You have to admit Samsung had the eye to tell what is good. Other companies were so blind they could not see the lights when it was directly shone into their eyes. I was working at Rim at the time and the idiots were nitpicking tiny problems. It was like heaven and earth, or day and night. See Samsung shamelessly chased the leader and others just walked into oblivion.
I admit that I side with Apple when it comes to complaints about similar UIs, packaging, and timing, but I think the "You can't make a rectangular phone! Only we can make a rectangular phone!" argument is bullcrap.
How is it that intelligent people (I presume all people have intelligence) are being suckered into this whole rectangle argument. Apple hasn't argued that none of it's competitors can use rectangles. This defence offered by Samsung is textbook use of reductio ad absurdum. They've taken Apple's argument, drawn the most extreme and unreasonable interpretation and mocked it. At the end of the day, looking at the homepage of both iOS and the android UI, you can't deny a striking resemblance and the bottom line is that Apple owns patents for this design.
When you break down any design it will result in circles, rectangles and squares. As a first year design student I learnt that and I'm so disappointed that Samsung would resort tot this argument.
related to this discussion i'm confused a bit, seems that someone stole my design of a mascot, designed in 2001. I have no certain evidence, proving my authorship but my grandma can witness, that i designed it. Can DaHarder or someone else help me in case of any trouble with big players, complaining about this design?
It is easy, but takes time, it took Apple almost a decade. No?
Some lazy Chinese car companies are doing the same, copying European and USA cars with NO shame.
They know that in the West most people GO crazy for anything cheap.
Ever read about counterfeit Lexus cars? They're the equivalent Toyota with some pieces swapped from written-off damaged Lexus models, or in some cases, just people who bought the Toyota model and some Lexus badging. Then they neglect to tell who they sell it to that's its not a real Toyota.
With Apple, and the knock-off products, you have look-alikes with different branding (eg Samsung) and then there are iClone type of devices. Back in 2007, when the iPhone was released, all the Chinese knockoff factories started churning out counterfeit Nokia N95's and iPhones. At the time, the iPhone was inferior hardware but good software. It wasn't until the 3GS that the iPhone was feature parity with phones available by other manufacturers.
6. Cect P168 (This is the device that looks identical to the iPhone with the weird touch-strip and was sold frequently on eBay as ""iPhone replica")
7. HiPhone (This is the other device that would frequently be sold on eBay as "HiPhone" to keyword spam people looking for iPhone)
8. Meizu M8 Mini one
9. HTC Touch Dual
10. Desay N8
From what you can gleam off Youtube, the counterfeits are not even useable devices (#6,#7) they're just meant to rip off people wanting to buy an iPhone.
And yet Samsung doesn't seem to realize that it's products are clearly confusing to customers.
Remember Samsung had the first iphone blocked in Korea for well over 2 years so they can catch up to Apple. When the iphone finally got approved by their FCC, Samsung punished the carrier that carried the iphone.
It's truly baffling that this companies don't try copying the most important thing about Apple, especially when it's completely LEGAL! Copy Apple's actual goals! They spell them out constantly: make the best possible product for your target customer. That's actually what Apple does and it's not freaking magic!
Totally agree but the simple truth is they simply don't have the talent or originality to be able to pull that off. Samsung excel only at two things—(attempts at) copying true innovators and then aggressively marketing those attempted copies to the world.
68 posts, and not one defending Samsung. Must be a record on this forum - where are the usual suspects? I'd give it a go myself just for the hell of it, but Samsung's legal team appear to be sitting on the self-destruct button. The Apple team must think Christmas has come early.
[QUOTE name="dasanman69" url="/t/151763/internal-samsung-memo-shows-iphone-caused-crisis-of-design#post_2163082"] I think there's just a little less at stake than the Cuban Missle Crisis.[/QUOTE]
68 posts, and not one defending Samsung. Must be a record on this forum - where are the usual suspects? I'd give it a go myself just for the hell of it, but Samsung's legal team appear to be sitting on the self-destruct button. The Apple team must think Christmas has come early.
But this is thermonuclear war, isn't it?
Well I'll defend Samsung in saying that I believe that the SGS 2 in question was 1. Not available in the US and 2. A variant of the F700. But I definitely think they modeled Touch Wiz to almost exactly like iOS plus they totally changed their packaging and accessories to look exactly like Apple's.
Interestingly, they did get some things right in the meeting, but were apparently unable to act on them. For example:
"Right now we’re expecting to do around 350 models in just the first half of this year. If you ask the companies, the Operators we deal with, whether they like that we launch one model right after the another, [the answer is] absolutely not. Quantity isn’t what’s important, what’s important is putting on the market models with a high level of perfection, one to two Excellent ones." That's one of Apple's keys to success that they could easily have copied, but chose not to.
68 posts, and not one defending Samsung. Must be a record on this forum - where are the usual suspects? I'd give it a go myself just for the hell of it, but Samsung's legal team appear to be sitting on the self-destruct button. The Apple team must think Christmas has come early.
But this is thermonuclear war, isn't it?
Even the normal Samsung shills are having a hard time defending Samsung now. And (as shown above), the Samsung attorneys CONTINUE to violate the court's orders. It's almost as if they WANT to lose.
Ever read about counterfeit Lexus cars? They're the equivalent Toyota with some pieces swapped from written-off damaged Lexus models, or in some cases, just people who bought the Toyota model and some Lexus badging. Then they neglect to tell who they sell it to that's its not a real Toyota.
With Apple, and the knock-off products, you have look-alikes with different branding (eg Samsung) and then there are iClone type of devices. Back in 2007, when the iPhone was released, all the Chinese knockoff factories started churning out counterfeit Nokia N95's and iPhones. At the time, the iPhone was inferior hardware but good software. It wasn't until the 3GS that the iPhone was feature parity with phones available by other manufacturers.
In fact I'll just summarize this link: http://www.cellmad.com/celebrity-fake-list-top-10-iphone-clones/ , Note this article is 2008
1. Samsung Instinct
2. Sony Xperia
3. Deeda Pi
4. LG Voyager
5. LG Vu
6. Cect P168 (This is the device that looks identical to the iPhone with the weird touch-strip and was sold frequently on eBay as ""iPhone [SIZE=8px]replica[/SIZE]")
7. HiPhone (This is the other device that would frequently be sold on eBay as "HiPhone" to keyword spam people looking for iPhone)
8. Meizu M8 Mini one
9. HTC Touch Dual
10. Desay N8
From what you can gleam off Youtube, the counterfeits are not even useable devices (#6,#7) they're just meant to rip off people wanting to buy an iPhone.
In all fairness, many of those don't look that much like the iPhone. Of course, other than the obvious counterfeit (the HiPhone), the Samsung is the closest copy - which may explain why Samsung is the one in court today.
68 posts, and not one defending Samsung. Must be a record on this forum - where are the usual suspects? I'd give it a go myself just for the hell of it, but Samsung's legal team appear to be sitting on the self-destruct button. The Apple team must think Christmas has come early.
But this is thermonuclear war, isn't it?
Well I'll defend Samsung in saying that I believe that the SGS 2 in question was 1. Not available in the US and 2. A variant of the F700. But I definitely think they modeled Touch Wiz to almost exactly like iOS plus they totally changed their packaging and accessories to look exactly like Apple's.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong SGSII, but it looks just like an iPhone, nothing like an F700, and according to WP it was released in the US. What am I missing?
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong SGSII, but it looks just like an iPhone, nothing like an F700, and according to WP it was released in the US. What am I missing?
No there were 3 American variants of the SGS 2. The one they keep showing was never sold in the US.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong SGSII, but it looks just like an iPhone, nothing like an F700, and according to WP it was released in the US. What am I missing?
No there were 3 American variants of the SGS 2. The one they keep showing was never sold in the US.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santoanderson
I admit that I side with Apple when it comes to complaints about similar UIs, packaging, and timing, but I think the "You can't make a rectangular phone! Only we can make a rectangular phone!" argument is bullcrap.
How is it that intelligent people (I presume all people have intelligence) are being suckered into this whole rectangle argument. Apple hasn't argued that none of it's competitors can use rectangles. This defence offered by Samsung is textbook use of reductio ad absurdum. They've taken Apple's argument, drawn the most extreme and unreasonable interpretation and mocked it. At the end of the day, looking at the homepage of both iOS and the android UI, you can't deny a striking resemblance and the bottom line is that Apple owns patents for this design.
When you break down any design it will result in circles, rectangles and squares. As a first year design student I learnt that and I'm so disappointed that Samsung would resort tot this argument.
Is this a rip-off ?
related to this discussion i'm confused a bit, seems that someone stole my design of a mascot, designed in 2001. I have no certain evidence, proving my authorship but my grandma can witness, that i designed it. Can DaHarder or someone else help me in case of any trouble with big players, complaining about this design?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming
It is easy, but takes time, it took Apple almost a decade. No?
Some lazy Chinese car companies are doing the same, copying European and USA cars with NO shame.
They know that in the West most people GO crazy for anything cheap.
Ever read about counterfeit Lexus cars? They're the equivalent Toyota with some pieces swapped from written-off damaged Lexus models, or in some cases, just people who bought the Toyota model and some Lexus badging. Then they neglect to tell who they sell it to that's its not a real Toyota.
With Apple, and the knock-off products, you have look-alikes with different branding (eg Samsung) and then there are iClone type of devices. Back in 2007, when the iPhone was released, all the Chinese knockoff factories started churning out counterfeit Nokia N95's and iPhones. At the time, the iPhone was inferior hardware but good software. It wasn't until the 3GS that the iPhone was feature parity with phones available by other manufacturers.
In fact I'll just summarize this link: http://www.cellmad.com/celebrity-fake-list-top-10-iphone-clones/ , Note this article is 2008
1. Samsung Instinct
2. Sony Xperia
3. Deeda Pi
4. LG Voyager
5. LG Vu
6. Cect P168 (This is the device that looks identical to the iPhone with the weird touch-strip and was sold frequently on eBay as ""iPhone replica")
7. HiPhone (This is the other device that would frequently be sold on eBay as "HiPhone" to keyword spam people looking for iPhone)
8. Meizu M8 Mini one
9. HTC Touch Dual
10. Desay N8
From what you can gleam off Youtube, the counterfeits are not even useable devices (#6,#7) they're just meant to rip off people wanting to buy an iPhone.
And yet Samsung doesn't seem to realize that it's products are clearly confusing to customers.
http://pinterest.com/pin/266908715385909865/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hYCVRbyjE8
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bb.iphone&hl=en
All three of these links call out the Samsung Galaxy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Don't mess with this. This is the greatest comment I've read here in a long time.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I have to admit, I read that line with Christopher Plummer's voice in my head!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Would be better if the Samsung execs didn't speak English.
I think it would sound better in the original Klingon.
Ok, I'm taking this movie-nerd hat off!
Superb point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
It's truly baffling that this companies don't try copying the most important thing about Apple, especially when it's completely LEGAL! Copy Apple's actual goals! They spell them out constantly: make the best possible product for your target customer. That's actually what Apple does and it's not freaking magic!
Totally agree but the simple truth is they simply don't have the talent or originality to be able to pull that off. Samsung excel only at two things—(attempts at) copying true innovators and then aggressively marketing those attempted copies to the world.
That quote was from Thirteen Days, no Klingons just Russians.
Skip to 3:10. It's pretty hard to out movie nerd me lol.
[QUOTE name="dasanman69" url="/t/151763/internal-samsung-memo-shows-iphone-caused-crisis-of-design#post_2163082"]
I think there's just a little less at stake than the Cuban Missle Crisis.[/QUOTE]
But this is thermonuclear war, isn't it?
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Yeah, +1. Come on, Apple, innovate don't litigate!
Actually I'd say that Apple does innovate, and SHOULD litigate when bottom-feeders like Samdung try to rip them off!
Well I'll defend Samsung in saying that I believe that the SGS 2 in question was 1. Not available in the US and 2. A variant of the F700. But I definitely think they modeled Touch Wiz to almost exactly like iOS plus they totally changed their packaging and accessories to look exactly like Apple's.
http://allthingsd.com/20120806/iphone-caused-crisis-of-design-at-samsung-memo/
Interestingly, they did get some things right in the meeting, but were apparently unable to act on them. For example:
"Right now we’re expecting to do around 350 models in just the first half of this year. If you ask the companies, the Operators we deal with, whether they like that we launch one model right after the another, [the answer is] absolutely not. Quantity isn’t what’s important, what’s important is putting on the market models with a high level of perfection, one to two Excellent ones." That's one of Apple's keys to success that they could easily have copied, but chose not to.
Even the normal Samsung shills are having a hard time defending Samsung now. And (as shown above), the Samsung attorneys CONTINUE to violate the court's orders. It's almost as if they WANT to lose.
In all fairness, many of those don't look that much like the iPhone. Of course, other than the obvious counterfeit (the HiPhone), the Samsung is the closest copy - which may explain why Samsung is the one in court today.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong SGSII, but it looks just like an iPhone, nothing like an F700, and according to WP it was released in the US. What am I missing?
It works either way...
No there were 3 American variants of the SGS 2. The one they keep showing was never sold in the US.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S_II#American_variants
OK - got it - thanks. They still all look like iPhones, and not much like the F700 IMO.
*cough* fragmentation *cough*
Oh, wait. The Samsung and Google fans insist that fragmentation doesn't exist.