Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Nexus smartphone

11314151618

Comments

  • Reply 341 of 379

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by petrosy View Post


    I understand why Apple is suing... Apple products no longer seem as ground breaking as they used to be. The Android devices on the top end seem to be getting exponentially better with each release where as Apple now seem only to be evolving incrementally.


    I am well aware how annoying it is when Android users make a laughing stock of a product that we take for revolutionary and they make look dated. I hope the iPhone5 will be awesome and sets the new standard instead of playing catch up!



    a great candidate for stupidest fscking post ever!! 


    check my sig droid dorks!!

  • Reply 342 of 379
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    a great candidate for stupidest fscking post ever!! 
    check my sig droid dorks!!

    Mmmm. Classy.
  • Reply 343 of 379
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    hjb wrote: »
    Apple was not arguing about the back of Galaxy Tab.  If you care to see, their back is made of cheap plastic with their big SAMSUNG logo in the middle whereas IPad is made of beautiful aluminum with Apple log in the middle and iPad logo at the bottom.  So, the Samsung Digital Photo Frame claim stands imo.  

    Just to make sure we're clear here. You're saying that the back of the photo frame doesn't count in showing dissimilarity, but the back of the Tab does count in showing dissimilarity?
  • Reply 344 of 379
    curmudgeoncurmudgeon Posts: 483member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    I headed over to Engadget for a few laughs, a site which I rarely visit anymore, because the comment sections are infested with ignorant trash and human garbage, but it was pretty funny and also pretty predictable to read some of the whiny and hateful comments being made by the butthurt Fandroids there. Hopefully there are more bans and injunctions coming in the future, it makes me feel good to see other ignorant people mad.



     


    And yet you post here?   Ignorance abounds.   Mine included.

  • Reply 345 of 379
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    jeffdm wrote: »
    Just to make sure we're clear here. You're saying that the back of the photo frame doesn't count in showing dissimilarity, but the back of the Tab does count in showing dissimilarity?

    It sounds like he was sarcastic?
  • Reply 346 of 379
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    shaun, uk wrote: »
    I can't be bothered to reply to the comments above as you wouldn't listen anyway, so I look forward to see what happens in the court case.

    Don't you like people calling each other a tosser?
  • Reply 347 of 379
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,685member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


     


    Established by whom?


     


    I think competition does breed innovation because it's only through innovation that you stay ahead of your competition.


     


    You can beat the competition by either having lower prices or better products.


     


    Monopolies breed stagnation and complacency without any incentive to innovate.



     


    Really? Exactly what competitive forces drove Apple to create the iPod, iPhone and iPad. In none of those cases were they competing with anyone else with similar products at the time. And, it certainly wasn't driven by a "desire to compete".


     


    Innovation comes, quite simply, from a desire, and ability, to innovate. Apple creates innovative products, and creates entirely new markets, because it's their culture to do so, not because of any competitive threats or desire to stay ahead of anyone.


     


    Your position is like saying that, in the evolution of species, competition breeds variation. In fact, variation simply, and always, occurs due to forces (i.e., gene mutations) that have nothing to do with competition. In evolution through natural selection, competition (among other factors) merely picks the winners and losers, it doesn't create the traits that make those individuals winners.


     


    Likewise, although it's easy to get confused, competition does not "breed" innovation*, it merely picks winners and losers from among existing innovations. Innovation comes from other forces driving individuals that have nothing to do with competition or markets.


     


     


     


    * The idea that it does is a sort of economic Lamarckism.

  • Reply 348 of 379

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Really? Exactly what competitive forces drove Apple to create the iPod, iPhone and iPad. In none of those cases were they competing with anyone else with similar products at the time. And, it certainly wasn't driven by a "desire to compete".


     


    Innovation comes, quite simply, from a desire, and ability, to innovate. Apple creates innovative products, and creates entirely new markets, because it's their culture to do so, not because of any competitive threats or desire to stay ahead of anyone.


     


    Your position is like saying that, in the evolution of species, competition breeds variation. In fact, variation simply, and always, occurs due to forces (i.e., gene mutations) that have nothing to do with competition. In evolution through natural selection, competition (among other factors) merely picks the winners and losers, it doesn't create the traits that make those individuals winners.


     


    Likewise, although it's easy to get confused, competition does not "breed" innovation, it merely picks winners and losers from among existing innovations. Innovation comes from other forces driving individuals that have nothing to do with competition or markets.





    Finally. Innovation comes from a need. While competition may create that need, it is wrong to say the competition is the only driving force in innovation.

  • Reply 349 of 379
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jeffdm wrote: »
    Form factor, as in size and aspect ratio? I don't think any design patent covers that.
    The one I'm aware of, a Samsung picture frame, the illusion of a similar form factor falls apart when you see it from behind or from the edge.

    The same can be said about the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. From behind they're different and there's also a white iPad to be considered.
  • Reply 350 of 379
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,685member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by imbrucewayne View Post




    Finally. Innovation comes from a need. While competition may create that need, it is wrong to say the competition is the only driving force in innovation.



     


    It's wrong to say that it's a driving force at all. The only "need" that sparks innovation is a need to innovate. Some individuals and cultures* have it, some don't. Some individuals and cultures are better at it. And, while competition may determine which innovations are deemed successful, competition has no hand in driving the innovations, rather, if anything, it's the other way around: innovation drives competition.


     


     


     


    * Culture should be interpreted broadly here, and includes things like "corporate culture" and even "family culture".

  • Reply 351 of 379
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post





    Don't you like people calling each other a tosser?


     


    Depends who it is. Some people post deliberately provocative comments and so yes they deserve the insult.

  • Reply 352 of 379
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Twist things however you want. I maintain that competition breeds innovation.


     


    Apple built the iPhone because they knew that to compete against the existing players like Nokia, RIM, etc they would have build a much better and more innovative product. It's the only way they could successfully compete with and take sales away from the established brands in a mature market.


     


    MP3 players existing before the iPod - Apple simply innovated to build a much better product to leapfrog the competition.


     


    For many years Apple failed to take market share from Windows so they decided to compete instead by creating a paradigm shift. Creating a new product that would replace the Windows PC - the so called "post-PC era". It's still using innovation to compete. 

  • Reply 353 of 379
    just_mejust_me Posts: 590member
    Nexus is still being sold. How?bond was posted
  • Reply 354 of 379
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


     


    Twist things however you want. I maintain that competition breeds innovation.


     


    Apple built the iPhone because they knew that to compete against the existing players like Nokia, RIM, etc they would have build a much better and more innovative product. It's the only way they could successfully compete with and take sales away from the established brands in a mature market.


     


    MP3 players existing before the iPod - Apple simply innovated to build a much better product to leapfrog the competition.


     


    For many years Apple failed to take market share from Windows so they decided to compete instead by creating a paradigm shift. Creating a new product that would replace the Windows PC - the so called "post-PC era". It's still using innovation to compete. 





     


     


    How is it that the competitive environment you describe has not led to real innovation from the likes of HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony, Acer ... At best, you're describing an exception.


     


    Here is more the norm that has been happening:


     


    Nokia, in the face of competition, gave up on internal R&D (Symbian, Meego) and adopted Windows Phone.  RIM, in the face of competition, is trying in vain to catch up rather than to innovate. Samsung, in the face of competition, *joined* Apple (by lockstepping its design with the iPhone, iPad) rather than coming up with its own innovation.


     


    HP, Acer, Dell, etc. chose to follow (so far not very successfully) rather than innovate when confronted with Apple's MacBook Air.


     


    Apple launches the AppStore. Google, RIM, Amazon all follow to compete.


     


    Even Apple itself, now that the smartphone market is a competitive one, is playing it safe on that front. Neither iOS nor the iPhone itself has been endowed with truly innovative features since the beginning.


     


    Your point is weak, but your competitiveness is preventing you from conceding it.

  • Reply 355 of 379
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,685member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


     


    Twist things however you want. I maintain that competition breeds innovation.


     


    Apple built the iPhone because they knew that to compete against the existing players like Nokia, RIM, etc they would have build a much better and more innovative product. It's the only way they could successfully compete with and take sales away from the established brands in a mature market.


     


    MP3 players existing before the iPod - Apple simply innovated to build a much better product to leapfrog the competition.


     


    For many years Apple failed to take market share from Windows so they decided to compete instead by creating a paradigm shift. Creating a new product that would replace the Windows PC - the so called "post-PC era". It's still using innovation to compete. 



     


    Like Lamarckism, your theory sounds plausible, but, in the end, it's just as wrong.


     


    Under your theory, they made the iPhone because of a desire to compete. But, if we look at things from a purely economic point of view, why would a company have a desire to compete in a mature market? Why wouldn't they, for example, look for an entirely new market, one that doesn't even exist, and create that? Wouldn't the probable return on investment be higher if they didn't have to compete at all, but had this new market to themselves for at least some time?


     


    In fact, that's what happened. Apple was working on developing the iPad, an entirely new type of device, without a mature market, and realized that the innovation they were doing would work great as a phone. In comparison, existing phones sucked so much, that the iPhone had no competition when it was released. Through creativity and innovation, the mature market was destroyed, and a new market was created in it's place. It wasn't competition that led to this, it was a desire to make great products that didn't suck, that they wanted to use, along with the skill, determination and genius to create something new.


     


    Competition, nor a desire "to compete against the existing players", had nothing to do with the development of these products. Apple's culture of innovation and a desire to make great products for the sake of making them is what led to these products. Not a focus on competing, but a focus on creating something entirely new is what led to the iPod, iPhone and iPad.

  • Reply 356 of 379
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,685member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post




     


     


    How is it that the competitive environment you describe has not led to real innovation from the likes of HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony, Acer ... At best, you're describing an exception.


     


    Here is more the norm that has been happening:


     


    Nokia, in the face of competitive, gave up on internal R&D (Symbian, Meego) and adopted Windows Phone.  RIM, in the face of competition, is trying in vain to catch up rather than to innovate. Samsung, in the face of competition, *joined* Apple (by lockstepping its design with the iPhone, iPad) rather than coming up with its own innovation.


     


    HP, Acer, Dell, etc. chose to follow (so far not very successfully) rather than innovate when confronted with Apple's MacBook Air.


     


    Apple launches the AppStore. Google, RIM, Amazon all follow to compete.


     


    Even Apple itself, now that the smartphone market is a competitive one, is playing it safe on that front. Neither iOS nor the iPhone itself has been endowed with truly innovative features since the beginning.


     


    Your point is weak, but your competitiveness is preventing you from conceding it.



     


    Excellent points. We do not actually see much at all in the way of innovation within the structure of competition and "competitive markets". In fact, as you point out, the empirical evidence directly contradicts the idea that competition breeds innovation. If anything, it tends to point to the opposite conclusion, that, in fact, it stifles it.

  • Reply 357 of 379
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    I can't see the point in continuing this debate. It's like trying to talk to a kindergarten class. I have never heard such ridiculous arguments.


     


    Please don't bother to reply as I'm not coming back into this thread again.

  • Reply 358 of 379
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    shaun, uk wrote: »
    I can't see the point in continuing this debate. It's like trying to talk to a kindergarten class. I have never heard such ridiculous arguments.

    Please don't bother to reply as I'm not coming back into this thread again.

    Okay.

    Oops.

    Since you don't seem to have an explanation for why the iPod continued to get updates and improvements for years after Apple had a hegemony on the market, I think you should rethink your position a little.
  • Reply 359 of 379

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by petrosy View Post


     I hope the iPhone5 will be awesome and sets the new standard instead of playing catch up!



     


     


    I've seen predictions in the mainstream media that the iPhone 5 will be a major advance for the iPhone.  The context of the prediction was that it will be the biggest rollout EVER for a consumer gadget.


     


    We'll see.

  • Reply 360 of 379

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post



    I'm actually with Apple][ on this. Android fans are just ... annoying.


     


     


    IMO, all "fans" of consumer products are annoying.  I understand fans of sports teams, actors and other performers.  but I don't understand being a fan of a lump of metal and plastic.


     


    I understand even less those who are fans of huge multinational corporations.  


     


    Then again, I don't understand why people buy logoed clothing, and turn themselves into walking billboards for, say, Tommy Hillfinger or American eagle Outfitters.  The message seem to be "I am the type of person who buys things from a particular retail store".  Is that a source of pride?


     


    What am I missing here?  ISTM that people define themselves by their purchases.  I see that as sad, given that it is arbitrary and that it reflects nothing deep or substantial about the person.


     


    ANYBODY can buy a T shirt at the mall.  Is the fact that one did so really a source of pride for the purchaser?  Do they think that others will look up to them because of it?  Do they think more of themselves because of it?  Does a purchase of a product really define one's being?

Sign In or Register to comment.