Samsung's lawyers: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, sure there are similarities between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. After all, 99% of the components in the iPad come from Samsung. Now I ask you, are a Wookie and Ewoke the same thing? Of course they are not yet they certainly have similar traits. Now do you think that George Lucas would have made both a Wookie and Ewoke if he thought that his audience of children would be confused? Again, of course not. The defense rests."
It is not unique to Apple and its products, I've seen people ask for chicken McNuggets in Burger King. Many consumers just aren't as informed as others.
That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.
I can forgive an initial confusion upon seeing the Tab 10.1 but to actually purchase it and take it home because they thought it was an iPad is the pinnacle of stupidity. I'm also sure many were misled even further by salespeople. That cannot be blamed 100% on Samsung.
Most people who buy technology are not extremely intelligent. The fact you are here at a technology website reading detailed apple news shows you're probably a bit smarter then 99% of the population.
If I go into a store looking for "that tablet thing everyone is talking about" (ie iPad) and I come upon a rectangular looking device with black boarders and little icons over the screen in the same shape and pattern as the iPad, for most people, that's enough to confuse them. The iPad started a new category, and unless the Samsung design was significantly different, people would just figure it the same tablet they heard about or saw on TV.
That's why apple is focusing so hard on "overall impression" when you see the device. The overall impression is what people remember and identify with, not the printed label or techie spec details.
Samsung's lawyers: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, sure there are similarities between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. After all, 99% of the components in the iPad come from Samsung. Now I ask you, are a Wookie and Ewoke the same thing? Of course they are not yet they certainly have similar traits. Now do you think that George Lucas would have made both a Wookie and Ewoke if he thought that his audience of children would be confused? Again, of course not. The defense rests."
i know that it is pretty much impossible to ignore samsung because they have certain "privileges" in korea that no other similar company gets in any country. my hope is for apple to invest heavily on foxconn and similar companies so they can up their game and together destroy that huge pile of criminals. Personaly i would like to see them exterminated, at least that corrupt culture, not the "name" samsung but that would be a bad thing for me to say.
That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.
it reminds me of that email about google and java... i believe nothing good to apple will happen from this. they have other priorities and more deadly ways to settle this against that pile of criminal garbage.
Here's the interesting part: those of us who voiced our concerns and objections about Samsung long before this ever started, and who portended Samsung's eventual exposure for the liars and cheats they are, were called every name in the book by the usual gang of trolls.
Quadra, assuming that you were LTD, I remember you getting alot of flack over this on MacRumors.
That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.
I'll readily admit that Samsung did cause some confusion as I myself was fooled for a split second when I first picked up a Galaxy Tab but as Mr Wolf said the subterfuge didn't hold up upon closer inspection.
Most people who buy technology are not extremely intelligent. The fact you are here at a technology website reading detailed apple news shows you're probably a bit smarter then 99% of the population.
If I go into a store looking for "that tablet thing everyone is talking about" (ie iPad) and I come upon a rectangular looking device with black boarders and little icons over the screen in the same shape and pattern as the iPad, for most people, that's enough to confuse them. The iPad started a new category, and unless the Samsung design was significantly different, people would just figure it the same tablet they heard about or saw on TV.
That's why apple is focusing so hard on "overall impression" when you see the device. The overall impression is what people remember and identify with, not the printed label or techie spec details.
OK I'll buy that but again were any other tablets other than the Tab purchased believing they were iPads and who's to blame for that?
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
haven't people heard of genericized naming? The first "real" tablet on the market to gain any market share was the iPad. The iPad has since become associated with every tablet device, with the possible exception of the kindle fire, because people associate that as an ebook reader first. I imagine a lot of people are lazy and don't want to say computer tablet or whatever (and just saying tablet can be confused with a tablet of paper), and just say ipad. They are not using it to mean an apple device, but a tablet computer. It's the same reason people often refer to non-apple mp3 players as an ipod. it's often easier than saying "it's an mp3 player... similar to an ipod, but made by XYZ and cheaper". When a company dominates the market as much as apple does, it is expected that people will start to genericize the product's name. It's not a matter of competitors intentionally fooling the masses, but rather that the masses haven't really seen the other devices.
With android, the same is also true. The term iphone is so well known now that many people use it to refer to all smart phones. Saying please, no using your iphones during XYZ is often easier than saying smartphones or whatever, and everyone knows what the speaker means. When one company spends billions advertising their device, it's no wonder other people ask for another companies version of the ipad. The samsung galaxy tablet performs many of the same functions as an ipad, so to many consumers, it is samsung's ipad. They realize it's not the exact same thing, but if it can perform the same functions, than why not refer to them the same way. With apple performing so much marketing, and having the mindshare they have, it's no wonder other companies have a hard time distinguishing their products from apple's.
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
If this article has been linked from AI I haven't seen it so apologies in advance if it has but otherwise enjoy the read.
Samsung: power, corruption and lies. Mic Wright wonders why Samsung isn’t more closely scrutinised, given the company’s chequered past and allegations made against its ruling family’s professional ethics.
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.
I'll readily admit that Samsung did cause some confusion as I myself was fooled for a split second when I first picked up a Galaxy Tab but as Mr Wolf said the subterfuge didn't hold up upon closer inspection.
No doubt, but the test is not whether the subterfuge succeeded, but whether it occurred.
Comments
Samsung's lawyers: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, sure there are similarities between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. After all, 99% of the components in the iPad come from Samsung. Now I ask you, are a Wookie and Ewoke the same thing? Of course they are not yet they certainly have similar traits. Now do you think that George Lucas would have made both a Wookie and Ewoke if he thought that his audience of children would be confused? Again, of course not. The defense rests."
That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I can forgive an initial confusion upon seeing the Tab 10.1 but to actually purchase it and take it home because they thought it was an iPad is the pinnacle of stupidity. I'm also sure many were misled even further by salespeople. That cannot be blamed 100% on Samsung.
Most people who buy technology are not extremely intelligent. The fact you are here at a technology website reading detailed apple news shows you're probably a bit smarter then 99% of the population.
If I go into a store looking for "that tablet thing everyone is talking about" (ie iPad) and I come upon a rectangular looking device with black boarders and little icons over the screen in the same shape and pattern as the iPad, for most people, that's enough to confuse them. The iPad started a new category, and unless the Samsung design was significantly different, people would just figure it the same tablet they heard about or saw on TV.
That's why apple is focusing so hard on "overall impression" when you see the device. The overall impression is what people remember and identify with, not the printed label or techie spec details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Samsung's lawyers: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, sure there are similarities between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. After all, 99% of the components in the iPad come from Samsung. Now I ask you, are a Wookie and Ewoke the same thing? Of course they are not yet they certainly have similar traits. Now do you think that George Lucas would have made both a Wookie and Ewoke if he thought that his audience of children would be confused? Again, of course not. The defense rests."
i know that it is pretty much impossible to ignore samsung because they have certain "privileges" in korea that no other similar company gets in any country. my hope is for apple to invest heavily on foxconn and similar companies so they can up their game and together destroy that huge pile of criminals. Personaly i would like to see them exterminated, at least that corrupt culture, not the "name" samsung but that would be a bad thing for me to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
That is undoubtedly true, but the question is whether Samsung deliberately fostered the confusion by intentional imitation. Some of their internal documents have indicated that they were aware of the possibility of copying too closely, but the overall impression I get is that they ended up copying as closely as they thought they could get away with, and not much indication that they sought to come up with good design ideas to differentiate their products from Apple's.
it reminds me of that email about google and java... i believe nothing good to apple will happen from this. they have other priorities and more deadly ways to settle this against that pile of criminal garbage.
I never really used to think that Samsung copied Apple much...until I saw this picture on someone's Facebook...
At first I was like 'what's up with her iPad?' - then...well...
Quadra, assuming that you were LTD, I remember you getting alot of flack over this on MacRumors.
I'll readily admit that Samsung did cause some confusion as I myself was fooled for a split second when I first picked up a Galaxy Tab but as Mr Wolf said the subterfuge didn't hold up upon closer inspection.
OK I'll buy that but again were any other tablets other than the Tab purchased believing they were iPads and who's to blame for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/alan-kay-steve-jobs-ipad-iphone,10209.html
http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/
haven't people heard of genericized naming? The first "real" tablet on the market to gain any market share was the iPad. The iPad has since become associated with every tablet device, with the possible exception of the kindle fire, because people associate that as an ebook reader first. I imagine a lot of people are lazy and don't want to say computer tablet or whatever (and just saying tablet can be confused with a tablet of paper), and just say ipad. They are not using it to mean an apple device, but a tablet computer. It's the same reason people often refer to non-apple mp3 players as an ipod. it's often easier than saying "it's an mp3 player... similar to an ipod, but made by XYZ and cheaper". When a company dominates the market as much as apple does, it is expected that people will start to genericize the product's name. It's not a matter of competitors intentionally fooling the masses, but rather that the masses haven't really seen the other devices.
With android, the same is also true. The term iphone is so well known now that many people use it to refer to all smart phones. Saying please, no using your iphones during XYZ is often easier than saying smartphones or whatever, and everyone knows what the speaker means. When one company spends billions advertising their device, it's no wonder other people ask for another companies version of the ipad. The samsung galaxy tablet performs many of the same functions as an ipad, so to many consumers, it is samsung's ipad. They realize it's not the exact same thing, but if it can perform the same functions, than why not refer to them the same way. With apple performing so much marketing, and having the mindshare they have, it's no wonder other companies have a hard time distinguishing their products from apple's.
Phil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/alan-kay-steve-jobs-ipad-iphone,10209.html
http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni
It seems pretty awesome? hilarious? etc that all these documents apple is putting forth in the trial are internal Samsung documents.
Samsung must enjoy crucifying themselves?
Here's the kicker: THESE were the documents they didn't have time to destroy. Imagine what got fed into the fire!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/alan-kay-steve-jobs-ipad-iphone,10209.html
http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/
Samsung: power, corruption and lies. Mic Wright wonders why Samsung isn’t more closely scrutinised, given the company’s chequered past and allegations made against its ruling family’s professional ethics.
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/
In other news, Dominoes has filed suit against Papa Johns.
Dominoes claims that they have been damaged by the fact that Papa John's pizzas are also round.
This has to end sometime, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
In a manner of speaking, that is true. Apple reinvented the tablet, twice.
Like many other useful appliances, tablet computers have a long history. IMHO, the most influential contribution was the Dynabook, proposed by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in the late 1960s.
A design study for a tablet with a form factor and UI largely similar to iPads was developed in mid 1990s by Knight-Ridder.
The development of useful tablet computers was halted by the size and energy consumption of displays until mid 2000s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/alan-kay-steve-jobs-ipad-iphone,10209.html
http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/
No doubt, but the test is not whether the subterfuge succeeded, but whether it occurred.
Originally Posted by Woodlink
This has to end sometime, right?
It'll end when people who don't understand the argument either accept they don't understand the argument or wise up and start to understand it.
Actually, as compelling as this sounds at first, it's really an effect of first to market/advertiser impressions...
For example... what do you think of when you see...
1. A Bandaid?
2. A Xerox Copy?
3. A Kleenex tissue?
4. A FedEx'd package?
These are all examples of incredibly strong product brands now associated with an entire segment of products or services.
People don't see or call tablet PCs, tablet PCs... they almost always call them iPads... even if its a POS grey market tablet.
My 2-cents.