Here's what Samsung's first /proper/ touchscreen phone looked like after the iPhone 1 came out, and how they probably though it would stop Apple before they tried.
Here's what a Samsung phone looked like a few weeks before the iPhone.
Samsung will learn the hard way, before the iPhone came out, everyone in the phone market just copied eachother over and over, mean there was no advancements what so ever.
If companies can't start innovating, and stop copying Apples, then the only time there will EVER be an advancement in mobile technology is when Apple releases a phone once a year.
And one innovation a year is not enough for an entire market.
Apple is in a unique position... as they make the software and the hardware.
5 years ago, Samsung was selling smartphones running Microsoft's Windows Mobile... and today they sell smartphones with Google's Android OS.
There's not much innovation Samsung can do... other than a button placement here or there. The software innovation comes from someone else.
As for hardware innovation... Samsung was still making Windows Mobile phones that used a stylus as Apple was developing glass multi-touch screens.
These rabid know-nothings who take this as an intentional attempt to pass off Samsung goods as Apple goods are stretching the limits of credibility, IMO.
For example, their new slogan for their crappy 50 models of tablets are "A New Tab" , or "The tab that changed the tablet", alot of customers think that the iPad changed the way tablets are made and how we use them, so think "Hey that must be them tablets everyones buying now-a-days"
Seemingly, you think little of iPad customers, if you think that they will buy a Tab, fooled into believing it is an iPad. Or maybe you think little of Apple's marketing and branding prowess if it can be so easily overcome.
It's completely possible this is a picture of a Samsung-created store (where's the cash register?), and it's believable that the logos on the back wall, McDonald's, NASA, iTunes, Skype, were put there by Samsung. It's also possible this is the retailer's (Euronics) idea, the retailers display fixtures, etc. . It may not even be a competed area, with the remainder of the last displayed products decor still to be removed. Or the the back wall may be Euronics-controlled and Euronics decor, with the wood-defined display area away from the wall being leased to the Italian Samsung distributor. Dunno. ...
This is absolute fantasy. You don't have any idea how retail works it seems. You are just grasping at straws for excuses here.
To be fair, I will give you a better one.
As someone who has actually worked at one of these little "booth within a store" stores, I can tell you it's not only incredibly boring standing there all day, it's usually a one person job. It's certainly not like the regional manager is going to be dropping by.
So if you are searching for alternative explanations, it's far more likely that the single bored employee in charge of the store just printed out a bunch of logos on A4 paper, cut them out and stuck them on the back wall because they had nothing better to do all day.
They probably thought, "Hey, Let's make one of those 'wall of apps' displays I've seen pictures of."
Seemingly, you think little of iPad customers, if you think that they will buy a Tab, fooled into believing it is an iPad. Or maybe you think little of Apple's marketing and branding prowess if it can be so easily overcome.
I think that you are incorrect on both counts.
No, I probably phrased that wrong
My comment is referring to what Samsung probably wants to happen.
Well wasn't that an entertaining read and argument between melgross and Gatorguy
Guess what: you are both right. 1:1. When is the Mud-Match to decide the tie?
The reason why you were both right:
a) Yes... quite stupid on Sammy's part to display this picture prominently on their website, considering the circumstances of the lawsuits that are barring them in Europe. Point for melgross.
b) Yes... questions do need to be asked and answered before passing TOTAL judgement against Samsung. Point goes to Gatorguy.
Truth be known: if this is similar to in-store displays in Euronics locations in Germany, or any other big electronics retailer like Saturn or Media Markt here... well guess what? The retailers do anything they darn well please.
A very good buddy/client of mine prints and installs just such displays, with one of his clients just down the block from me. Guess what it is? A Euronics. The promotions and displays are all at the whims and fancies of the retailer/owner. These stores are what we call in German "Filialen".... basically wholly owned stores, but with marketing and purchasing ties to a larger conglomerate. Kind of like franchises in America, but with far more control on the part of the owners to do what they want here.
I suspect in this Italian example, it was similar to what happens here in Germany:
owner goes to a display/large-format printing service; tells them what he wants;
the idea gets dropped on an intern's desk. At the moment in Germany at least, these people make ? 400,-/mo. They are NOT designers or lawyers... and even many of the owners are not traditionally trained in graphics. They just bought a large-format printer and a couple of computers. We call them: *Garagen-Grafiker (not a compliment, in light of Apple's origins).
Owner comes back to take a look at a comp... and very possibly suggests, "why not add some cool icons like those on my iPhone". G-G says OK. Owner asks when he can have it installed.
Client is king here. What the client wants, he gets... and suffers the consequences fully and alone... if there are even any "consequences". At most: take it down.
That's it. That's how it's very possible that Samsung has absolutely nothing to say about the store in Italy even. Regardless of their display materials being used, surrounded be potential litigious logos... and even when the owner IS potentially trying to confuse the customer. This kind of stuff goes on here in all of retail, every day; whether packaging, posters, or displays. Also, considering my numerous trips to Italy, I would say "suggestive false advertising" is even more of a cultural phenomenon there, than here in Germany.
With the landscape in retail as it is here, I was rather surprised when the German court sided with Apple against Samsung. I could bring dozens of packaging design disputes to court, where my clients have been "copied" to the point where even my hand-drawn graphics were scanned and used. However in general, the court system here looks down on such lawsuits... and it costs a small fortune, with very little in return if you ever win. More like: change the color; or change the graphics. That's all. No monetary recourse... or at least any amount that would be worth your while and time. It may even backlash on ya, and make you a pariah with suppliers or other clients.
Whatever. Just thought I'd bring a little more light on the subject from this side of "The Pond".
*PS. No... my buddy isn't a Garage-Grafiker. He happens to be the 5th generation to own a small printing business here. Both he, his sister, and employees are all professionally trained in Heidelberg and Cologne or Trier Design Schools. Yes: they do their best to be ethical and respect trademarks and copyrights, but again: if the client wants it, he gets it.
"For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents..."
Doesn't that quote basically admit in public that many (most? all?) of the patents should be covered under the FRAND system? ( "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" is essentially a mechanism for protecting competition in particular industries where patents have been granted to a single company that are so fundamental to the industry that they could block out all competitors by refusing to license said patents (or by charging asinine licensing fees) )
BTW, I know standards bodies have influence on what patents get labeled FRAND, but who enforces the terms? Is this enforced by the USPTO? Department of Justice? (in the USA at least)
Exact same question as what? You aren't asking any questions. The same questions I'm asking?
Well, you know, his only purpose here is as a Google/Android apologist/propagandist, so we can't really expect anything out of him but lies and attempts to derail the discussion onto bullshit arguments so we all ignore the main point.
It would really be better if everyone not engage with him, call him out on his bullshit and leave it at that. "Arguing" with him is pointless: he's not here to be rational or honest, just to distract and mislead.
"For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents..."
Doesn't that quote basically admit in public that many (most? all?) of the patents should be covered under the FRAND system?
If Apple uses only the tech covered by FRAND, then yes.
If in addition to using the FRAND tech, Apple uses non-FRAND stuff in "its i-branded products", then no.
On second thought, maybe you are right. Many of the patents should be covered by FRAND. But that is not the real question. The real question is whether ALL of the tech Apple copied from Samsung is covered by FRAND. If even one aspect of that tech is covered by a non-FRAND patent, Apple is in the wrong.
And none of us know the answer, one way or the other.
Well, you know, his only purpose here is as a Google/Android apologist/propagandist, so we can't really expect anything out of him but lies and attempts to derail the discussion onto bullshit arguments so we all ignore the main point.
It would really be better if everyone not engage with him, call him out on his bullshit and leave it at that. "Arguing" with him is pointless: he's not here to be rational or honest, just to distract and mislead.
I wasn't sure about his agenda but when he said that one car manufacturer could copy another car manufacturer as closely as Samsung has copied Apple (GT 10.1 vs iPad 2) without repercussions, then I knew he was absolutely full of bullshit.
I see a retangular bluish image with a white circle in it. It does not even close to Safari icon on my Ipad2. What do you think?
Look at the icon in that picture. It's not a Safari icon, but it's a very close duplicate of Apple's AppStore icon. So close that it takes a very close look to tell the difference.
Are you going to now pretend that there's only one way to make an application store icon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
As far as I can tell those are app icons
What difference does it make? The app icons are the trademarked property of their creators. Samsung doesn't have the right to use them without permission.
I don't know what is more frustrating, samsung's behavior day in and out these days, or the fact that apple-centric cites are filled with more people who blindly blame apple for everything than who can rationally dissect the information presented. The same people who constantly say apple tried to change evidence in a court case to obstruct the law based on the formatting of one picture in a huge lawsuit are now trying to defend this behavior where multiple products being advertised in their store have nothing to do with their company or products.
I guess success really does come with some serious baggage.
Comments
Here's what a Samsung phone looked like a few weeks before the iPhone.
http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Aug2007/U700.jpg
Heres what they looked like a few months later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-T919
Maybe whoever took this could get closer pictures?
I'm aware. And mismanagement is definitely to blame. But to turn it into blatant IP theft as the majority of comments here suggest is utterly absurd.
No, the general tone is more in line with this:
Rather, Samsung apparently can't be bothered to respect others' intellectual property - which is what Apple has been saying all along.
Samsung will learn the hard way, before the iPhone came out, everyone in the phone market just copied eachother over and over, mean there was no advancements what so ever.
If companies can't start innovating, and stop copying Apples, then the only time there will EVER be an advancement in mobile technology is when Apple releases a phone once a year.
And one innovation a year is not enough for an entire market.
Apple is in a unique position... as they make the software and the hardware.
5 years ago, Samsung was selling smartphones running Microsoft's Windows Mobile... and today they sell smartphones with Google's Android OS.
There's not much innovation Samsung can do... other than a button placement here or there. The software innovation comes from someone else.
As for hardware innovation... Samsung was still making Windows Mobile phones that used a stylus as Apple was developing glass multi-touch screens.
There's not much innovation Samsung can do?
No, it sounds to me like there's 100% innovation Samsung can do. They have zero right now, why not make your own OS, Samsung?
No, it sounds to me like there's 100% innovation Samsung can do. They have zero right now, why not make your own OS, Samsung?
Oh yeah... they have Bada.... I totally forgot about that....
I'm pretty sure it's some mistake.
Good for you, Mel. I'm impressed.
These rabid know-nothings who take this as an intentional attempt to pass off Samsung goods as Apple goods are stretching the limits of credibility, IMO.
For example, their new slogan for their crappy 50 models of tablets are "A New Tab" , or "The tab that changed the tablet", alot of customers think that the iPad changed the way tablets are made and how we use them, so think "Hey that must be them tablets everyones buying now-a-days"
Seemingly, you think little of iPad customers, if you think that they will buy a Tab, fooled into believing it is an iPad. Or maybe you think little of Apple's marketing and branding prowess if it can be so easily overcome.
I think that you are incorrect on both counts.
It's completely possible this is a picture of a Samsung-created store (where's the cash register?), and it's believable that the logos on the back wall, McDonald's, NASA, iTunes, Skype, were put there by Samsung. It's also possible this is the retailer's (Euronics) idea, the retailers display fixtures, etc. . It may not even be a competed area, with the remainder of the last displayed products decor still to be removed. Or the the back wall may be Euronics-controlled and Euronics decor, with the wood-defined display area away from the wall being leased to the Italian Samsung distributor. Dunno. ...
This is absolute fantasy. You don't have any idea how retail works it seems. You are just grasping at straws for excuses here.
To be fair, I will give you a better one.
As someone who has actually worked at one of these little "booth within a store" stores, I can tell you it's not only incredibly boring standing there all day, it's usually a one person job. It's certainly not like the regional manager is going to be dropping by.
So if you are searching for alternative explanations, it's far more likely that the single bored employee in charge of the store just printed out a bunch of logos on A4 paper, cut them out and stuck them on the back wall because they had nothing better to do all day.
They probably thought, "Hey, Let's make one of those 'wall of apps' displays I've seen pictures of."
They probably thought, "Hey, Let's make one of those 'wall of apps' displays I've seen pictures of."
"?in Apple ads."
Or the third possibility that Apple management already had their minds made up that they weren't negotiating with Samsung on anything. Period. ...
Now you're just blatantly posing hypotheticals as fact to base your arguments on?
You're really getting desperate to earn your pay.
And as far as I'm concerned, every thread is a potential anti-Android thread,
don't forget:
Microsoft
Adobe
Google
East Texas
Seemingly, you think little of iPad customers, if you think that they will buy a Tab, fooled into believing it is an iPad. Or maybe you think little of Apple's marketing and branding prowess if it can be so easily overcome.
I think that you are incorrect on both counts.
No, I probably phrased that wrong
My comment is referring to what Samsung probably wants to happen.
Guess what: you are both right. 1:1. When is the Mud-Match to decide the tie?
The reason why you were both right:
a) Yes... quite stupid on Sammy's part to display this picture prominently on their website, considering the circumstances of the lawsuits that are barring them in Europe. Point for melgross.
b) Yes... questions do need to be asked and answered before passing TOTAL judgement against Samsung. Point goes to Gatorguy.
Truth be known: if this is similar to in-store displays in Euronics locations in Germany, or any other big electronics retailer like Saturn or Media Markt here... well guess what? The retailers do anything they darn well please.
A very good buddy/client of mine prints and installs just such displays, with one of his clients just down the block from me. Guess what it is? A Euronics. The promotions and displays are all at the whims and fancies of the retailer/owner. These stores are what we call in German "Filialen".... basically wholly owned stores, but with marketing and purchasing ties to a larger conglomerate. Kind of like franchises in America, but with far more control on the part of the owners to do what they want here.
I suspect in this Italian example, it was similar to what happens here in Germany:
- owner goes to a display/large-format printing service; tells them what he wants;
- the idea gets dropped on an intern's desk. At the moment in Germany at least, these people make ? 400,-/mo. They are NOT designers or lawyers... and even many of the owners are not traditionally trained in graphics. They just bought a large-format printer and a couple of computers. We call them: *Garagen-Grafiker (not a compliment, in light of Apple's origins).
- Owner comes back to take a look at a comp... and very possibly suggests, "why not add some cool icons like those on my iPhone". G-G says OK. Owner asks when he can have it installed.
- Client is king here. What the client wants, he gets... and suffers the consequences fully and alone... if there are even any "consequences". At most: take it down.
That's it. That's how it's very possible that Samsung has absolutely nothing to say about the store in Italy even. Regardless of their display materials being used, surrounded be potential litigious logos... and even when the owner IS potentially trying to confuse the customer. This kind of stuff goes on here in all of retail, every day; whether packaging, posters, or displays. Also, considering my numerous trips to Italy, I would say "suggestive false advertising" is even more of a cultural phenomenon there, than here in Germany.With the landscape in retail as it is here, I was rather surprised when the German court sided with Apple against Samsung. I could bring dozens of packaging design disputes to court, where my clients have been "copied" to the point where even my hand-drawn graphics were scanned and used. However in general, the court system here looks down on such lawsuits... and it costs a small fortune, with very little in return if you ever win. More like: change the color; or change the graphics. That's all. No monetary recourse... or at least any amount that would be worth your while and time. It may even backlash on ya, and make you a pariah with suppliers or other clients.
Whatever. Just thought I'd bring a little more light on the subject from this side of "The Pond".
*PS. No... my buddy isn't a Garage-Grafiker. He happens to be the 5th generation to own a small printing business here. Both he, his sister, and employees are all professionally trained in Heidelberg and Cologne or Trier Design Schools. Yes: they do their best to be ethical and respect trademarks and copyrights, but again: if the client wants it, he gets it.
Doesn't that quote basically admit in public that many (most? all?) of the patents should be covered under the FRAND system? ( "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" is essentially a mechanism for protecting competition in particular industries where patents have been granted to a single company that are so fundamental to the industry that they could block out all competitors by refusing to license said patents (or by charging asinine licensing fees) )
BTW, I know standards bodies have influence on what patents get labeled FRAND, but who enforces the terms? Is this enforced by the USPTO? Department of Justice? (in the USA at least)
Exact same question as what? You aren't asking any questions. The same questions I'm asking?
Well, you know, his only purpose here is as a Google/Android apologist/propagandist, so we can't really expect anything out of him but lies and attempts to derail the discussion onto bullshit arguments so we all ignore the main point.
It would really be better if everyone not engage with him, call him out on his bullshit and leave it at that. "Arguing" with him is pointless: he's not here to be rational or honest, just to distract and mislead.
"For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents..."
Doesn't that quote basically admit in public that many (most? all?) of the patents should be covered under the FRAND system?
If Apple uses only the tech covered by FRAND, then yes.
If in addition to using the FRAND tech, Apple uses non-FRAND stuff in "its i-branded products", then no.
On second thought, maybe you are right. Many of the patents should be covered by FRAND. But that is not the real question. The real question is whether ALL of the tech Apple copied from Samsung is covered by FRAND. If even one aspect of that tech is covered by a non-FRAND patent, Apple is in the wrong.
And none of us know the answer, one way or the other.
Well, you know, his only purpose here is as a Google/Android apologist/propagandist, so we can't really expect anything out of him but lies and attempts to derail the discussion onto bullshit arguments so we all ignore the main point.
It would really be better if everyone not engage with him, call him out on his bullshit and leave it at that. "Arguing" with him is pointless: he's not here to be rational or honest, just to distract and mislead.
I wasn't sure about his agenda but when he said that one car manufacturer could copy another car manufacturer as closely as Samsung has copied Apple (GT 10.1 vs iPad 2) without repercussions, then I knew he was absolutely full of bullshit.
Hello Everyone. Is this Safari icon? Please see below link.
http://nexus404.com/Blog/2011/09/23/...comment-184215
I see a retangular bluish image with a white circle in it. It does not even close to Safari icon on my Ipad2. What do you think?
Look at the icon in that picture. It's not a Safari icon, but it's a very close duplicate of Apple's AppStore icon. So close that it takes a very close look to tell the difference.
Are you going to now pretend that there's only one way to make an application store icon?
As far as I can tell those are app icons
What difference does it make? The app icons are the trademarked property of their creators. Samsung doesn't have the right to use them without permission.
I guess success really does come with some serious baggage.