Apple used to be the "underdog", now they are top dog. I hope Apple don't forget that. I very much dislike Samsung, not because of their blatant rip offs but because of the rubbish service they gave me after I purchased one of their TVs. As for mobile phone technologies, keep Samsung and others at the heel of Apple, it might actually keep Apple moving forward.
When Apple was the underdog, they didn't steal from the overdogs. And now that they're an overdo, they're still not stealing from the underdogs. I think they'll be fine.
When Apple was the underdog, they didn't steal from the overdogs. And now that they're an overdo, they're still not stealing from the underdogs. I think they'll be fine.
The developers of Watson might beg to differ with your statement given how strikingly similar Apple's Sherlock was. And there have been other instances were Apple has "appropriated" ideas from other places. Perhaps not the patented "methods" but certainly the ideas/functionality (but if Apple can try to claim the idea of the rubber banding effect the same protections should have applied to Watson's UI). Of course, this was nowhere on the scale of what Samsung has done, but don't pretend that Apple (or pretty much any company) is virtuous in things like this.
I wonder how many people that just regurgitate that Apple just stole the GUI from Xerox have actually seen Xerox Star in video or pictures and know of it's limitations in comparison to even Mac OS 1.0.
Yep, and vice versa.
The point is, people who claim that Apple licensed everything they used from Xerox, are just are wrong as those who claim that Apple ripped off everything they did from Xerox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And what was the result of that lawsuit?
The same result as Apple has had trying to prove infringement of their generic tablet design.
Xerox lost their case after a time limit ran out, and the judge had to decide using the evidence he already had. He basically ruled that Xerox could not prove that Apple was causing them harm.
Of course, the real end result of that lawsuit and the Microsoft one, is that we're now burdened with a ton of software patents, in part because copyrights turned out not to be enough of a weapon to stop others from using the same ideas.
You already have (whoops sorry, this in reply to the poster who refused to buy Samsung stuff) .... Apple products are packed with Samsung components. Apple tried breaking away to other component suppliers but can't get the supplies in quantity and quality. Oh well.
According to one executive for the firm, Samsung's line of ads mocking Apple's iPhone and its devotees marked a tipping point for the firm
The tipping point was blatant adoption of the iPhone 3G aesthetic to launch the Galaxy brand.
The anti-Apple advertisements (plus a fistful of trolls on the payroll) just gave haters a focal point and a sense of permission to publicly express their sentiment.
The developers of Watson might beg to differ with your statement given how strikingly similar Apple's Sherlock was. And there have been other instances were Apple has "appropriated" ideas from other places. Perhaps not the patented "methods" but certainly the ideas/functionality (but if Apple can try to claim the idea of the rubber banding effect the same protections should have applied to Watson's UI). Of course, this was nowhere on the scale of what Samsung has done, but don't pretend that Apple (or pretty much any company) is virtuous in things like this.
Dashboard was a pretty blatant version of Konfabulator too, not that I've even seen anyone use either. The new notifications system was obviously inspired by Android though it does a better job and was at least coded by the same guy.
The rubber banding (and the butter smooth scrolling present from 1.0) definitely makes the iPhone feel distinctive; much more like manipulating a physical objects than any software interface before it. In my opinion the rubber banding was just a proxy patent. Apple's business model depended on differentiating from the competition for long enough to get a foothold. Steve was most definitely going to let that Windows thing happen all over again. Steve even put "Patented!", including exclamation mark, on one of his slides. He was aware how important it would be when entering an established market to scare the competition into submission. It worked well until Android/Samsung had the gall to test his resolve.
My experience is samsung buyers fall into two categories. The I can't afford Apple kit even on a contract and the I just hate apple team. The latter don't offer any compelling arguments why either. If you genuinely did not like the way apple stuff works why buy something that imitates it do closely ?
samsung sells the best screens to apple, for example. They prefer to use worse screens on their own devices, like the s4. Nice strategy to fool ignorant people.
Heck, their new ativ book 9 plus won't even use the same fast SSDs the macbook air uses, not to mention weaker intel graphics. It's all about misinformation and fooling those retards. The screen itself is already outdated by the 2012 gen retina MBP, despite higher resolution, and Samsung sold at least a few of those screens.
But some "parts" of samsung are awesome. They can't design or engineer something by themselves without the brains from other companies (like Apple designing the chips) but they for sure can manufacture stuff. On the other hand, their lack of brains and honor is what kills industries. They have a whole country to support them and close their eyes when needed. I bet even Hwaei and ZTE are jealous.
Having said that, samsung is shitty and bad at engineering something new. It makes you think that even the s4 needs a snapdragon 600, already surpassed by the s800 used on other devices (but even spec whores don't care.. why? stupidity) and the s600 beats the sh*t out of the exynos octa on real world usage.
Besides the manufactoring, it's a sub-par company based on corruption lies and stupidity.
jmncl is right.
You seem to be confusing consumer electronics companies with manufacturing companies. Manufacturing companies like Samsung are the ones doing the engineering. Consumer electronics companies like Apple buy and rebrand and don't engineer much at all.
Those SSDs in your macbook air are Samsung's SSDs. They came from Samsung's engineering department and they were manufactured by Samsung. It's all Samsung tech, not Apple's. Samsung, since they sold all their premium SSDs to Apple, had to resort to Sandisk's SSDs for their own laptop lineup.
The screens on your retina Macbook Pro also come from various different manufacturer technology. This is the reason why Samsung screens were superior to LG screens on the same macbook pro lineup.
On Apple's end, we have nothing but patents on page-turning animations and grid of icons that obviously took billions of dollars in R&D. /sarcasm
See, there's a reason why Apple wants to move to other suppliers and it's not because of "ethics" or any of the other nonsense you fanboys are saying. Most of Samsung's tech is top-notch and unmatched in the industry. Apple gets first dibs on them because they are Samsung's largest costumers. As Samsung's products continue to gain more traction with the public, they will outstrip Apple's own demand, causing Samsung's own Consumer Electronics division to be Customer rank A for their components division. Apple will then have to resort to using Samsung's last year technology. This is what Apple fears and that's why they're trying to invest hopelessly on LG, SHARP and other Samsung competitors. It's too bad Samsung is 10 steps ahead of them in terms of tech.
The tipping point was blatant adoption of the iPhone 3G aesthetic to launch the Galaxy brand.
The anti-Apple advertisements (plus a fistful of trolls on the payroll) just gave haters a focal point and a sense of permission to publicly express their sentiment.
I'm sure rectangle with rounded corners took billions of dollars in R&D.
A mocking marketing campaign has a lot to do with ethics in my set of moral values...
Like how our god Steve Jobs said Android is for virgin porn addicts?
Wonder why no android fanatic is making a big deal about it. Maybe we need to find something better to do than dwell in our mom's basement and fight for Apple.
Comments
Originally Posted by Peter Windle
Apple used to be the "underdog", now they are top dog. I hope Apple don't forget that. I very much dislike Samsung, not because of their blatant rip offs but because of the rubbish service they gave me after I purchased one of their TVs. As for mobile phone technologies, keep Samsung and others at the heel of Apple, it might actually keep Apple moving forward.
When Apple was the underdog, they didn't steal from the overdogs. And now that they're an overdo, they're still not stealing from the underdogs. I think they'll be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
When Apple was the underdog, they didn't steal from the overdogs. And now that they're an overdo, they're still not stealing from the underdogs. I think they'll be fine.
The developers of Watson might beg to differ with your statement given how strikingly similar Apple's Sherlock was. And there have been other instances were Apple has "appropriated" ideas from other places. Perhaps not the patented "methods" but certainly the ideas/functionality (but if Apple can try to claim the idea of the rubber banding effect the same protections should have applied to Watson's UI). Of course, this was nowhere on the scale of what Samsung has done, but don't pretend that Apple (or pretty much any company) is virtuous in things like this.
Perhaps a Looking Glass would help you see this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headrush69
I wonder how many people that just regurgitate that Apple just stole the GUI from Xerox have actually seen Xerox Star in video or pictures and know of it's limitations in comparison to even Mac OS 1.0.
Yep, and vice versa.
The point is, people who claim that Apple licensed everything they used from Xerox, are just are wrong as those who claim that Apple ripped off everything they did from Xerox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And what was the result of that lawsuit?
The same result as Apple has had trying to prove infringement of their generic tablet design.
Xerox lost their case after a time limit ran out, and the judge had to decide using the evidence he already had. He basically ruled that Xerox could not prove that Apple was causing them harm.
Of course, the real end result of that lawsuit and the Microsoft one, is that we're now burdened with a ton of software patents, in part because copyrights turned out not to be enough of a weapon to stop others from using the same ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
I can't speak to the accuracy of the numbers used in the article. Take that up with the author.
But you were more than happy to state them as fact in your troll. So it is with all iHaters.
Samsung: "When we were douchebags we got bigger. Now we're douchebags 24/7. Look out world!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
I think you should help me. Tell me how a marketing campaign has anything to do with ethics.
A mocking marketing campaign has a lot to do with ethics in my set of moral values...
You already have (whoops sorry, this in reply to the poster who refused to buy Samsung stuff) .... Apple products are packed with Samsung components. Apple tried breaking away to other component suppliers but can't get the supplies in quantity and quality. Oh well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
According to one executive for the firm, Samsung's line of ads mocking Apple's iPhone and its devotees marked a tipping point for the firm
The tipping point was blatant adoption of the iPhone 3G aesthetic to launch the Galaxy brand.
The anti-Apple advertisements (plus a fistful of trolls on the payroll) just gave haters a focal point and a sense of permission to publicly express their sentiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
The developers of Watson might beg to differ with your statement given how strikingly similar Apple's Sherlock was. And there have been other instances were Apple has "appropriated" ideas from other places. Perhaps not the patented "methods" but certainly the ideas/functionality (but if Apple can try to claim the idea of the rubber banding effect the same protections should have applied to Watson's UI). Of course, this was nowhere on the scale of what Samsung has done, but don't pretend that Apple (or pretty much any company) is virtuous in things like this.
Dashboard was a pretty blatant version of Konfabulator too, not that I've even seen anyone use either. The new notifications system was obviously inspired by Android though it does a better job and was at least coded by the same guy.
The rubber banding (and the butter smooth scrolling present from 1.0) definitely makes the iPhone feel distinctive; much more like manipulating a physical objects than any software interface before it. In my opinion the rubber banding was just a proxy patent. Apple's business model depended on differentiating from the competition for long enough to get a foothold. Steve was most definitely going to let that Windows thing happen all over again. Steve even put "Patented!", including exclamation mark, on one of his slides. He was aware how important it would be when entering an established market to scare the competition into submission. It worked well until Android/Samsung had the gall to test his resolve.
"Tell me how a marketing campaign has anything to do with ethics."
This should have an /s after it because it just HAS to be sarcasm. No one could ask such a question seriously.
different things.
samsung sells the best screens to apple, for example. They prefer to use worse screens on their own devices, like the s4. Nice strategy to fool ignorant people.
Heck, their new ativ book 9 plus won't even use the same fast SSDs the macbook air uses, not to mention weaker intel graphics. It's all about misinformation and fooling those retards. The screen itself is already outdated by the 2012 gen retina MBP, despite higher resolution, and Samsung sold at least a few of those screens.
But some "parts" of samsung are awesome. They can't design or engineer something by themselves without the brains from other companies (like Apple designing the chips) but they for sure can manufacture stuff. On the other hand, their lack of brains and honor is what kills industries. They have a whole country to support them and close their eyes when needed. I bet even Hwaei and ZTE are jealous.
Having said that, samsung is shitty and bad at engineering something new. It makes you think that even the s4 needs a snapdragon 600, already surpassed by the s800 used on other devices (but even spec whores don't care.. why? stupidity) and the s600 beats the sh*t out of the exynos octa on real world usage.
Besides the manufactoring, it's a sub-par company based on corruption lies and stupidity.
jmncl is right.
You seem to be confusing consumer electronics companies with manufacturing companies.Manufacturing companies like Samsung are the ones doing the engineering. Consumer electronics companies like Apple buy and rebrand and don't engineer much at all.
Those SSDs in your macbook air are Samsung's SSDs. They came from Samsung's engineering department and they were manufactured by Samsung. It's all Samsung tech, not Apple's.
Samsung, since they sold all their premium SSDs to Apple, had to resort to Sandisk's SSDs for their own laptop lineup.
The screens on your retina Macbook Pro also come from various different manufacturer technology. This is the reason why Samsung screens were superior to LG screens on the same macbook pro lineup.
Here's what Samsung's "crappy engineering team" was able to churn out recently:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/07/samsung_rolls_out_first_massproduced_3d_nand_chip/
On Apple's end, we have nothing but patents on page-turning animations and grid of icons that obviously took billions of dollars in R&D. /sarcasm
See, there's a reason why Apple wants to move to other suppliers and it's not because of "ethics" or any of the other nonsense you fanboys are saying. Most of Samsung's tech is top-notch and unmatched in the industry. Apple gets first dibs on them because they are Samsung's largest costumers. As Samsung's products continue to gain more traction with the public, they will outstrip Apple's own demand, causing Samsung's own Consumer Electronics division to be Customer rank A for their components division. Apple will then have to resort to using Samsung's last year technology. This is what Apple fears and that's why they're trying to invest hopelessly on LG, SHARP and other Samsung competitors. It's too bad Samsung is 10 steps ahead of them in terms of tech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
The tipping point was blatant adoption of the iPhone 3G aesthetic to launch the Galaxy brand.
The anti-Apple advertisements (plus a fistful of trolls on the payroll) just gave haters a focal point and a sense of permission to publicly express their sentiment.
I'm sure rectangle with rounded corners took billions of dollars in R&D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by r1sko
A mocking marketing campaign has a lot to do with ethics in my set of moral values...
Like how our god Steve Jobs said Android is for virgin porn addicts?
Wonder why no android fanatic is making a big deal about it. Maybe we need to find something better to do than dwell in our mom's basement and fight for Apple.