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It wasn't until the SGS 3 in which Samsung went away from the look and feel of the iPhone (I'm not discounting the utility patents) that they really took off in sales ...
This, at least for high end phones. The more that Samsung went different, the more attractive their devices seemed to become.
Apple had a grid of static icons on a static background. Samsung's phones focused on a homescreen based around widgets and live wallpapers, and later on, multiple and overlay windows.
They also went separate ways with their body style. Apple went boxy starting with the iPhone 4, whereas Samsung went with light and curvy.
Most importantly, perhaps, Samsung provided ever larger screens. The 4" display S did okay, the 4.3" S2 did better, but it was with the 4.8" screen S3, and the even larger Note... with its active pen support that totally differentiated itself from an iPhone... that Samsung high end sales really took off.
This, at least for high end phones. <span style="line-height:1.231;">The more that Samsung went different, the more attractive their devices seemed to become.</span>
Apple had a grid of static icons on a static background. Samsung's phones focused on a homescreen based around widgets and live wallpapers, and later on, multiple and overlay windows.
They also went separate ways with their body style. Apple went boxy starting with the iPhone 4, whereas Samsung went with light and curvy.
Most importantly, perhaps, Samsung provided ever larger screens. The 4" display S did okay, the 4.3" S2 did better, but it was with the 4.8" screen S3, and the even larger Note... with its active pen support that totally differentiated itself from an iPhone... that Samsung high end sales really took off.
Exactly, Samsung got more popular when they went away from copying Apple.
That's a good question, one without a clear cut answer. The SGS 2 usually shown in pics was not available in the USA, and was one of the first Android devices to be sold worldwide and even then it didn't sell that well because we all saw the pitiful sales numbers. It wasn't until the SGS 3 in which Samsung went away from the look and feel of the iPhone (I'm not discounting the utility patents) that they really took off in sales which at that time a great many of the early Android adoptees were due for a upgrade and most chose the SGS 3.
I remember a friend who had a Galaxy that looked almost exactly like a 3GS, even with that "static row of icons", to reference KD. He even bought it because it was "pretty much like an iPhone, but available on T-Mobile".
In my opinion, Samsung initially gained separation from Moto and HTC and gained some name recognition from selling "pretty much like an iPhone" phones, complete with similar packaging and cables.
Once they gained traction (around the time of the Galaxy S I'd say), they then were able to capitalize and become a little more unique with the Galaxy S III.
I know Samsung has been big in phones for a long while, but I never remember them being a top dog in the premium phone market pre-Galaxy. Even with Android, I struggle to remember a successful Samsung Android phone before the Galaxy monicker. Pre-Galaxy, most people were touting the HTC Incredible and DROID.
So I'd argue that the Galaxy put them on the map in a big way, and the Galaxy was a 3GS lookalike. This have Samsung traction, and helped facilitate their rapid growth (which did come after they went more unique/large screens).
If Samsung is anything, they are smart. There's a reason they made sure even the small details were reminiscent (kind word) of Apple. They didn't do this just for kicks.
I remember a friend who had a Galaxy that looked almost exactly like a 3GS, even with that "static row of icons", to reference KD. He even bought it because it was "pretty much like an iPhone, but available on T-Mobile".
Did his come with the Avatar movie included? If so, it was the T-Mobile Galaxy S version, the Vibrant. (I had the Verizon version in my lab for testing.)
It had a 4" OLED screen and really didn't have the same body shape as the 3GS at all. No curved smooth back. The front was different, too, with multiple touch buttons.
Quote:
In my opinion, Samsung initially gained separation from Moto and HTC and gained some name recognition from selling "pretty much like an iPhone" phones, complete with similar packaging and cables.
The cables were quite different from what Apple used. Samsung used micro USB with all their phones.
I think between the shape and the cables, your memory could be off a bit.
Quote:
I know Samsung has been big in phones for a long while, but I never remember them being a top dog in the premium phone market pre-Galaxy. Even with Android, I struggle to remember a successful Samsung Android phone before the Galaxy monicker. Pre-Galaxy, most people were touting the HTC Incredible and DROID.
I had a Samsung i730 smartphone during 2006. It was top of the line WinMo with stereo surround sound and a CPU that you could overclock to 700+ MHz. After that I got a Samsung i760.
But yeah, then I switched to HTC and eventually ended up with an Incredible, which I liked a lot. Personally, I never thought much of Samsung's Android phones until the Galaxy S3 and Nexus came out. It was the big screens in a slim body that finally attracted me.
Did his come with the Avatar movie included? If so, it was the T-Mobile Galaxy S version, the Vibrant. (I had the Verizon version in my lab for testing.)
It had<span style="line-height:1.231;"> a 4" OLED screen and really didn't have the same body shape as the 3GS at all. No curved smooth back. The front was different, too, with multiple touch buttons.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">The cables were quite different from what Apple used. Samsung used micro USB with all their phones. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">I think between the shape and the cables, your memory could be off a bit.</span>
It either came with Avatar or Star Trek or something, you you're probably right.
In person, it looked VERY similar to my 3GS, just bigger. We even joked that it was super similar.
I had a Samsung phone (feature phone) back in 2005ish. I know they had a lot of phones, but there wasn't the name recognition. When I was shopping, they seemed to be the cheaper option.
I guess the BlackJack was pretty popular, but I knew it by its name, not that it was a Samsung phone.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by En Sabah Nur
As for being called ridiculous, that makes two of us. I totally agree with this. How the hell can you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy??? It's not like they sold you a fake iPhone but a phone of a total different brand!! Do you see the word iPhone on the box when you buy it?? Do you see the Apple logo?? Don't you see Samsung, galaxy or whatever on the box of the phone you just bought??? How stupid are they??
You ask, "How do you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy?"
I have lost count of the times I have heard sales staff tout other devices as being 'really just the same as an iPhone', and then swaying the potential buyer with a price difference or extras thrown in... in most cases, it seemed to me, the person buying was indeed convinced that, yes, they had bought something that was really just like the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad
You ask, "How do you not buy an iPhone if that's what you went to buy?"
I have lost count of the times I have heard sales staff tout other devices as being 'really just the same as an iPhone', and then swaying the potential buyer with a price difference or extras thrown in... in most cases, it seemed to me, the person buying was indeed convinced that, yes, they had bought something that was really just like the iPhone.
You are exactly right......the sales people do that.....so how is that kind of consumer manipulation an IP infringement?
If you came in and asked for an iPhone...then through discussion with a sales person walked out with another brand then that was the result of a discussion between consumer and sales person. Not IP infringement.
In itself it isn't, though you could of course argue that Samsung's phones violate all sorts of things.
I was just making that point that there are many consumers who don't really know too much other than what they want (in a rather limited sense). They want an iPhone.
Sales staff convince them that XXXX phone is really just like an iPhone, but is perhaps cheaper, etc. So they buy it. And perhaps only later realize that what they got really isn't like the thing they wanted.
The situation isn't helped when the XXXX phone looks like an iPhone physically, has an interface that looks pretty similar, comes in packaging that looks really similar too, and even has the same looking chargers.
Sneaky Samsung, Sneaky Sales Staff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad
In itself it isn't, though you could of course argue that Samsung's phones violate all sorts of things.
I was just making that point that there are many consumers who don't really know too much other than what they want (in a rather limited sense). They want an iPhone.
Sales staff convince them that XXXX phone is really just like an iPhone, but is perhaps cheaper, etc. So they buy it. And perhaps only later realize that what they got really isn't like the thing they wanted.
The situation isn't helped when the XXXX phone looks like an iPhone physically, has an interface that looks pretty similar, comes in packaging that looks really similar too, and even has the same looking chargers.
Sneaky Samsung, Sneaky Sales Staff.
But then all phones basically have the same shape and form factor......you can't distinguish by form factor. the basic form is what the consumer wants. Like TVs all have the basic shape.....you go into a store and buy one based on your needs wants and price point. they all have the same shape.....work the same......deliver content the same way.
How is it a phone makers fault if a consumer asks a sales person for an iphone and then buys another brand?
All phones do not look alike, and they certainly didn't all look like the iPhone back in 2007. And Samsung phones don't really look like iPhones now, either. But back around the Galaxy and Galaxy S days, back when Samsung was just starting to get a foothold in the market, their phones (including their UI skin) did look remarkably like... an iPhone. More so than other Android phones. Did this help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
All phones do not look alike, and they certainly didn't all look like the iPhone back in 2007. And Samsung phones don't really look like iPhones now, either. But back around the Galaxy and Galaxy S days, back when Samsung was just starting to get a foothold in the market, their phones (including their UI skin) did look remarkably like... an iPhone. More so than other Android phones. Did this help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?
I'm sure it did....doesn't all companies do that? Doesn't Apple incorporate some of the things from Android? Like bigger screens? Or did they give the consumer what they wanted? Apple leads in the mobile, tablet and I would say laptop spaces (might be a stretch) and they transformed the smartphone space. Other companies followed their lead...that is just business. Everyone follows the leader in the space they compete in. But they should not just blatantly copy......they were found guilty of that and should pay.
But looking at smart phones today....most shapes follow the candy bar shape........do you think that existed before the iPhone in 2007? It did......
Maybe Samsung established themselves by giving people what they wanted......maybe by producing great products. If the consumer did not like their products they would not buy them.....
But if i walk into BestBuy and ask for a iPhone and walk out with another brand...thats on me.....
That's a good question, one without a clear cut answer. The SGS 2 usually shown in pics was not available in the USA, and was one of the first Android devices to be sold worldwide and even then it didn't sell that well because we all saw the pitiful sales numbers. It wasn't until the SGS 3 in which Samsung went away from the look and feel of the iPhone (I'm not discounting the utility patents) that they really took off in sales which at that time a great many of the early Android adoptees were due for a upgrade and most chose the SGS 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Did (similar looks) help Samsung establish initial dominance among Android devices?
Apparently not. I believe the early Android dominators were Motorola and HTC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It wasn't until the SGS 3 in which Samsung went away from the look and feel of the iPhone (I'm not discounting the utility patents) that they really took off in sales ...
This, at least for high end phones. The more that Samsung went different, the more attractive their devices seemed to become.
Apple had a grid of static icons on a static background. Samsung's phones focused on a homescreen based around widgets and live wallpapers, and later on, multiple and overlay windows.
They also went separate ways with their body style. Apple went boxy starting with the iPhone 4, whereas Samsung went with light and curvy.
Most importantly, perhaps, Samsung provided ever larger screens. The 4" display S did okay, the 4.3" S2 did better, but it was with the 4.8" screen S3, and the even larger Note... with its active pen support that totally differentiated itself from an iPhone... that Samsung high end sales really took off.
Exactly, Samsung got more popular when they went away from copying Apple.
I remember a friend who had a Galaxy that looked almost exactly like a 3GS, even with that "static row of icons", to reference KD. He even bought it because it was "pretty much like an iPhone, but available on T-Mobile".
In my opinion, Samsung initially gained separation from Moto and HTC and gained some name recognition from selling "pretty much like an iPhone" phones, complete with similar packaging and cables.
Once they gained traction (around the time of the Galaxy S I'd say), they then were able to capitalize and become a little more unique with the Galaxy S III.
I know Samsung has been big in phones for a long while, but I never remember them being a top dog in the premium phone market pre-Galaxy. Even with Android, I struggle to remember a successful Samsung Android phone before the Galaxy monicker. Pre-Galaxy, most people were touting the HTC Incredible and DROID.
So I'd argue that the Galaxy put them on the map in a big way, and the Galaxy was a 3GS lookalike. This have Samsung traction, and helped facilitate their rapid growth (which did come after they went more unique/large screens).
If Samsung is anything, they are smart. There's a reason they made sure even the small details were reminiscent (kind word) of Apple. They didn't do this just for kicks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
I remember a friend who had a Galaxy that looked almost exactly like a 3GS, even with that "static row of icons", to reference KD. He even bought it because it was "pretty much like an iPhone, but available on T-Mobile".
Did his come with the Avatar movie included? If so, it was the T-Mobile Galaxy S version, the Vibrant. (I had the Verizon version in my lab for testing.)
It had a 4" OLED screen and really didn't have the same body shape as the 3GS at all. No curved smooth back. The front was different, too, with multiple touch buttons.
Quote:
In my opinion, Samsung initially gained separation from Moto and HTC and gained some name recognition from selling "pretty much like an iPhone" phones, complete with similar packaging and cables.
The cables were quite different from what Apple used. Samsung used micro USB with all their phones.
I think between the shape and the cables, your memory could be off a bit.
Quote:
I know Samsung has been big in phones for a long while, but I never remember them being a top dog in the premium phone market pre-Galaxy. Even with Android, I struggle to remember a successful Samsung Android phone before the Galaxy monicker. Pre-Galaxy, most people were touting the HTC Incredible and DROID.
I had a Samsung i730 smartphone during 2006. It was top of the line WinMo with stereo surround sound and a CPU that you could overclock to 700+ MHz. After that I got a Samsung i760.
But yeah, then I switched to HTC and eventually ended up with an Incredible, which I liked a lot. Personally, I never thought much of Samsung's Android phones until the Galaxy S3 and Nexus came out. It was the big screens in a slim body that finally attracted me.
It either came with Avatar or Star Trek or something, you you're probably right.
In person, it looked VERY similar to my 3GS, just bigger. We even joked that it was super similar.
I had a Samsung phone (feature phone) back in 2005ish. I know they had a lot of phones, but there wasn't the name recognition. When I was shopping, they seemed to be the cheaper option.
I guess the BlackJack was pretty popular, but I knew it by its name, not that it was a Samsung phone.