FYI: Susan Kare designed nothing for NeXTStep and NeXT that actually existed beyond the early stages of the corporation. You want to talk to the Graphic Designer of NeXTStep you talk to the Father of NeXTStep UI, Keith Ohlfs.
I wasn't talking about Samsung, but the whole Android copying iPhone thing....as SJ said "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."...he was not talking about Samsung specifically...neither did I...
In Samsung's defense, lawyer Charles Verhoeven argued that by simply turning on one of the handsets, any customer would see the difference between an iPhone and one made by the South Korean electronics giant. To illustrate his point, Verhoeven turned on three devices to show their respective boot sequences.
On startup, Samsung's Android-based "Charge" smartphone displayed a company logo followed by a brief Droid animation, while Apple's iPhone displayed the Cupertino company's metallic logo. Verhoeven went on to explain that a Charge user needs to boot the device, unlock it and press a button to reach the home screen.
Why yes Mr. Verhoeven, the first thing I do when I am looking at phones/tablets in the store is turn them on and watch the boot sequence. Actually, no, they're usually already on and I can walk up to them to try them out. Heck, the devices usually aren't event locked; in my experience, they're showing a video that's intended to catch your eye.
It seems that Samsung has lawyered themselves up for a loss... they already seem to be playing to the appeal.
Comments
FYI: Susan Kare designed nothing for NeXTStep and NeXT that actually existed beyond the early stages of the corporation. You want to talk to the Graphic Designer of NeXTStep you talk to the Father of NeXTStep UI, Keith Ohlfs.
I wasn't talking about Samsung, but the whole Android copying iPhone thing....as SJ said "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."...he was not talking about Samsung specifically...neither did I...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
In Samsung's defense, lawyer Charles Verhoeven argued that by simply turning on one of the handsets, any customer would see the difference between an iPhone and one made by the South Korean electronics giant. To illustrate his point, Verhoeven turned on three devices to show their respective boot sequences.
On startup, Samsung's Android-based "Charge" smartphone displayed a company logo followed by a brief Droid animation, while Apple's iPhone displayed the Cupertino company's metallic logo. Verhoeven went on to explain that a Charge user needs to boot the device, unlock it and press a button to reach the home screen.
Why yes Mr. Verhoeven, the first thing I do when I am looking at phones/tablets in the store is turn them on and watch the boot sequence. Actually, no, they're usually already on and I can walk up to them to try them out. Heck, the devices usually aren't event locked; in my experience, they're showing a video that's intended to catch your eye.
It seems that Samsung has lawyered themselves up for a loss... they already seem to be playing to the appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Just another reason I think Samsung guilty of violating Apple's trade dress without Apple having to resort to partial truths.
Apple is accusing Samsung's 'app drawer' (or whatever it's called) of looking too similar to iPhone's home screen.
Where is the partial truth in that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Apple is accusing Samsung's 'app drawer' (or whatever it's called) of looking too similar to iPhone's home screen.
Where is the partial truth in that?
That's a totally true statement.