Apple abandoned iPhone with curved glass, iPhone mini over cost and comfort concerns
Apple's ongoing patent war with rival Samsung continues to yield troves of information on one of the world's most secretive companies, with testimony from a former design lead revealing that costs prevented Apple from launching its first iPhone design with contoured screens while concerns over consumer comfort put the dagger in plans for an iPhone mini.
The deposition by Douglas Satzger, who served as an Industrial Design Creative Lead and Industrial Design Manager at Apple from 1996 to 2008, notes that there was "strong interest" in crafting the first iPhone with "two pieces of shaped glass" but the technology at the time proved too prohibitive and expensive.
Although Satzger, who now serves as VP of Industrial Design at Intel, couldn't remember exactly why the "0355" iPhone prototype called for contoured glass to be manufactured in two separate pieces, he did note that technology "in shaping the glass, the cost relative to shaping the glass at the time, and some of the design features of this specific shape were not liked" by members of the team, and pressumbly late company co-founder Steve Jobs.
"The qualities of the glass at the time had a lot to do with it," he added. "These are models -- I'm trying to remember a time frame -- that were before gorilla glass and before a lot of the other factors."
iPhone prototype "0355" with curved glass.
As part of the same testimony, Satzger also disclosed that Apple had indeed developed a much-rumored iPhone mini based on the design of the original iPod mini (below, right). However, the device never made it past the prototype stage because it failed comfort and connectivity tests as a mobile handset.
A pair of iPhone mini prototypes.
"My recollection of it was that?to get the extruded aluminum design that was applied to the iPod to work for the iPhone, there were too many added features to allow it to be comfortable and to work properly," he said. "If you put an iPod up to your ear, the sharp?edges, because of the processes, aren't comfortable, and you can't get antennas to work properly in a fully enclosed metal jacket."
The bitter legal feud between Apple and Samsung over who copied who's mobile product designs has recently unearthed fascinating images and descriptions of dozens of early iPhone and iPad prototypes that Apple ultimately tossed aside. It's also peeled back the curtain to provide a rare glimpse into the thought and design process at one of the world's most tight-lipped corporations.
For more on the high-profile case, see AppleInsider's Apple vs. Samsung information archive.
The deposition by Douglas Satzger, who served as an Industrial Design Creative Lead and Industrial Design Manager at Apple from 1996 to 2008, notes that there was "strong interest" in crafting the first iPhone with "two pieces of shaped glass" but the technology at the time proved too prohibitive and expensive.
Although Satzger, who now serves as VP of Industrial Design at Intel, couldn't remember exactly why the "0355" iPhone prototype called for contoured glass to be manufactured in two separate pieces, he did note that technology "in shaping the glass, the cost relative to shaping the glass at the time, and some of the design features of this specific shape were not liked" by members of the team, and pressumbly late company co-founder Steve Jobs.
"The qualities of the glass at the time had a lot to do with it," he added. "These are models -- I'm trying to remember a time frame -- that were before gorilla glass and before a lot of the other factors."
iPhone prototype "0355" with curved glass.
As part of the same testimony, Satzger also disclosed that Apple had indeed developed a much-rumored iPhone mini based on the design of the original iPod mini (below, right). However, the device never made it past the prototype stage because it failed comfort and connectivity tests as a mobile handset.
A pair of iPhone mini prototypes.
"My recollection of it was that?to get the extruded aluminum design that was applied to the iPod to work for the iPhone, there were too many added features to allow it to be comfortable and to work properly," he said. "If you put an iPod up to your ear, the sharp?edges, because of the processes, aren't comfortable, and you can't get antennas to work properly in a fully enclosed metal jacket."
The bitter legal feud between Apple and Samsung over who copied who's mobile product designs has recently unearthed fascinating images and descriptions of dozens of early iPhone and iPad prototypes that Apple ultimately tossed aside. It's also peeled back the curtain to provide a rare glimpse into the thought and design process at one of the world's most tight-lipped corporations.
For more on the high-profile case, see AppleInsider's Apple vs. Samsung information archive.
Comments
Not surprised there really was an iPhone mini prototype. Many are not surprised it never happened, either!
so when does Samsung show off the design process and process they go through to bring new phones or product to market, many years and Millions of $ they spend doing concepts and research to being the prefect product to the masses.
If Samsung can not show an equal level of design and process, this may put the pin in their balloon.
They have and they've tried to show even more but those pieces of 'evidence' were not allowed (for some odd reason)... and if they did show that they used a similar 'design process' as Apple, Apple'd likely try to sue over that too :-/
"For some odd reason"???
You know exactly why they were not allowed - Samsung failed to follow the procedure required by the court for admission of evidence. There are rules and Samsung's obvious contempt for the court (as opposed to contempt OF court) bit them in the rear.
Besides, you're ignoring the fundamental differences in the two processes.
Apple:
Brainstorm
Come up with a bunch of concepts
Build a bunch of prototypes
Test them heavily, relying on your experience and knowledge to choose the best one
Build it and sell it.
Samsung:
Brainstorm
Come up with a bunch of concepts
Build a bunch of prototypes
Choose the one that looks the most like Apple's product
Build it and sell it.
On the other hand, as per an Economist article, I wonder if fake MBA degrees is just as rampant in Korea as much as it is in China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple's ongoing patent war with rival Samsung continues...
there was "strong interest" in crafting the first iPhone with "two pieces of shaped glass" but the technology at the time proved too prohibitive and expensive...
"The qualities of the glass at the time had a lot to do with it," he added.
In the OP, twice the comment 'at the time'. Perhaps times now are sufficiently advanced that a curved glass surface is practical. Perhaps too though, design sensibilities have moved on. Would be interesting to hold a prototype though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
They have and they've tried to show even more but those pieces of 'evidence' were not allowed (for some odd reason)... and if they did show that they used a similar 'design process' as Apple, Apple'd likely try to sue over that too :-/
For some odd reason? And are you talking about the F700? Don't you get tired of being purposefully obtuse, and purposefully lying, for the sake of trolling? The facts as to why that was inadmissable was presented to you on many, many occasions, and now you pretend you have no idea of the reason. Why should people even bother responding to you, if that's the childish game you want to play, so you can keep repeating the same lines like a broken record?
To look at Samsung's prototypes you just to look at what they release to the public. The core difference between Apple and Samsung seems to be that Apple looks to take all their designs and no matter how beautiful or useful they want one device as perfect as they can make it, whilst Samsung will make some slight change to a device and then through that into production as a new model.
There are pros and cons to each method but Samsung's method doesn't really encourage any passion in their designers and engineers to make a really great device unless they are coping from a really great device.
A suspect drawing, no prototype, that seems to have mysteriously appeared on Samsung's servers with a date prior than the iPhone announcement?
"Your Honour, I'd like to submit into evidence a picture of a non-working prop from a movie as proof that Apple hasn't invented any method for making the tablet despite 2 decades of Windows-based tablets by countless vendors and 4 decades since that movie was made."
"Go **** yourself."
Originally Posted by Maestro64
so when does Samsung show off the design process and process they go through to bring new phones or product to market, many years and Millions of $ they spend doing concepts and research to being the prefect product to the masses.
"Your honor, we have three drawings here of the prototypes we did."
"Is there any proof that these were made before the announcement of the iPhone?"
"…Your honor, we'd like a mistrial. You're clearly biased."
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
"Your Honour, I'd like to submit into evidence a picture of a non-working prop from a movie as proof that Apple hasn't invented any method for making the tablet despite 2 decades of Windows-based tablets by countless vendors and 4 decades since that movie was made."
"Go **** yourself."
Has there ever been a court case (not Judy or Brown) where the judge says that? That's one milestone I'd like this case to set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Don't you get tired of being purposefully obtuse, and purposefully lying, for the sake of trolling? T
In my assessment, DaHarder has absolutely no trouble at all with any of those. That is his sole MO.
But, if he is ignored, he tends to go away for a bit (except when he gets banned, that is).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
For some odd reason? And are you talking about the F700? Don't you get tired of being purposefully obtuse, and purposefully lying, for the sake of trolling? The facts as to why that was inadmissable was presented to you on many, many occasions, and now you pretend you have no idea of the reason. Why should people even bother responding to you, if that's the childish game you want to play, so you can keep repeating the same lines like a broken record?
Not only that, I've looked up the F700 specs: It had no WiFi, it is a slider with a full keyboard (bulk), the front glass has "stripes" pattern, a resistive touch screen at lower resolution. It is only similar to iPhone on a piece of paper.
These must be the approved "talking points" from the Fandroid / Apple-hater world.
That, and Judge Koh must be biased.
I absolutely believe that Samsung intended to take a shortcut to successful smartphones by using Apple's iPhone as a template. It doesn't necessarily mean Samsung is lying about doing some design mockups prior to the iPhone release, but their early Galaxy series efforts were obviously heavily influenced by Apple's product.
With that said, I will be mildly surprised if Apple's design patent is found to be infringed. IMO It's pretty darn broad if Apple's counsel assertions of what it protects are truly accurate, and non-descript as drawn.
Can someone clear something up here?
Is this case over the galaxy tab and galaxy s?
Seeing as the GS3 looks nothing like an iphone and the galaxy s has been off of shelves forever (its 3 years old) and the galaxy nexus is already about to be replaced, and the tab 10.1 already has a successor........what happens if a ban is won?
If Apple wins this case, would it set the precedent that products, even in the same category, can not have anything that looks alike even if it defines the product? Its a touchscreen phone. By definition, a phone with a screen to touch. The backs of the phones are different, you can actually change that.
Can this precedent then be used to argue with Apple if they do indeed decide to bring out a TV, that their TV, which is dominated by a screen on the front and rectangular, after all, its a TV, that Apple just copied Samsung's design?
1. It's about both
2. Some of the patents in question aren't about looks but about functionality.
3. It's not wholly about "touchscreen phones", other companies (Moto, HTC, LG) make touchscreen phones that look very little like an iPhone.
4. Flat panels TVs have to be a certain shape because of the the way content is made and furthermore Samsung was not the first to make widescreen flat panel TVs, the first to the consumer market was Philips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
They have and they've tried to show even more but those pieces of 'evidence' were not allowed (for some odd reason)... and if they did show that they used a similar 'design process' as Apple, Apple'd likely try to sue over that too :-/
haha. true. due to the slowness of samsung, they are not allowed to show their story as well. maybe if they did, this trial would be over.
It is proven now that Apple will sue anyone that does something remotely similar to what they do. only Apple has a right to do what Apple does.