... Also, and I'm not trying to be argumentative here, if you come across someone who *cannot* read an analogue clock, then I say that is because they are dumb, or there has been a serious failing in their education. ...
Generally, (because I am ancient myself), I agree with this sort of reasoning, but speaking as someone who has trouble reading analogue clocks themselves, I'm also a bit insulted.
I *can* read an analogue clock, but I find it awkward and basically lost the habit after getting used to digital readouts in the early 70's. I even have (one) analogue clock at home, but to read it you have to look at it, think about what numbers it's pointing to, then "say the words" in your head to yourself that it's "quarter to five" or "just after quarter to six" or whatever. There's not much point in doing that when you can have a clock that just displays the time in numbers.
With a digital clock you just have to read the dial. The time is what it says, and what it says is the time.
Just as practically no one uses ordinals like 28th or 3rd, or 2nd now, and just as the use of "12 noon" and "12 midnight" has followed "thee" and "thine" into history, analogue clocks will go the same way. They aren't efficient, and yes, they require a bit of deciphering for the average young person today, especially the ones with no numbers or only one number etc. One day soon they will be looked at the same way as sundials are now. As a quaint, old-timey, way of telling the time that isn't very accurate but makes a nice decorative display.
well, it's not like one's a dead ringer of the other ...
If you take the time to actually LOOK at the two faces, numerous differences in detail can be seen. Most people see at a basic, symbolic, level. For them, both faces have a white background, heavy ticks for hours and light ticks for minutes. Both hour hands are shorter than the minute hands and the seconds hands are thin and red with a round head on them. To a symbolic see-r both faces are therefore the same. BUT, in the Apple face, all the heavy black lines are the same width: hour ticks, hour and minute hands. When minute and hour hands overlap, you momentarily see only the minute hand. All three hands have the same length from center on their short ends. The diameter of the red dot at the center point of the second hand is the same dimension as the width of the hour and minute hands, which creates visually weak points on the hands at the center point. In the original face, the hour and minute hands are tapered, adding weight at the center, where it is expected based on subliminal knowledge of how natural objects are formed. The hour ticks are narrower than the minute hand, which is in turn narrower than the hour hand. If you squint and blur the images, the hour hand is the most prominent object in the composition due to its weight and contrast with the white background, the minute hand is next most prominent, followed closely by the hour tick marks. I would say the second hand is next, about equal with the second tick marks, but it could be argued that it's color makes it the only member of the second of two groups, namely; Group 1: Things that are black, and Group 2: Things that are red. Making it possible for people to visually process the black things and the red things simultaneously and easily choose which one to focus on. I would say the single most prominent similarity between the two faces is the red second hand.
When you actually pay attention to the shapes and overall composition, the two faces are only similar at first glance. Apple's attention to detail is legendary. I'm surprised that, given the fact that refined details on a virtual face do not involve extra costs that might constrain a physical clock face, they weren't done here.
When you actually pay attention to the shapes and overall composition, the two faces are only similar at first glance.
This sounds like the arguments for why Samsung didn't copy Apple. Why does Apple get a pass from you on this? Apple sure doesn't give itself a pass, once it was brought to their attention.
<br style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">well, it's not like one's a dead ringer of the other ...</span>
If you take the time to actually LOOK at the two faces, numerous differences in detail can be seen. Most people see at a basic, symbolic, level. For them, both faces have a white background, heavy ticks for hours and light ticks for minutes. Both hour hands are shorter than the minute hands and the seconds hands are thin and red with a round head on them. To a symbolic see-r both faces are therefore the same. BUT, in the Apple face, all the heavy black lines are the same width: hour ticks, hour and minute hands.
[a whole bunch of text removed]
sorry, my comment was in keeping with the other groaner puns here ... but thanks for the comparison notes.
What are you talking about? If Apple was a clock manufacturer, and went to court claiming the design was not a copy, but was inspired by the weather, or some such... and there were lots of side by side design comparisons found in Jony Ive's desk with meeting minutes describing discussion of the Swiss Rail Clock... you might have a point. I think you are HUGELY out to lunch, here.
You are missing the point here.
Apple copied and got caught doing it. By settling, they've basically agreed that they did indeed copy, which goes against the very thing that Apple is accusing Samsung of "slavishly copying" their design.
Isnt that quite QUITE an ironic thing to say?
It's like telling others not to be a bully when you yourself just stole the little kid's lunch money no less than 10 minutes ago.
Therefore, Apple is basically hiding under the veil of "protection of their IP" mantra to stiffle competition at the throat.
The California Appeals court just gave Judge Koh the ultimate slap in the face by saying that she "abused" her discretion and the court was "at best incorrect".
"At best"...lol.
That means that the same appeals court will also look with a skeptical eye on the court case that was appealed by Samsung. It already leaves a bad taste on their pallate. Not good. lol
Just watch as the main court case will either be retrialed or "at best" (appeals court's favorite expression) be thrown out.
The entire objective of the lawsuit was to demonstrate to other companies of how serious Apple was about its so called "IP". However, its looking more and more like that its only helping their competitors win the spotlight through all these skirmishes at the same time getting all the negative flack for being the bully in it all. How ironic x2.
Your continued belief that what happened her is in any way similar to what Samsung did shows that you have no idea what you're talking about… and that you don't care.
Your continued belief that what happened her is in any way similar to what Samsung did shows that you have no idea what you're talking about… and that you don't care.
It's that same one-track mindset that has people claiming that the SBB clock is so amazingly different than the Apple one. Both sides have their fanboys and apologists and it keeps baffling people who wonder why anyone has to pick a "side" on something like a consumer electronics product. XD
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak
I love that watch... Anybody have a link to buy?
You can look at all of the Mondaine watches here --
http://www.mondaine.com/mondaine-watches/display_family/3
They start out around $140 and up.
Apple also appropriated another design in the 1990s.
Which uses elements of Alain Silberstein's watches.
If you like Mondaine watches (and have some money) also look into Nomos Glashütte watches
http://www.nomos-glashuette.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffe
... Also, and I'm not trying to be argumentative here, if you come across someone who *cannot* read an analogue clock, then I say that is because they are dumb, or there has been a serious failing in their education. ...
Generally, (because I am ancient myself), I agree with this sort of reasoning, but speaking as someone who has trouble reading analogue clocks themselves, I'm also a bit insulted.
I *can* read an analogue clock, but I find it awkward and basically lost the habit after getting used to digital readouts in the early 70's. I even have (one) analogue clock at home, but to read it you have to look at it, think about what numbers it's pointing to, then "say the words" in your head to yourself that it's "quarter to five" or "just after quarter to six" or whatever. There's not much point in doing that when you can have a clock that just displays the time in numbers.
With a digital clock you just have to read the dial. The time is what it says, and what it says is the time.
Just as practically no one uses ordinals like 28th or 3rd, or 2nd now, and just as the use of "12 noon" and "12 midnight" has followed "thee" and "thine" into history, analogue clocks will go the same way. They aren't efficient, and yes, they require a bit of deciphering for the average young person today, especially the ones with no numbers or only one number etc. One day soon they will be looked at the same way as sundials are now. As a quaint, old-timey, way of telling the time that isn't very accurate but makes a nice decorative display.
With the open and free Google mindset, we should decry the railroad's claim; do they think they own a patent on rounded clocks?
I think it's time to wind up this thread.
I wish people would watch it with the puns. I'm starting to get ticked off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by binglyboop
I wish people would watch it with the puns. I'm starting to get ticked off.
naaah
time to hand out an award -
well, it's not like one's a dead ringer of the other ...
Originally Posted by binglyboop
I wish people would watch it with the puns. I'm starting to get ticked off.
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred
naaah
time to hand out an award -
Please tell me that these are also puns. It's not nearly time for this thread to clock out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I wish people would watch it with the puns. I'm starting to get ticked off.
Please tell me that these are also puns. It's not nearly time for this thread to clock out.
You missed one of mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
Hyperbole much? These two look NOTHING alike?
well, it's not like one's a dead ringer of the other ...
If you take the time to actually LOOK at the two faces, numerous differences in detail can be seen. Most people see at a basic, symbolic, level. For them, both faces have a white background, heavy ticks for hours and light ticks for minutes. Both hour hands are shorter than the minute hands and the seconds hands are thin and red with a round head on them. To a symbolic see-r both faces are therefore the same. BUT, in the Apple face, all the heavy black lines are the same width: hour ticks, hour and minute hands. When minute and hour hands overlap, you momentarily see only the minute hand. All three hands have the same length from center on their short ends. The diameter of the red dot at the center point of the second hand is the same dimension as the width of the hour and minute hands, which creates visually weak points on the hands at the center point. In the original face, the hour and minute hands are tapered, adding weight at the center, where it is expected based on subliminal knowledge of how natural objects are formed. The hour ticks are narrower than the minute hand, which is in turn narrower than the hour hand. If you squint and blur the images, the hour hand is the most prominent object in the composition due to its weight and contrast with the white background, the minute hand is next most prominent, followed closely by the hour tick marks. I would say the second hand is next, about equal with the second tick marks, but it could be argued that it's color makes it the only member of the second of two groups, namely; Group 1: Things that are black, and Group 2: Things that are red. Making it possible for people to visually process the black things and the red things simultaneously and easily choose which one to focus on. I would say the single most prominent similarity between the two faces is the red second hand.
When you actually pay attention to the shapes and overall composition, the two faces are only similar at first glance. Apple's attention to detail is legendary. I'm surprised that, given the fact that refined details on a virtual face do not involve extra costs that might constrain a physical clock face, they weren't done here.
Originally Posted by binglyboop
You missed one of mine.
SKOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH. That one hurt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Please tell me that these are also puns. It's not nearly time for this thread to clock out.
Can you all quit it with these lame second hand jokes? Geez.
Anyway, my time's up. Gotta skidaddle. In fact I'm late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apersona
When you actually pay attention to the shapes and overall composition, the two faces are only similar at first glance.
This sounds like the arguments for why Samsung didn't copy Apple. Why does Apple get a pass from you on this? Apple sure doesn't give itself a pass, once it was brought to their attention.
sorry, my comment was in keeping with the other groaner puns here ... but thanks for the comparison notes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
What are you talking about? If Apple was a clock manufacturer, and went to court claiming the design was not a copy, but was inspired by the weather, or some such... and there were lots of side by side design comparisons found in Jony Ive's desk with meeting minutes describing discussion of the Swiss Rail Clock... you might have a point. I think you are HUGELY out to lunch, here.
You are missing the point here.
Apple copied and got caught doing it. By settling, they've basically agreed that they did indeed copy, which goes against the very thing that Apple is accusing Samsung of "slavishly copying" their design.
Isnt that quite QUITE an ironic thing to say?
It's like telling others not to be a bully when you yourself just stole the little kid's lunch money no less than 10 minutes ago.
Therefore, Apple is basically hiding under the veil of "protection of their IP" mantra to stiffle competition at the throat.
The California Appeals court just gave Judge Koh the ultimate slap in the face by saying that she "abused" her discretion and the court was "at best incorrect".
"At best"...lol.
That means that the same appeals court will also look with a skeptical eye on the court case that was appealed by Samsung. It already leaves a bad taste on their pallate. Not good. lol
Just watch as the main court case will either be retrialed or "at best" (appeals court's favorite expression) be thrown out.
The entire objective of the lawsuit was to demonstrate to other companies of how serious Apple was about its so called "IP". However, its looking more and more like that its only helping their competitors win the spotlight through all these skirmishes at the same time getting all the negative flack for being the bully in it all. How ironic x2.
Originally Posted by Galbi
Apple copied and got caught doing it.
Your continued belief that what happened her is in any way similar to what Samsung did shows that you have no idea what you're talking about… and that you don't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Your continued belief that what happened her is in any way similar to what Samsung did shows that you have no idea what you're talking about… and that you don't care.
It's that same one-track mindset that has people claiming that the SBB clock is so amazingly different than the Apple one. Both sides have their fanboys and apologists and it keeps baffling people who wonder why anyone has to pick a "side" on something like a consumer electronics product. XD