The thing that most people forget is that at the time of the iPhone's launch the other mobile phone makers were so far ahead of Apple in all aspects of the market. It's not like these latter day copycats were struggling backwater startups trying to bring inexpensive communication devices to the masses or the sake of benefitting humanity. They were the big megacorps with a stranglehold over the entire market and the media and used to throwing their weight around. The bold upstart new kid on the block with the crazy new idea about what a mobile device could be was Apple. Prior to its launch many pundits thought it was going to be a folly for Apple. If you want to talk about abuse of power - take a look at who held all the cards and who went on to screw their biggest customer with blatant copycat designs. Think about how you would feel if someone you'd been supporting with your business suddenly turned around and tried to take you down because they coveted what you have and had the means and technology to do so. That's sleazy on a massive scale and it's only because of the immense value in the brains of Jony Ive and his crew that the bullies were not able to prevail. Sometimes brains does beat brawn.
I don't know what it was that turned so many good people against what is one of the best examples of American Ingenuity and icons of industry to ever come along. Was it the snarky Mac vs. PC ads? Was it Apple's refusal to get into a race to the bottom on price and commoditization? Do people really hate winners even when they rose from being the underdog? Impossible to say. But what is not impossible to say is that Samsung and others were clearly caught copying Apple designs. Even a caveman can see that fact. Unfortunately Apple did not provide a way for these copycats to "save face" and move on so the battles will continue unabated. It's really too bad because Samsung is a great company from a component and product engineering standpoint. They just can't get past the fact that they were caught with their hands in Apple's cookie jar and until they settle this ego driven conflict in their own mind, make good on their crimes, and decide to move forward on their own they will always be operating under a dark cloud and their best attempts to "one up" Apple with things like the Galaxy Gear will make them look like posers. They have the wherewithal and talent to make it work on their own but for some reason they choose not to move on.
Excellent post. Except: do Samsung have the wherewithal and talent? Looking at their stab at a smartwatch, I would say no.
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.
That's what Standard Essential Patents are for. Samsung abused these by trying to use them as leverage to force Apple to license their bread and butter patents which were never part of the SEP agreements.
This guy is fill of himself. Pure BS spouting from his mouth. Purity!? Really!? I remember someone who said this once in history. This guy acts like he is a god or something.
Sometimes when I see how bright and shimmery Jony's eyes look, I imagine that he's testing a pair of Apple contact lenses that let him project his visual thoughts onto any object he's staring at.
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.
An example of this is how the iPad Smart Cover is very similar to a Japanese-designed bathtub cover. Apple possibly took inspiration from this design and incorporated it into a completely different application. Their implementation was so powerful that more people associate this design with Apple than with the obscure bathtub cover, hence they "made it their own."
In contrast, if this were Samsung they would have simply marketed their own bathtub cover clone to compete against the original.
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.
Why does anyone choose not do to right? I believe that those who lead Samsung have acted with deliberate evil intent, and that is the path they have chosen to go down. It's one way of making money.
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.
Sony seems to be the only one of the direct competitors that have the capacity to understand this *and* execute on it. It took it's sweet time but I think they are currently the closest to competing with Apple on similar terms.
And it seems to be paying off for them too...
Sony was once worth nearly $150. Now it is worth less than $20. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Sony is doing well.
Parochial and familiar is good enough for Americans. The rest of the world is willing to make a bit more of a quality decision for their earned income. So, McMansions are big - and energy inefficient; supermarket chains rely on sugar; fashion is defined by Kohls and Walmart; and the Super Bowl provides 12 minutes of actual competitive sport in a 4-hour telecast.
Our nation's conformity wouldn't feel so oppressive if it weren't so boring.
Apple does better in America than it does in the rest of the world. I'm not sure what point you are making. Are you saying that Android is "a bit more of a quality decision"?
That's what Standard Essential Patents are for. Samsung abused these by trying to use them as leverage to force Apple to license their bread and butter patents which were never part of the SEP agreements.
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
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.
Buying Apple products is like donating to a public charity. It makes you a good person. Some of the money goes to the stockholders, yes, but lots of it goes to just plain making the world a better place.
Buying Apple products is like donating to a public charity. It makes you a good person. Some of the money goes to the stockholders, yes, but lots of it goes to just plain making the world a better place.
Buying Apple products is like donating to a public charity. It makes you a good person. Some of the money goes to the stockholders, yes, but lots of it goes to just plain making the world a better place.
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. . .
Dyson resoundingly won a court case in the UK over Samsung's attempt to patent "triple-cyclone technology" that Dyson invented.
"Britain's High Court upheld Dyson's principal claims that it had already invented and patented the system." Dyson was successful in entirely invalidating one patent and successfully attacking part of another. Samsung was ordered to pay US $852,600.
You're confusing this with a separate case where the issue was the steering mechanism in a vacuum cleaner Samsung introduced at a Berlin consumer electronics show last summer. Dyson declared it a rip-off of a patented feature in their DC cylinder vacuums. Samsung had documentation to show it had been working its steering mechanism for more than a year, so the Dyson suit was dismissed. Now Samsung - a company with a clear track record of copying products - is so insulted that they're suing Dyson for the accusation.
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
Wow, thanks for opening my eyes. And here all these years I thought Apple was a charity..
I really don't understand posts like yours. Do you think there's a single person on the planet that doesn't understand that Apple is a business? Yes, we realize that. But every business employs different tactics, philosophies, and methodologies in order to create their products which they'd like you to buy, and not all these philosophies are equal. Some of us understand and appreciate that. Of course Apple wants to see product. But they have a different way of getting there than most other tech companies, and there are certain things they would never, ever resort to, even if it resulted in slightly more profit.
And as a designer myself, I KNOW that the reason that Ive pores over details for months is not because he's thinking about how many more unit sales he could get. Apple products are full of nearly imperceptible details that the average user will NEVER notice. The reason why I sometimes have toruble sleeping at night after sending a final design is never about how much I charged for it- its always debating whether I could have made it better, and arguing with myself about every minute detail, from the colors, to the letter kerning, to the font weights. Ive is correct when he says it can be tortuous. If one actually cares, it is. I'm not sure how thats so difficult for people like you to understand.
Dyson resoundingly won a court case in the UK over Samsung's attempt to patent "triple-cyclone technology" that Dyson invented.
"Britain's High Court upheld Dyson's principal claims that it had already invented and patented the system." Dyson was successful in entirely invalidating one patent and successfully attacking part of another. Samsung was ordered to pay US $852,600.
You're confusing this with a separate case where <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:1.4em;">the issue was the steering mechanism in a vacuum cleaner Samsung introduced at a Berlin consumer electronics show last summer. Dyson declared it a rip-off of a patented feature in their DC cylinder vacuums.</span>
Samsung had documentation to show it had been working its steering mechanism for more than a year, so the Dyson suit was dismissed<span style="line-height:1.4em;">. Now Samsung - a </span>
<span style="line-height:22px;">company</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> with a clear track record of copying products - is so insulted that they're suing Dyson for the accusation. </span>
I'm not certain you understand the case you've cited. It was not an infringement case. It had to do with Samsung trying to patent tech that Dyson claims to have already patented. The "award" was Dyson having their legal expenses covered. Your original reply was in regard to Samsung's vacuums infringing on Dyson patents, implying that Samsung had done so.
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)
Comments
Excellent post. Except: do Samsung have the wherewithal and talent? Looking at their stab at a smartwatch, I would say no.
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.
That's what Standard Essential Patents are for. Samsung abused these by trying to use them as leverage to force Apple to license their bread and butter patents which were never part of the SEP agreements.
Do we really see Android as a stolen product instead of an Amazing viable alternative?
Android is a stolen OS. Apple should spend every penny of its $150,000,000,000.00 in the bank righting this wrong.
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.
An example of this is how the iPad Smart Cover is very similar to a Japanese-designed bathtub cover. Apple possibly took inspiration from this design and incorporated it into a completely different application. Their implementation was so powerful that more people associate this design with Apple than with the obscure bathtub cover, hence they "made it their own."
In contrast, if this were Samsung they would have simply marketed their own bathtub cover clone to compete against the original.
Why does anyone choose not do to right? I believe that those who lead Samsung have acted with deliberate evil intent, and that is the path they have chosen to go down. It's one way of making money.
I agree, although I don't believe that 'Picasso' and 'great artist' belong in the same sentence. Original, maybe; great, no.
Sony seems to be the only one of the direct competitors that have the capacity to understand this *and* execute on it. It took it's sweet time but I think they are currently the closest to competing with Apple on similar terms.
And it seems to be paying off for them too...
Sony was once worth nearly $150. Now it is worth less than $20. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Sony is doing well.
Parochial and familiar is good enough for Americans. The rest of the world is willing to make a bit more of a quality decision for their earned income. So, McMansions are big - and energy inefficient; supermarket chains rely on sugar; fashion is defined by Kohls and Walmart; and the Super Bowl provides 12 minutes of actual competitive sport in a 4-hour telecast.
Our nation's conformity wouldn't feel so oppressive if it weren't so boring.
Apple does better in America than it does in the rest of the world. I'm not sure what point you are making. Are you saying that Android is "a bit more of a quality decision"?
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
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.
Buying Apple products is like donating to a public charity. It makes you a good person. Some of the money goes to the stockholders, yes, but lots of it goes to just plain making the world a better place.
Cut the crap!
error
Um....no. It doesn't
http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/17/samsung-countersues-dyson-over-vacuum-copycat-claims/
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. . .
Dyson resoundingly won a court case in the UK over Samsung's attempt to patent "triple-cyclone technology" that Dyson invented.
"Britain's High Court upheld Dyson's principal claims that it had already invented and patented the system." Dyson was successful in entirely invalidating one patent and successfully attacking part of another. Samsung was ordered to pay US $852,600.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/02/13/dysontechnology-idUKLD64172920090213
You're confusing this with a separate case where the issue was the steering mechanism in a vacuum cleaner Samsung introduced at a Berlin consumer electronics show last summer. Dyson declared it a rip-off of a patented feature in their DC cylinder vacuums. Samsung had documentation to show it had been working its steering mechanism for more than a year, so the Dyson suit was dismissed. Now Samsung - a company with a clear track record of copying products - is so insulted that they're suing Dyson for the accusation.
He's been outed as a possible fake Apple fan. Block and be done with him.
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
Wow, thanks for opening my eyes. And here all these years I thought Apple was a charity..
I really don't understand posts like yours. Do you think there's a single person on the planet that doesn't understand that Apple is a business? Yes, we realize that. But every business employs different tactics, philosophies, and methodologies in order to create their products which they'd like you to buy, and not all these philosophies are equal. Some of us understand and appreciate that. Of course Apple wants to see product. But they have a different way of getting there than most other tech companies, and there are certain things they would never, ever resort to, even if it resulted in slightly more profit.
And as a designer myself, I KNOW that the reason that Ive pores over details for months is not because he's thinking about how many more unit sales he could get. Apple products are full of nearly imperceptible details that the average user will NEVER notice. The reason why I sometimes have toruble sleeping at night after sending a final design is never about how much I charged for it- its always debating whether I could have made it better, and arguing with myself about every minute detail, from the colors, to the letter kerning, to the font weights. Ive is correct when he says it can be tortuous. If one actually cares, it is. I'm not sure how thats so difficult for people like you to understand.
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)