It's really too bad because Samsung is a great company from a component and product engineering standpoint.
Samsung is good at cloning other companies' products and very efficiently mass producing and distributing them globally. If you look at every other market segment they're in, you will find the same pattern of blatantly copying designs from true innovators and then stealing the market from them.
As an example, here is Dyson's revolutionary, patented vacuum cleaner next to Samsung's me-too offering:
The reason most people are unaware of this is that few companies have the capital necessary to enter a drawn out legal battle with a company the size of Samsung.
The purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder wealth. These companies are not charities, they need to turn a profit. The difference is that every other manufacturer is trying to gain market share so they can then increase margins later, or drop the manufacturing quality to maintain high profit margins at a lower retail price.
"At [Apple's] annual shareholder meeting in Cupertino, the NCPPR urged Cook and the board to pledge that Apple wouldn't pursue any more environmental initiatives that didn't improve its bottom line."
Tim Cook's response:
"We do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That’s who we are as a company. When I think about human rights, I don’t think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can’t see or to help a kid with autism, I don’t think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don’t think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view.... If you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock."
Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones? Do we really see Android as a stolen product instead of an Amazing viable alternative?
Please, let's be rational here. If Apple wants those costumers, cut the crap and give them a product that they want to buy instead of a dressing only the needs of half the premium market. The argument of copying died with Steve, we have different distinct products and a huge number of people pay the same amount of money for other products for a reason.
Your inquiry is to simple. For the first couple of years after the iPhone release, several companies, especially Samsung, copied every aspect of the iPhone. I personally witnessed people refer to Samsung phones as iPhones. Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell an iPad or Samsung tablet apart. I had trouble telling them apart. Android was completely rewritten to mimic ios and improperly used java without permission to do it.
This initial stealing cost Apple sales, finished Apple's first party to the market advantage, and the people buying those competing devices became invested in Androids ecosystem. The stealing gave Samsung the market power it has today. The damage is still felt today. Many of the lawsuits in the news today involving Apple are about phones not on the market anymore because the wheels of justice are slow.
It is true that I see less obvious copies of Apple's devices today with the exception of Samsung's tablets (which still look a lot like white iPads) and perhaps the HTC One (which doesn't count because HTC has a license with Apple).
However, almost every phone made now mimics Apple's touch screen model. Many of the competitors phones copy Apple's usability patents. For example, how your phone knows how certain information like phone numbers or addresses are those things and associates actions with that. That function is covered under Apple patents first utilized on its computers.
Apple and Microsoft have made computer operating systems a long time. It is silly to think that new comers can ship smart phones without violating some Apple or Microsoft patent pertaining to computer operating systems. Apple has been making unique computer hardware a long time, and holds similar advantages in that regard.
The pu
The purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder wealth. These companies are not charities, they need to turn a profit. The difference is that every other manufacturer is trying to gain market share so they can then increase margins later, or drop the manufacturing quality to maintain high profit margins at a lower retail price.
That is a philosophy not original to you that was brought about by some snobbish economist about 30 years ago. It was not written into law, and corporations are free to do any number of things not related to making a profit. Courts have held that shareholders of publicly traded companies have the remedy of selling their stock if they don't like management.
Apple and Microsoft have made computer operating systems a long time. It is silly to think that new comers can ship smart phones without violating some Apple or Microsoft patent pertaining to computer operating systems. Apple has been making unique computer hardware a long time, and holds similar advantages in that regard.
Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia have been making mobile phones for a long time, so by the same token it would be silly to think a newcomer like Apple can ship smartphones without violating some Motorola or Nokia or Ericsson patent pertaining to mobile phones. Wouldn't that be right? IMO all the manufacturers benefit from innovations and inventions that might have originated with a competitor.
If you believe an infringed patent should be sufficient for a product to be banned from the market if the holder doesn't want to licence it then no current smartphone could probably be sold IMHO.
That's the real reasoning behind everything apple does, if you think that it's anything to do with having products that look cool then you've been suckered by the sales hype
Money although necessary is not every bodies primary driving goal. It certainly wasn't with Jobs. He was good at making it, but that was a byproduct of his passion for creating.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/165514/apples-ive-describes-struggle-for-perfection-in-interview-calls-copycat-designs-theft#post_2489240" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>DewMe</strong> <a href="/t/165514/apples-ive-describes-struggle-for-perfection-in-interview-calls-copycat-designs-theft#post_2489240"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br />It's really too bad because Samsung is a great company from a component and product engineering standpoint. </div></div><p> </p><p>Samsung is good at cloning other companies' products and very efficiently mass producing and distributing them globally. If you look at every other market segment they're in, you will find the same pattern of blatantly copying designs from true innovators and then stealing the market from them.</p><p> </p><p>As an example, here is Dyson's revolutionary, patented vacuum cleaner next to Samsung's me-too offering:</p><p> </p><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/39908/"><img alt="" data-id="39908" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/39908/width/500/height/1000" /></a></p><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/39909/"><img alt="" data-id="39909" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/39909/width/500/height/1000" /></a></p><p> </p><p>The reason most people are unaware of this is that few companies have the capital necessary to enter a drawn out legal battle with a company the size of Samsung. </p><p style="text-align:center"> </p>
Shame samsung didnt violate any of dysons patents but they do look sorta similar
I guess stealing the idea of a dual flash phone from Android isn't theft? I guess "borrowing" the idea of a fingerprint scanner from the PC sector (it doesn't work well there either), isn't theft? What about that flat look Android has had for years, now? Come on...
I get that stealing real IP is theft. I get that products have identifiable characteristics that should be kept from proliferating. But suing Samsung over round corners in their design? Seriously? Apple is one of the biggest thieves of all. Even Jobs comment that the best ideas are stolen. The entire Mac UI was stolen!!! Yeah, it differed a lot from PARC, but that doesn't mean the very fundamentals weren't stolen. This is like the fox complaining someone stole his meal from him.
I converted to Samsung from iPhone. I have to tell you fanboys, its not as you think it is. The phones have a lot going for them that kill the iPhone. They also come up short in other areas. But, they're just a device that does a job. Frankly, Apple is beginning to slip and they're too slow to react. Android dominance will remain, and probably push iPhone/iPad into less and less market share. Apple, IMO, simply goofed when they did the whole exclusive carrier deals. That gave Android opportunity, and it eventually got there. Had Apple not had carrier exclusivity, they would have never let Android up for air. In the end, competition is good, and when Android advances, Apple will be forced to keep pushing the envelope.
I agree, Samsung's ability to innovate and create is laughable. But they are able to bring the designs that they acquire through whatever means to market with impressive speed and at impressive quantities, which is why Apple keeps going back to them for parts and components even though Samsung returns the favor by stabbing them in the back. And the front. Anyone who feels "sorry" for Samsung in their battles with Apple has an extremely distorted perception of right and wrong. I give Samsung credit where it's due, but they'll always be a second rate company as long as they continue to steal other people's creativity and intellectual property. I believe they CAN do right because they have the right pieces in other areas. Why they choose not to do right is what baffles me.
Samsung is good at cloning other companies' products and very efficiently mass producing and distributing them globally. If you look at every other market segment they're in, you will find the same pattern of blatantly copying designs from true innovators and then stealing the market from them.
As an example, here is Dyson's revolutionary, patented vacuum cleaner next to Samsung's me-too offering:
The reason most people are unaware of this is that few companies have the capital necessary to enter a drawn out legal battle with a company the size of Samsung.
Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones?
Honest question: do you think the Galaxy S would look and function the same as it does now (i.e. no physical keyboard, full touchscreen, multitouch gestures, overall shape/style, etc) if the iPhone had never come out?
I remember the first couple of years after the iPhone came out -- everyone insisting that people preferred physical keyboards, that it was too big, too fragile, the touchscreen got too dirty, etc, etc. I remember walking into cell phone stores at the time and seeing a wide variety of phones: flip phones, candy bar phones, etc.
Nowadays, the vast majority of phones are patterned after the iPhone look. Not necessarily identical in look, but the overall style and way you interact with the phone is modelled after the iPhone. It's amazing how many people just don't even notice this and/or refuse to give Apple credit where credit is due.
Honest question: do you think the Galaxy S would look and function the same as it does now (i.e. no physical keyboard, full touchscreen, multitouch gestures, overall shape/style, etc) if the iPhone had never come out?
By now there would probably be many multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phones on the market but they may not be popular, especially if the first attempts were anything like we see from many vendors with poorly considered features and a lack of refinement that would have led to a empirical data that physical keyboards are indeed superior.
The anti-Apple crowd likes to use the LG Prada as being the device Apple "copied" and yet it was only a single touch device that had no option to pinch and zoom. Then you have BB devices that used resistive touchscreens. Would Samsung have launched such a device or Google had written Android to support that input? I think so, because they do seem to throw a lot of stuff at the wall as it is, but with no focus so without having the iPhone and iOS as objects to go after, I think it's unlikely it would have been very good.
That was a Picasso quote "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Stealing here means "making something your own," which means taking something and reinterpreting it in a personal, original way such as Picasso taking an ordinary building and drawing it Cubist style.
It doesn't mean making a knock-off of the market leader and selling millions of them.
There really needs to be a variant of Godwin's law applied whenever PARC comes up in a discussion.
Xerox’ Law: Any invocation of the history of PARC has only two outcomes–complete agreement with or total dismissal of your argument. There are no nuances.
Originally Posted by ascii
That was a Picasso quote…
I’m to understand someone else actually said it, though.
By now there would probably be many multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phones on the market but they may not be popular, especially if the first attempts were anything like we see from many vendors with poorly considered features and a lot of refinement that would have led to a empirical data that physical keyboards are indeed superior.
Exactly. I don't doubt that others would have created similar style phones in time, but whether that style of phone would have become as dominant as it has without having the blueprint of the iPhone (and iOS) is the point.
As many have pointed out, the LG Prada may have looked like an iPhone, but it certainly didn't function like one. Only those who don't pay attention to the details would see otherwise.
If the article is correct Dyson subsequently dropped the infringement claims. Samsung didn't let it go tho and filed their own suit alleging false "copycat" claims from Dyson. Strange, strange. . .
Comments
It's really too bad because Samsung is a great company from a component and product engineering standpoint.
Samsung is good at cloning other companies' products and very efficiently mass producing and distributing them globally. If you look at every other market segment they're in, you will find the same pattern of blatantly copying designs from true innovators and then stealing the market from them.
As an example, here is Dyson's revolutionary, patented vacuum cleaner next to Samsung's me-too offering:
The reason most people are unaware of this is that few companies have the capital necessary to enter a drawn out legal battle with a company the size of Samsung.
The purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder wealth. These companies are not charities, they need to turn a profit. The difference is that every other manufacturer is trying to gain market share so they can then increase margins later, or drop the manufacturing quality to maintain high profit margins at a lower retail price.
"At [Apple's] annual shareholder meeting in Cupertino, the NCPPR urged Cook and the board to pledge that Apple wouldn't pursue any more environmental initiatives that didn't improve its bottom line."
Tim Cook's response:
"We do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That’s who we are as a company. When I think about human rights, I don’t think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can’t see or to help a kid with autism, I don’t think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don’t think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view.... If you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock."
Your inquiry is to simple. For the first couple of years after the iPhone release, several companies, especially Samsung, copied every aspect of the iPhone. I personally witnessed people refer to Samsung phones as iPhones. Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell an iPad or Samsung tablet apart. I had trouble telling them apart. Android was completely rewritten to mimic ios and improperly used java without permission to do it.
This initial stealing cost Apple sales, finished Apple's first party to the market advantage, and the people buying those competing devices became invested in Androids ecosystem. The stealing gave Samsung the market power it has today. The damage is still felt today. Many of the lawsuits in the news today involving Apple are about phones not on the market anymore because the wheels of justice are slow.
It is true that I see less obvious copies of Apple's devices today with the exception of Samsung's tablets (which still look a lot like white iPads) and perhaps the HTC One (which doesn't count because HTC has a license with Apple).
However, almost every phone made now mimics Apple's touch screen model. Many of the competitors phones copy Apple's usability patents. For example, how your phone knows how certain information like phone numbers or addresses are those things and associates actions with that. That function is covered under Apple patents first utilized on its computers.
Apple and Microsoft have made computer operating systems a long time. It is silly to think that new comers can ship smart phones without violating some Apple or Microsoft patent pertaining to computer operating systems. Apple has been making unique computer hardware a long time, and holds similar advantages in that regard.
That is a philosophy not original to you that was brought about by some snobbish economist about 30 years ago. It was not written into law, and corporations are free to do any number of things not related to making a profit. Courts have held that shareholders of publicly traded companies have the remedy of selling their stock if they don't like management.
Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia have been making mobile phones for a long time, so by the same token it would be silly to think a newcomer like Apple can ship smartphones without violating some Motorola or Nokia or Ericsson patent pertaining to mobile phones. Wouldn't that be right? IMO all the manufacturers benefit from innovations and inventions that might have originated with a competitor.
If you believe an infringed patent should be sufficient for a product to be banned from the market if the holder doesn't want to licence it then no current smartphone could probably be sold IMHO.
Money although necessary is not every bodies primary driving goal. It certainly wasn't with Jobs. He was good at making it, but that was a byproduct of his passion for creating.
I get that stealing real IP is theft. I get that products have identifiable characteristics that should be kept from proliferating. But suing Samsung over round corners in their design? Seriously? Apple is one of the biggest thieves of all. Even Jobs comment that the best ideas are stolen. The entire Mac UI was stolen!!! Yeah, it differed a lot from PARC, but that doesn't mean the very fundamentals weren't stolen. This is like the fox complaining someone stole his meal from him.
I converted to Samsung from iPhone. I have to tell you fanboys, its not as you think it is. The phones have a lot going for them that kill the iPhone. They also come up short in other areas. But, they're just a device that does a job. Frankly, Apple is beginning to slip and they're too slow to react. Android dominance will remain, and probably push iPhone/iPad into less and less market share. Apple, IMO, simply goofed when they did the whole exclusive carrier deals. That gave Android opportunity, and it eventually got there. Had Apple not had carrier exclusivity, they would have never let Android up for air. In the end, competition is good, and when Android advances, Apple will be forced to keep pushing the envelope.
Run along now, kiddo. If you’re foolish enough to think that was “Android’s idea”, are you really one to be talking about any of these subjects?
And even trolls don’t know how to read English!
And reported. We tend not to allow people to be this stupid.
Samsung to pay Dyson Technology over patent dispute
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKLD64172920090213?irpc=932
Samsung is good at cloning other companies' products and very efficiently mass producing and distributing them globally. If you look at every other market segment they're in, you will find the same pattern of blatantly copying designs from true innovators and then stealing the market from them.
As an example, here is Dyson's revolutionary, patented vacuum cleaner next to Samsung's me-too offering:
The reason most people are unaware of this is that few companies have the capital necessary to enter a drawn out legal battle with a company the size of Samsung.
god I hate Samsung...
Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones?
Honest question: do you think the Galaxy S would look and function the same as it does now (i.e. no physical keyboard, full touchscreen, multitouch gestures, overall shape/style, etc) if the iPhone had never come out?
I remember the first couple of years after the iPhone came out -- everyone insisting that people preferred physical keyboards, that it was too big, too fragile, the touchscreen got too dirty, etc, etc. I remember walking into cell phone stores at the time and seeing a wide variety of phones: flip phones, candy bar phones, etc.
Nowadays, the vast majority of phones are patterned after the iPhone look. Not necessarily identical in look, but the overall style and way you interact with the phone is modelled after the iPhone. It's amazing how many people just don't even notice this and/or refuse to give Apple credit where credit is due.
And reported. We tend not to allow people to be this stupid.
There really needs to be a variant of Godwin's law applied whenever PARC comes up in a discussion.
By now there would probably be many multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phones on the market but they may not be popular, especially if the first attempts were anything like we see from many vendors with poorly considered features and a lack of refinement that would have led to a empirical data that physical keyboards are indeed superior.
The anti-Apple crowd likes to use the LG Prada as being the device Apple "copied" and yet it was only a single touch device that had no option to pinch and zoom. Then you have BB devices that used resistive touchscreens. Would Samsung have launched such a device or Google had written Android to support that input? I think so, because they do seem to throw a lot of stuff at the wall as it is, but with no focus so without having the iPhone and iOS as objects to go after, I think it's unlikely it would have been very good.
Even Jobs comment that the best ideas are stolen.
That was a Picasso quote "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Stealing here means "making something your own," which means taking something and reinterpreting it in a personal, original way such as Picasso taking an ordinary building and drawing it Cubist style.
It doesn't mean making a knock-off of the market leader and selling millions of them.
There really needs to be a variant of Godwin's law applied whenever PARC comes up in a discussion.
Xerox’ Law: Any invocation of the history of PARC has only two outcomes–complete agreement with or total dismissal of your argument. There are no nuances.
I’m to understand someone else actually said it, though.
By now there would probably be many multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phones on the market but they may not be popular, especially if the first attempts were anything like we see from many vendors with poorly considered features and a lot of refinement that would have led to a empirical data that physical keyboards are indeed superior.
Exactly. I don't doubt that others would have created similar style phones in time, but whether that style of phone would have become as dominant as it has without having the blueprint of the iPhone (and iOS) is the point.
As many have pointed out, the LG Prada may have looked like an iPhone, but it certainly didn't function like one. Only those who don't pay attention to the details would see otherwise.
If the article is correct Dyson subsequently dropped the infringement claims. Samsung didn't let it go tho and filed their own suit alleging false "copycat" claims from Dyson. Strange, strange. . .