Fact is that trend in the whole mobile industry round 2005-2007 (even before) was to increase the screen size and to add touch functionality. It's just one step in the evolution of mobile phones. Some companies and products got there a bit sooner and some a bit later.
Motorola had ROKR E6 (2005)
LG had KE850 Prada (2007)
Apple had iPhone (2007)
Sony Ericsson had P1 (2007) -> Experia X1 (2008)
Samsung had F700 (2007)
HTC had P3600 (2006-2007) -> Touch HD (2008)
Blackberry had Storm 9530 (2008)
HP had iPAQ h6310 (2004-2005) ...
Asus had P535 (2006-2007)
Gigabyte had GSmart i128 (2005-2006)
- yes some of the first touchscreen devices still had more and some less buttons in physical form.
So:
- if you follow this evolution and stretch the display as far as possible (or reducing the bevel as much as possible),
- if you want to use as much of that screen space as possible,
...
at the end all high-end phones will lookalike and only a fool could claim that one company copied the design from someone else.
In general: claiming that they all look like iPhone is as megalomanic as claiming that our galaxy is the center of the universe. No pun intended.
The problem with your argument is not all smartphones do look a like now. Samsung's newer Galaxy phones don't look like an iPhone. Nokia is making interesting non-iPhone looking phones. HTC's phones also have a distinct look. Nokia didn't even believe the iPhone was possible when it was first announced, so it seems like a stretch to say everybody was moving in that direction. Some of the other phones you mention were bricks. The Prada used Adobe Flash as the GUI layer. None of those players had an Operating System capable of driving an iPhone quality phone.
Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans. I remember sitting in a Best Buy once by a Samsung phone display. Two people in the five minutes I was there thought the phone was an iPhone. They were right it looked just like one. That was intentional and a jury agreed.
What's the hot new trendy term for "outsourcing" these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
"Business as usual."
Oh that! That's not new or trendy. In fact I find the phrase "Business as usual" to be far more antiquated than "outsourcing."
"Business men" have used the term "Business as usual" to justify their "business practices" since the dawn of time — everything from slavery to fraud can be described as "business as usual."
Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans. I remember sitting in a Best Buy once by a Samsung phone display. Two people in the five minutes I was there thought the phone was an iPhone. They were right it looked just like one. That was intentional and a jury agreed.
The problem with your argument is not all smartphones do look a like now. Samsung's newer Galaxy phones don't look like an iPhone. Nokia is making interesting non-iPhone looking phones. HTC's phones also have a distinct look.
Yes and No. Depends from how far you judge them. Smaller details are different from phone to phone but generally they are all flat, rectangle like with more or less rounded corners.
Just compare it to the cell phone era. Back then we had much more diverse looking phones, because the design was not driven by the touch screen like it is today. Today the difference is measured by the radius of curvature and size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans. I remember sitting in a Best Buy once by a Samsung phone display. Two people in the five minutes I was there thought the phone was an iPhone. They were right it looked just like one. That was intentional and a jury agreed.
Even with the big SAMSUNG logo on the phones forehead, even with the big square button on the bottom not to mention two additional ones on the side. They probably thought that Samsung is making iPhones. . These two people probably would not be able to tell the difference between iPhone and any other smartphone (OK - they might spot the difference if the other phone had a physical keyboard) - back then many didn't even know that there are other smartphones other than iPhone.
Packaging?
So what package shape do you think Samsung should have chosen?
- I think choosing a cuboid like package for a cuboid shaped object makes sense.
What dimensions should have been chosen?
- I say adding a bit on the sides of a product (protection) and a quite a bit up or down so you can place all other accessories is a sensible choice for a size of the box.
What color should have been chosen?
- Well the phone is black... ...
Do you think black should have been reserved to Apple alone?
Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans.
That idea makes no sense.
How would selling chips tell a supplier what the iPhone case looked like, its software, or its packaging?
The fact is, Samsung didn't start following the iPhone theme until around 2010, years after the iPhone was available to anyone to look at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
Packaging?
So what package shape do you think Samsung should have chosen?
The whole packaging debate is ridiculous anyway:
Apple used to use a book-like box for its small devices. Device on one side.
Months before the iPhone came out, the LG Prada used a new style of box where you took off the lid and the smartphone was staring you in the face, with accessories underneath.
You left out Microsoft. Windows Mobile had the ability and even some nice hardware. In retrospect, it was a mistake for MS to abandon the user base they had by dumping WinMo for Windows Phone.
The mistake was abandoning it sooner, for thinking that making a PDA/phone OS work the same way as a desktop OS, and for not working to make a single unified platform for which to work from. They finally did the right thing, just way too late.
The mistake was abandoning it sooner, for thinking that making a PDA/phone OS work the same way as a desktop OS, and for not working to make a single unified platform for which to work from. They finally did the right thing, just way too late.
I agree. They should've made the kernel better, sooner. (It was planned, but took too long.)
They did try to make things source compatible, and so did third parties. There was a really nice .Net implementation for WM and CE, that allowed you to pretty much write code that had major pieces that worked on desktop or mobile.
It wasn't quite as friendly and simple as that. But yes, there was a payment in stock for something. Xerox and Apple just didn't perfectly agree on what that was.
COMPANY NEWS; Xerox Sues Apple Computer Over Macintosh Copyright
By LAWRENCE M. FISHER, Special to The New York Times
Published: December 15, 1989
The Xerox Corporation filed suit here today against Apple Computer Inc., accusing it of unlawfully using Xerox copyrights in its Macintosh and Lisa computers.
Xerox's suit, which was filed in Federal District Court, charges Apple with copyright misrepresentation and seeks more than $150 million in royalties and damages.
Xerox contends that the Lisa and Macintosh software stems from work originally done by Xerox scientists and that it was used by Apple without permission . . .
Edit: There's a very thorough history here, and a really informative read. Nothing in it that should bother any Apple fan.
I agree. They should've made the kernel better, sooner. (It was planned, but took too long.)
They did try to make things source compatible, and so did third parties. There was a really nice .Net implementation for WM and CE, that allowed you to pretty much write code that had major pieces that worked on desktop or mobile.
Too little, too late.
The only thing MS has going for it is a lot of money and the willingness to invest in seemingly failed products. They could push Win Phone along with no adoption for years and perhaps when there is a paradigm shift be ready to jump in to take the lead.
It wasn't [SIZE=14px]quite[/SIZE] as friendly and simple as that. But yes, there was a payment in stock for something. Xerox and Apple just didn't perfectly agree on what that was.
That case was dismissed before it ever got started and as you note it wasn't about any licensing for the GUI but specific aspects that were in disagreement, which is considerably different from the Apple v MS case, which we know Apple lost.
But you're not claiming that Xerox and Apple saw eye-to-eye on what Xerox IP Apple was permitted to use are you? The suit was evidence Xerox thought something was "stolen".
EDIT: Kudos for using Google Scholar! I doubt most here have any idea it exists.
But you're not claiming that Xerox and Apple saw eye-to-eye on what Xerox IP Apple was permitted to use are you? The suit was evidence Xerox thought something was "stolen".
EDIT: Kudos for using Google Scholar! I doubt most here have any idea it exists.
1) Sure, they certainly didn't see eye-to-eye or there would have been no lawsuit, warranted or not. I do seem to recall that the issue wasn't so much over what was used but how it was used. specifically not giving the proper credit for what they were allowed to use when they shipped their systems. I could be completely wrong on that but I don't feel like researching it as it was a very long time ago and have a lunch date to attend.
2) I found that link via a citation in Wikipedia. I never would have thought to use GS directly.
3) Remember when widescreen was vertical and it made perfect sense because it mirrored a piece of paper?
You betcha Samsung are worried about losing component orders - where else are they going to get the ideas to put into their highly profitable 'no research needed' copying business?
While the evidence that Samsung was methodically copying its largest customer's products only became public after Apple sued to stop Samsung, sources within other companies indicate that Samsung has behaved similarly with its other customers.
The Low-hanging fruit situation for Samsung is over. They are already convincing themselves that they got to their position by innovation and are now developing their own OS for their smart phones independent of Google. Good luck with that. Other manufacturers learning this hard lesson is going to be a good thing going forward. Samsung will lose their low manufacturing costs due to large volumes -- and lose the competitive advantage they've had for years; getting everyone else to do the grunt work of component development and FAB research.The story in the press was incredibly annoying; Apple was lawsuit happy, pretended they invented everything. All their fans are "acolytes". And of course, they cheered on Samsung because they were slightly cheaper and NOT Apple. There was no bigger cheerleader of these PR attacks than Forbes magazine. But the rest of the electronics industry that happily used Chinese sweat shops -- and including the largest sweat shop (Samsung) all got to ride out the storm that was leveled at Apple -- and the reporters didn't bother to note that Apple was one of the few companies pushing for change. Apple left the US Chamber of Commerce and I've yet to read a mainstream article on that festering cauldron of outsourcing plutocrats. I think a lot of us commenting on this -- the Apple Fans -- aren't that blind to what was really going on. The one thing I'm looking forward to is that the media may finally see that the Nexus of abuse here is with Samsung. And I'm hoping the movement away from everyone using the largest sweat shop clone manufacturer on the planet will hurt them dearly.
But you're not claiming that Xerox and Apple saw eye-to-eye on what Xerox IP Apple was permitted to use are you? The suit was evidence Xerox thought something was "stolen".
EDIT: Kudos for using Google Scholar! I doubt most here have any idea it exists.
It's 2013 -- can we stop beating this dead horse? The people who always go back to the trough to say; "But Apples stole from Xerox" don't ever bother to get their facts right, nor do they understand that nothing was COPIED -- they only used the ideas.Both Microsoft and later Samsung were in a "privileged ongoing relationship" and they had design specs, and they copied look and feel and interactions and many things more specific than ideas.
Please stop bringing up Xerox. It's always the TAG for people to know how stupid the following comments are going to be -- like saying; "Glenn Beck said;" -- you know everything that follows that statement is going to be a waste of time.
So what package shape do you think Samsung should have chosen?
- I think choosing a cuboid like package for a cuboid shaped object makes sense.
What dimensions should have been chosen?
- I say adding a bit on the sides of a product (protection) and a quite a bit up or down so you can place all other accessories is a sensible choice for a size of the box.
What color should have been chosen?
- Well the phone is black... ...
Do you think black should have been reserved to Apple alone?
It's 2013 -- can we stop beating this dead horse? The people who always go back to the trough to say; "But Apples stole from Xerox" don't ever bother to get their facts right, nor do they understand that nothing was COPIED -- they only used the ideas.Both Microsoft and later Samsung were in a "privileged ongoing relationship" and they had design specs, and they copied look and feel and interactions and many things more specific than ideas.Please stop bringing up Xerox. It's always the TAG for people to know how stupid the following comments are going to be -- like saying; "Glenn Beck said;" -- you know everything that follows that statement is going to be a waste of time.
I didn't bring up Xerox. Never have in fact. I think this is probably the only thread I've even replied to someone who did.
I think I deserve a thank you for including a link to the backstory, which pretty much vindicates Apple. You're welcome.
For those that missed it the first time here it is again:
Comments
The problem with your argument is not all smartphones do look a like now. Samsung's newer Galaxy phones don't look like an iPhone. Nokia is making interesting non-iPhone looking phones. HTC's phones also have a distinct look. Nokia didn't even believe the iPhone was possible when it was first announced, so it seems like a stretch to say everybody was moving in that direction. Some of the other phones you mention were bricks. The Prada used Adobe Flash as the GUI layer. None of those players had an Operating System capable of driving an iPhone quality phone.
Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans. I remember sitting in a Best Buy once by a Samsung phone display. Two people in the five minutes I was there thought the phone was an iPhone. They were right it looked just like one. That was intentional and a jury agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
What's the hot new trendy term for "outsourcing" these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
"Business as usual."
Oh that! That's not new or trendy. In fact I find the phrase "Business as usual" to be far more antiquated than "outsourcing."
"Business men" have used the term "Business as usual" to justify their "business practices" since the dawn of time — everything from slavery to fraud can be described as "business as usual."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans. I remember sitting in a Best Buy once by a Samsung phone display. Two people in the five minutes I was there thought the phone was an iPhone. They were right it looked just like one. That was intentional and a jury agreed.
To see how much Samsung copies Apple, have a look here: http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com
Shameless
Right, "stole" in exchange for Apple stock...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
The problem with your argument is not all smartphones do look a like now. Samsung's newer Galaxy phones don't look like an iPhone. Nokia is making interesting non-iPhone looking phones. HTC's phones also have a distinct look.
Yes and No. Depends from how far you judge them. Smaller details are different from phone to phone but generally they are all flat, rectangle like with more or less rounded corners.
Just compare it to the cell phone era. Back then we had much more diverse looking phones, because the design was not driven by the touch screen like it is today. Today the difference is measured by the radius of curvature and size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans. I remember sitting in a Best Buy once by a Samsung phone display. Two people in the five minutes I was there thought the phone was an iPhone. They were right it looked just like one. That was intentional and a jury agreed.
Even with the big SAMSUNG logo on the phones forehead, even with the big square button on the bottom not to mention two additional ones on the side. They probably thought that Samsung is making iPhones.
Packaging?
So what package shape do you think Samsung should have chosen?
- I think choosing a cuboid like package for a cuboid shaped object makes sense.
What dimensions should have been chosen?
- I say adding a bit on the sides of a product (protection) and a quite a bit up or down so you can place all other accessories is a sensible choice for a size of the box.
What color should have been chosen?
- Well the phone is black...
Do you think black should have been reserved to Apple alone?
I thought so.
Just making a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macanoid(TM)
To see how much Samsung copies Apple, have a look here: http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com
Shameless
Oh, we came to Shameless part of the thread.
Samsung should be sued out of existence. So should google. They're both rogue companies that steal and engage in foul, unfair business practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Samsung brought to market phones that looked just like the iPhone right down to the packaging. It was able to do that because it had inside knowledge of Apple's plans.
That idea makes no sense.
How would selling chips tell a supplier what the iPhone case looked like, its software, or its packaging?
The fact is, Samsung didn't start following the iPhone theme until around 2010, years after the iPhone was available to anyone to look at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
Packaging?
So what package shape do you think Samsung should have chosen?
The whole packaging debate is ridiculous anyway:
Apple used to use a book-like box for its small devices. Device on one side.
Months before the iPhone came out, the LG Prada used a new style of box where you took off the lid and the smartphone was staring you in the face, with accessories underneath.
Apple (and others) later did the same.
The mistake was abandoning it sooner, for thinking that making a PDA/phone OS work the same way as a desktop OS, and for not working to make a single unified platform for which to work from. They finally did the right thing, just way too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The mistake was abandoning it sooner, for thinking that making a PDA/phone OS work the same way as a desktop OS, and for not working to make a single unified platform for which to work from. They finally did the right thing, just way too late.
I agree. They should've made the kernel better, sooner. (It was planned, but took too long.)
They did try to make things source compatible, and so did third parties. There was a really nice .Net implementation for WM and CE, that allowed you to pretty much write code that had major pieces that worked on desktop or mobile.
Too little, too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Right, "stole" in exchange for Apple stock...
It wasn't quite as friendly and simple as that. But yes, there was a payment in stock for something. Xerox and Apple just didn't perfectly agree on what that was.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
COMPANY NEWS; Xerox Sues Apple Computer Over Macintosh Copyright
By LAWRENCE M. FISHER, Special to The New York Times
Published: December 15, 1989
The Xerox Corporation filed suit here today against Apple Computer Inc., accusing it of unlawfully using Xerox copyrights in its Macintosh and Lisa computers.
Xerox's suit, which was filed in Federal District Court, charges Apple with copyright misrepresentation and seeks more than $150 million in royalties and damages.
Xerox contends that the Lisa and Macintosh software stems from work originally done by Xerox scientists and that it was used by Apple without permission . . .
Edit: There's a very thorough history here, and a really informative read. Nothing in it that should bother any Apple fan.
http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc
The only thing MS has going for it is a lot of money and the willingness to invest in seemingly failed products. They could push Win Phone along with no adoption for years and perhaps when there is a paradigm shift be ready to jump in to take the lead.
That case was dismissed before it ever got started and as you note it wasn't about any licensing for the GUI but specific aspects that were in disagreement, which is considerably different from the Apple v MS case, which we know Apple lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That case was dismissed before it ever got started.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3538913398421433687
But you're not claiming that Xerox and Apple saw eye-to-eye on what Xerox IP Apple was permitted to use are you? The suit was evidence Xerox thought something was "stolen".
EDIT: Kudos for using Google Scholar! I doubt most here have any idea it exists.
1) Sure, they certainly didn't see eye-to-eye or there would have been no lawsuit, warranted or not. I do seem to recall that the issue wasn't so much over what was used but how it was used. specifically not giving the proper credit for what they were allowed to use when they shipped their systems. I could be completely wrong on that but I don't feel like researching it as it was a very long time ago and have a lunch date to attend.
2) I found that link via a citation in Wikipedia. I never would have thought to use GS directly.
3) Remember when widescreen was vertical and it made perfect sense because it mirrored a piece of paper?
The Low-hanging fruit situation for Samsung is over. They are already convincing themselves that they got to their position by innovation and are now developing their own OS for their smart phones independent of Google. Good luck with that.
Other manufacturers learning this hard lesson is going to be a good thing going forward. Samsung will lose their low manufacturing costs due to large volumes -- and lose the competitive advantage they've had for years; getting everyone else to do the grunt work of component development and FAB research.The story in the press was incredibly annoying; Apple was lawsuit happy, pretended they invented everything. All their fans are "acolytes". And of course, they cheered on Samsung because they were slightly cheaper and NOT Apple. There was no bigger cheerleader of these PR attacks than Forbes magazine. But the rest of the electronics industry that happily used Chinese sweat shops -- and including the largest sweat shop (Samsung) all got to ride out the storm that was leveled at Apple -- and the reporters didn't bother to note that Apple was one of the few companies pushing for change. Apple left the US Chamber of Commerce and I've yet to read a mainstream article on that festering cauldron of outsourcing plutocrats.
I think a lot of us commenting on this -- the Apple Fans -- aren't that blind to what was really going on. The one thing I'm looking forward to is that the media may finally see that the Nexus of abuse here is with Samsung. And I'm hoping the movement away from everyone using the largest sweat shop clone manufacturer on the planet will hurt them dearly.
But you're not claiming that Xerox and Apple saw eye-to-eye on what Xerox IP Apple was permitted to use are you? The suit was evidence Xerox thought something was "stolen".
EDIT: Kudos for using Google Scholar! I doubt most here have any idea it exists.
It's 2013 -- can we stop beating this dead horse? The people who always go back to the trough to say; "But Apples stole from Xerox" don't ever bother to get their facts right, nor do they understand that nothing was COPIED -- they only used the ideas.Both Microsoft and later Samsung were in a "privileged ongoing relationship" and they had design specs, and they copied look and feel and interactions and many things more specific than ideas.Please stop bringing up Xerox. It's always the TAG for people to know how stupid the following comments are going to be -- like saying; "Glenn Beck said;" -- you know everything that follows that statement is going to be a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
Packaging?
So what package shape do you think Samsung should have chosen?
- I think choosing a cuboid like package for a cuboid shaped object makes sense.
What dimensions should have been chosen?
- I say adding a bit on the sides of a product (protection) and a quite a bit up or down so you can place all other accessories is a sensible choice for a size of the box.
What color should have been chosen?
- Well the phone is black...
Do you think black should have been reserved to Apple alone?
I thought so.
Just making a point.
Looky here - not copying eh?
I thought so.
Just making a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
It's 2013 -- can we stop beating this dead horse? The people who always go back to the trough to say; "But Apples stole from Xerox" don't ever bother to get their facts right, nor do they understand that nothing was COPIED -- they only used the ideas.Both Microsoft and later Samsung were in a "privileged ongoing relationship" and they had design specs, and they copied look and feel and interactions and many things more specific than ideas.Please stop bringing up Xerox. It's always the TAG for people to know how stupid the following comments are going to be -- like saying; "Glenn Beck said;" -- you know everything that follows that statement is going to be a waste of time.I didn't bring up Xerox. Never have in fact. I think this is probably the only thread I've even replied to someone who did.
I think I deserve a thank you for including a link to the backstory, which pretty much vindicates Apple. You're welcome.
For those that missed it the first time here it is again:
http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc