One thing is sure: after the agreement (with the unknown amount of compensation) if Android makers copy the clock from iOS, they could be, should be in trouble.
By the way, if Apple paid for the design, it would want exclusivity right, exactly to protect itself from the copytitors.
If you are trying to say that they knew it was trademarked etc and used it anyway, you can't really back that up. It is a majorly simple design and it is possible that it was assumed that it was too simple to be protected. Plus trademarks are market specific and it is very possible that a judge would say that watches/clocks and time telling software are not the same market do Apple is in the clear.
Apple and SBB came to an agreement. The terms and money are unknown. As is what Apple knew etc
It may well have the appearance of being 'simple' but that is usually the case in all the very best designs.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple can make more use now of such an iconic design.
For those having trouble getting this $21 million as a value proposition, try comparing it to advertising. It's the equivalent of 3.5 minutes of Super Bowl commercial time.
The design is worth copying, and therefore worth buying. It's clean, beautiful in its simplicity, instantly readable, non-exclusive culturally (no Arabic/Western number characters), interesting, and very Zen, while being precise in a Swiss way.
Its iconic value is huge. People will recognize it, contemplate it, talk about it, feel good about it—unless they don't get it, like some here. But even those people are affected by it.
The best thing about it: it could rescue the ancient analog clock face from digital destruction for another generation.
Apple did not need to pay Swiss Railways, they could have simply apologized and changed the clock face. I have a feeling the $21M was paid more to keep the story quiet. If Apple apologized and changed the clock face, it probably would have caused bad press. That bad press, in Apple's opinion, was worth about $21M to keep out of the media. Possible?
Apple did not need to pay Swiss Railways, they could have simply apologized and changed the clock face.
Why should they have compromised on the design they wanted?
I have a feeling the $21M was paid more to keep the story quiet. If Apple apologized and changed the clock face, it probably would have caused bad press. That bad press, in Apple's opinion, was worth about $21M to keep out of the media. Possible?
Sounds like it's being screamed throughout the media BECAUSE Apple paid for it.
Why should they have compromised on the design they wanted?
Which would make sense if they used the same clock design on iPhone too but for some reason they did not so the original design is apparently not so bad.
Options: 1. Use the original design along with the train company's name in full and then charge SFR one dollar for advertising. The original is elegant in simplicity. Both win.
2. Post the offer for designs that would include the originator's name (brand) discretely below the clock and then choose the three best submissions. Then donate $7 million per design to the charities of their choice.
3. Apple designs its own iconic clock face.
4. Let the user choose his/er own face shape, hands, markers and colours to personalise their timepieces.
Which would make sense if they used the same clock design on iPhone too but for some reason they did not so the original design is apparently not so bad.
Okay, does that somehow invalidate this one being better?
Only a figure of speech. Just the this morning I was speaking with someone who informed me that the person I needed to wait for comes in at 9:30 AM and we both simultaneously pulled out our iPhones from of our pockets and in unison said "ok it is 9:06 right now". The only place in my life where there is an analog clock in on my iOS devices.
That's amazing! Especially so since the digital clock on the iPhone is not terribly accurate. You might find this app informative:
WHAT!! Do the swiss have a patent on the circle! These two designs are different. Apple's is much better, besides it's the only way it could have been designed.
the AI pictures don't represent the original clock design (wikipedia) :
Apple clock is a complete copy -minus the logo- of the original design, the pictures showed here are misleading.
For those having trouble getting this $21 million as a value proposition, try comparing it to advertising. It's the equivalent of 3.5 minutes of Super Bowl commercial time.
The design is worth copying, and therfore worth buying. It's clean, beautiful in its simplicity, instantly readable, non-exclusive culturally (no Arabic/Western number characters), interesting, and very Zen, while being precise in a Swiss way.
Its iconic value is huge. People will recognize it, contemplate it, talk about it, feel good about it—unless they don't get it, like some here. But even those people are affected by it.
The best thing about it: it could rescue the ancient analog clock face from digital destruction for snother generation.
Yeah they argue tooth and nail for $1 per iPhone for Motorola's important cellular patents yet give more than $2 per iPad that will be sold this quarter for a clock face. Makes no sense. They should have just apologized and changed it back to the original design.
Well, now that they've bought the rights, they can use it on any of their devices (reducing the price to a few pennies per device.)
Following is directed not to you, specifically, but to various posters, possibly including you:
Whoever said it was busy is sadly visually illiterate, as are any kids who can't read an analog clock. This points to a basic attention lapse in our artistic, cultural, and educational efforts. Reading a clock is like tying shoes -- it's so elemental children should be learning it from other children by the age of 5.
They did pay a lot. But Apple appreciates good design. The SBB design truly is iconic. Swiss graphic designers were so far ahead of their time. Look at this clock face: 1944 --- amazing! It's so incredibly legible, at any distance. No numbers. Symbolic, but once initiated, completely transparent. Really, it is a semiotic triumph (nerdy, I know, but true.)
Apple's design is superior, but clearly derivative. So of course they paid for it. Superior, because it's even more simple, iconic, and readable than the original.
Better contrast between the major and minor tick marks on the dial.
Better contrast between the hour and second hands.
No needless tapering of the hands.
Drop shadowing that enhances readability (a rarity, I generally find drop shadows annoying, but not on this.)
I even prefer the square gray frame. It sets of the clock face reducing distraction.
If SBB still had their long tradition of visual culture, they would have rewarded Apple publicly by reducing the settlement, then cross licensing with Apple, and adopting some of Apple's improvements in their own design. (This would have been a classic example of "Great artists steal" [in this case, "steal back."] But SBB has n't been great for 40-50 years.)
Apple's design is superior, but clearly derivative.
Read my post above: the design is exactly the same between the existing clocks and Apple's one, only AI cherry-picked illustrations are misleadingly feigning otherwise.
Comments
Originally Posted by sip
Apple should have stuck their logo on the end of the second-hand, with the Apple turning and remaining right-way-up as the seconds ticked away.
But see, that's ugly.
One thing is sure: after the agreement (with the unknown amount of compensation) if Android makers copy the clock from iOS, they could be, should be in trouble.
By the way, if Apple paid for the design, it would want exclusivity right, exactly to protect itself from the copytitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
If you are trying to say that they knew it was trademarked etc and used it anyway, you can't really back that up. It is a majorly simple design and it is possible that it was assumed that it was too simple to be protected. Plus trademarks are market specific and it is very possible that a judge would say that watches/clocks and time telling software are not the same market do Apple is in the clear.
Apple and SBB came to an agreement. The terms and money are unknown. As is what Apple knew etc
It may well have the appearance of being 'simple' but that is usually the case in all the very best designs.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple can make more use now of such an iconic design.
The design is worth copying, and therefore worth buying. It's clean, beautiful in its simplicity, instantly readable, non-exclusive culturally (no Arabic/Western number characters), interesting, and very Zen, while being precise in a Swiss way.
Its iconic value is huge. People will recognize it, contemplate it, talk about it, feel good about it—unless they don't get it, like some here. But even those people are affected by it.
The best thing about it: it could rescue the ancient analog clock face from digital destruction for another generation.
Apple did not need to pay Swiss Railways, they could have simply apologized and changed the clock face. I have a feeling the $21M was paid more to keep the story quiet. If Apple apologized and changed the clock face, it probably would have caused bad press. That bad press, in Apple's opinion, was worth about $21M to keep out of the media. Possible?
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
Apple did not need to pay Swiss Railways, they could have simply apologized and changed the clock face.
Why should they have compromised on the design they wanted?
I have a feeling the $21M was paid more to keep the story quiet. If Apple apologized and changed the clock face, it probably would have caused bad press. That bad press, in Apple's opinion, was worth about $21M to keep out of the media. Possible?
Sounds like it's being screamed throughout the media BECAUSE Apple paid for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why should they have compromised on the design they wanted?
Which would make sense if they used the same clock design on iPhone too but for some reason they did not so the original design is apparently not so bad.
I'm ashamed!
This is irresponsible spending.
1. Use the original design along with the train company's name in full and then charge SFR one dollar for advertising. The original is elegant in simplicity. Both win.
2. Post the offer for designs that would include the originator's name (brand) discretely below the clock and then choose the three best submissions. Then donate $7 million per design to the charities of their choice.
3. Apple designs its own iconic clock face.
4. Let the user choose his/er own face shape, hands, markers and colours to personalise their timepieces.
Originally Posted by mstone
Which would make sense if they used the same clock design on iPhone too but for some reason they did not so the original design is apparently not so bad.
Okay, does that somehow invalidate this one being better?
Originally Posted by nkalu
I'm ashamed!
This is irresponsible spending.
You don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Only a figure of speech. Just the this morning I was speaking with someone who informed me that the person I needed to wait for comes in at 9:30 AM and we both simultaneously pulled out our iPhones from of our pockets and in unison said "ok it is 9:06 right now". The only place in my life where there is an analog clock in on my iOS devices.
That's amazing! Especially so since the digital clock on the iPhone is not terribly accurate. You might find this app informative:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/emerald-time/id290384375?mt=8
Apple clock is a complete copy -minus the logo- of the original design, the pictures showed here are misleading.
Originally Posted by Blitz1
Apple doesn't seem capable to design its own clock-face. I have not so much as heard of iPhone OS 1, 2, 3, or iOS 4 or 5, much less seen them.
Glad we cleared that up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
For those having trouble getting this $21 million as a value proposition, try comparing it to advertising. It's the equivalent of 3.5 minutes of Super Bowl commercial time.
The design is worth copying, and therfore worth buying. It's clean, beautiful in its simplicity, instantly readable, non-exclusive culturally (no Arabic/Western number characters), interesting, and very Zen, while being precise in a Swiss way.
Its iconic value is huge. People will recognize it, contemplate it, talk about it, feel good about it—unless they don't get it, like some here. But even those people are affected by it.
The best thing about it: it could rescue the ancient analog clock face from digital destruction for snother generation.
Just about a perfect post. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
Possible?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Yeah they argue tooth and nail for $1 per iPhone for Motorola's important cellular patents yet give more than $2 per iPad that will be sold this quarter for a clock face. Makes no sense. They should have just apologized and changed it back to the original design.
Well, now that they've bought the rights, they can use it on any of their devices (reducing the price to a few pennies per device.)
Following is directed not to you, specifically, but to various posters, possibly including you:
Whoever said it was busy is sadly visually illiterate, as are any kids who can't read an analog clock. This points to a basic attention lapse in our artistic, cultural, and educational efforts. Reading a clock is like tying shoes -- it's so elemental children should be learning it from other children by the age of 5.
They did pay a lot. But Apple appreciates good design. The SBB design truly is iconic. Swiss graphic designers were so far ahead of their time. Look at this clock face: 1944 --- amazing! It's so incredibly legible, at any distance. No numbers. Symbolic, but once initiated, completely transparent. Really, it is a semiotic triumph (nerdy, I know, but true.)
Apple's design is superior, but clearly derivative. So of course they paid for it. Superior, because it's even more simple, iconic, and readable than the original.
Better contrast between the major and minor tick marks on the dial.
Better contrast between the hour and second hands.
No needless tapering of the hands.
Drop shadowing that enhances readability (a rarity, I generally find drop shadows annoying, but not on this.)
I even prefer the square gray frame. It sets of the clock face reducing distraction.
If SBB still had their long tradition of visual culture, they would have rewarded Apple publicly by reducing the settlement, then cross licensing with Apple, and adopting some of Apple's improvements in their own design. (This would have been a classic example of "Great artists steal" [in this case, "steal back."] But SBB has n't been great for 40-50 years.)
+1
But I might be a little biased.
Still, I love the disign. It' timeless, yet it shows the time.
So you accuse Apple to pay for something they use in their system rather than stealing.
This logic sounds very samsungish to me! :rolleyes: