This doesn't mean much of anything - they admit SAmsung offered the best price meaning they looked around, I'm sure Apple offered a 10% discount but look, Samsung is offering their "flagship" phone after an hour on sale at 50% off (BUY ONE, GET ONE FREE) to every co sumer, of course, the Swiss Rails would get a better discount but that's the normal course of action or Android, it's the race to the bottom - people only buy at a bargain price so this is nothing really. Plus, the Swiss are afraid the iphone will now kill the high end watch business with the new iwatch ...
Why is every other article seemingly about Samsung?
I thought this was supposed to be an Apple forum?
I guess it has to be one of two reasons. Either the people who run this site are worried about the threat which Samsung poses to Apple, or they just do it to give red meat to the fanbase.
Why does this site keep talking about Samsung? Why is every other article seemingly about Samsung?
I think that the articles which pertain specifically to Samsung’s “defense” against Apple in a court case are fine. We’ve seen a fair few of those recently.
“But this isn’t one of…”
No, this isn’t. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I get this feeling like Samsung's goal is to get under the skin of Apple executives and Apple fans, and it sure seems to be working. I'd love it if Apple fan sites would ignore Samsung rather than give it the attention it's looking for.
No one really cares, it's how AppleInsider loves to propagandize and spin stories to agitate people into clicking to comment in anger or disbelief.
Don't shoot me for it but i find this more usefull
The point was to make a clock for people who don't NEED to be accurate. That's what makes the Swiss interface so "iconic" -- it's a rectangle pointing at a rectangle.
The only surprise here is that Apple would pay $28 million to "license it" -- really? It's not even a logo and they've had copyright for over 50 years???? It's not even "rounded corners with icons on a grid" (as the reduced complaint that hundreds of interactions with the iPhone that are similar on the Samsung no big deal) !
I mean, the throw-back clock is kind of cute, but I don't see how any company would get $28,000,000 worth of good will over a basic clock, when the design is the "simplest" form that you could make an analog clock as far as shapes.
The point was to make a clock for people who don't NEED to be accurate. That's what makes the Swiss interface so "iconic" -- it's a rectangle pointing at a rectangle.
The only surprise here is that Apple would pay $28 million to "license it" -- really? It's not even a logo and they've had copyright for over 50 years???? It's not even "rounded corners with icons on a grid" (as the reduced complaint that hundreds of interactions with the iPhone that are similar on the Samsung no big deal) !
I mean, the throw-back clock is kind of cute, but I don't see how any company would get $28,000,000 worth of good will over a basic clock, when the design is the "simplest" form that you could make an analog clock as far as shapes.
It does strike me as weird that this far into the 21st century electronics companies are licensing the same clock face design.
Comments
no more samsung posts please
SBB is high quality, well served, etc etc.
Come to switzerland & experiment it, you will not regret it!!!
Why does this site keep talking about Samsung?
Why is every other article seemingly about Samsung?
I thought this was supposed to be an Apple forum?
I guess it has to be one of two reasons. Either the people who run this site are worried about the threat which Samsung poses to Apple, or they just do it to give red meat to the fanbase.
I think that the articles which pertain specifically to Samsung’s “defense” against Apple in a court case are fine. We’ve seen a fair few of those recently.
“But this isn’t one of…”
No, this isn’t. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Why does this site keep talking about Samsung?
Click bait.
It's all about page views, not journalism.
True journalism died in the Nineties.
Naive or what?
I was lucky enough to ride the Orient Express through that country sipping champaign in the piano bar, it's amazing scenery.
Was.
Lucky you! Were you en-route to Venice?
No one really cares, it's how AppleInsider loves to propagandize and spin stories to agitate people into clicking to comment in anger or disbelief.
Correct. If this is a news site, then CNN is a news channel.
00:00:01
Don't shoot me for it but i find this more usefull
The point was to make a clock for people who don't NEED to be accurate. That's what makes the Swiss interface so "iconic" -- it's a rectangle pointing at a rectangle.
The only surprise here is that Apple would pay $28 million to "license it" -- really? It's not even a logo and they've had copyright for over 50 years???? It's not even "rounded corners with icons on a grid" (as the reduced complaint that hundreds of interactions with the iPhone that are similar on the Samsung no big deal) !
I mean, the throw-back clock is kind of cute, but I don't see how any company would get $28,000,000 worth of good will over a basic clock, when the design is the "simplest" form that you could make an analog clock as far as shapes.
It does strike me as weird that this far into the 21st century electronics companies are licensing the same clock face design.