First of all, the notch is supported by the new Google Android OS that Apple never dared to sue Google from the beginning. Second Xiaomi used the same manufacturer Foxcomm to make the copycats. It is very easy for Foxcomm engineers to forward iPhone X design to Xiaomi, right? Finally, have you seen the new Huawei MateBook Pro? It is also very similar to MacBook Pro.
One thing I am understand is - Why is Apple NOT suing them? This would teach them a lesson and also prevent blatant copying like what is going on, particularly with the notch.
At the very least, Apple would struggle to demonstrate that it owns the notch design. As it says in the article, Essential came out with a notch before Apple did. LG also filed a patent in 2016 that had a phone with a notch in the illustration. Let's be realistic, the notch is not an intentional design, it's a workaround before anyone figures out how to make a bezel-free phone.
1) While I don't think the notch is protectable, it's disingenuous to imply that Essential was first with the idea (which may or may not be what you're implying) when the rumours of the notched phone predate Essential Phone's first announcement of their design that only notched the camera. This notion gets even more warped when you see people saying that Apple stole the idea from Essential when it's impossible based on the timeline of their products, unless one can prove that Apple had a spy into Essential's designs and took the idea from them.
2) The notch is absolutely intentional. "Workarounds," if you want to call it that, are intentional. It's very clearly a motion to make more of the front face the display but needed to keep certain sensors and components front facing. It's because of the nw display tech that allows it to exist. The notch is not an accident! Notching was going to happen as soon as foldable display tech became available.
If we're talking about whether or not Apple can sue Xiaomi, who came up with the notch in a board room is fairly irrelevant. Essential was first to unveil the design. Apple can't claim that Xiaomi stole their design if they weren't the first in the market with it. But as you say, the notch is probably not protectable so we basically agree that Apple/Essential/whoever was first can't/shouldn't be able to sue anyone over it.
Finally, have you seen the new Huawei MateBook Pro? It is also very similar to MacBook Pro.
This one is interesting because it's also sold in the USA. Looking closely at it, some aspects are similar, however it's also very different. The touch display's aspect ratio is 3:2 (same as Microsoft's Surface line), the camera is hidden in the keyboard, and the shape of the body is different.
While I can't speak for the Xiaomi phone, Huawei actually made a computer that well exceeds the 2017 MacBook Pro in a number of key areas. Higher keyboard key travel, quad core Intel CPU, NVIDIA dGPU with VRAM, 3:2 aspect ratio, higher resolution, etc. And then comes the fact that the top tier model with 16 GB RAM / 512 GB storage is $1,499.
One thing I am understand is - Why is Apple NOT suing them? This would teach them a lesson and also prevent blatant copying like what is going on, particularly with the notch.
At the very least, Apple would struggle to demonstrate that it owns the notch design. As it says in the article, Essential came out with a notch before Apple did. LG also filed a patent in 2016 that had a phone with a notch in the illustration. Let's be realistic, the notch is not an intentional design, it's a workaround before anyone figures out how to make a bezel-free phone.
1) While I don't think the notch is protectable, it's disingenuous to imply that Essential was first with the idea (which may or may not be what you're implying) when the rumours of the notched phone predate Essential Phone's first announcement of their design that only notched the camera. This notion gets even more warped when you see people saying that Apple stole the idea from Essential when it's impossible based on the timeline of their products, unless one can prove that Apple had a spy into Essential's designs and took the idea from them.
2) The notch is absolutely intentional. "Workarounds," if you want to call it that, are intentional. It's very clearly a motion to make more of the front face the display but needed to keep certain sensors and components front facing. It's because of the nw display tech that allows it to exist. The notch is not an accident! Notching was going to happen as soon as foldable display tech became available.
If we're talking about whether or not Apple can sue Xiaomi, who came up with the notch in a board room is fairly irrelevant. Essential was first to unveil the design. Apple can't claim that Xiaomi stole their design if they weren't the first in the market with it. But as you say, the notch is probably not protectable so we basically agree that Apple/Essential/whoever was first can't/shouldn't be able to sue anyone over it.
Have you seen the difference between an Essential phone and iPhone X, as it pertains to how the notch looks? And then compare to what the "notch" on all the recent Android phones looks like? Do you really want to make the claim that they are copying Essential...
The notch is merely a cutout in the screen to minimise bezels.
Ah yes, it's completely organic that the knockoffs reached this point in their product design immediately after Apple's controversial decision, and that their entire casings, trim, icons, notch shapes, wallpaper, and even product photography are designed to ape the X.
There's no way this is just a shameless ripoff by another chinese knockoff, right?
One thing I am understand is - Why is Apple NOT suing them? This would teach them a lesson and also prevent blatant copying like what is going on, particularly with the notch.
At the very least, Apple would struggle to demonstrate that it owns the notch design. As it says in the article, Essential came out with a notch before Apple did. LG also filed a patent in 2016 that had a phone with a notch in the illustration. Let's be realistic, the notch is not an intentional design, it's a workaround before anyone figures out how to make a bezel-free phone.
1) While I don't think the notch is protectable, it's disingenuous to imply that Essential was first with the idea (which may or may not be what you're implying) when the rumours of the notched phone predate Essential Phone's first announcement of their design that only notched the camera. This notion gets even more warped when you see people saying that Apple stole the idea from Essential when it's impossible based on the timeline of their products, unless one can prove that Apple had a spy into Essential's designs and took the idea from them.
2) The notch is absolutely intentional. "Workarounds," if you want to call it that, are intentional. It's very clearly a motion to make more of the front face the display but needed to keep certain sensors and components front facing. It's because of the nw display tech that allows it to exist. The notch is not an accident! Notching was going to happen as soon as foldable display tech became available.
His post is fine when taken in the right context.
When he says the notch is not an intentional design, it is the context of it being a compromise and that if it were possible to not have it while maintaining the same functionality, it wouldn't exist. It is a workaround.
The same logic applies to every other notch out there.
One thing I am understand is - Why is Apple NOT suing them? This would teach them a lesson and also prevent blatant copying like what is going on, particularly with the notch.
At the very least, Apple would struggle to demonstrate that it owns the notch design. As it says in the article, Essential came out with a notch before Apple did. LG also filed a patent in 2016 that had a phone with a notch in the illustration. Let's be realistic, the notch is not an intentional design, it's a workaround before anyone figures out how to make a bezel-free phone.
1) While I don't think the notch is protectable, it's disingenuous to imply that Essential was first with the idea (which may or may not be what you're implying) when the rumours of the notched phone predate Essential Phone's first announcement of their design that only notched the camera. This notion gets even more warped when you see people saying that Apple stole the idea from Essential when it's impossible based on the timeline of their products, unless one can prove that Apple had a spy into Essential's designs and took the idea from them.
2) The notch is absolutely intentional. "Workarounds," if you want to call it that, are intentional. It's very clearly a motion to make more of the front face the display but needed to keep certain sensors and components front facing. It's because of the nw display tech that allows it to exist. The notch is not an accident! Notching was going to happen as soon as foldable display tech became available.
His post is fine when taken in the right context.
When he says the notch is not an intentional design, it is the context of it being a compromise and that if it were possible to not have it while maintaining the same functionality, it wouldn't exist. It is a workaround.
The same logic applies to every other notch out there.
1) Workarounds are intentional, not accidental.
2) I don't think "the same logic applies to every other notch out there." I think many companies, specifically Xiaomi, intended to copy Apple at every move they could. Their placement for the dual cameras, for example, is not a mere coincidence, but because Apple did it that way. The same goes for the notch. First and foremost the entire design is an intentional copy to grab onto as much of Apple's mindshare as possible within their budget constraints.
The notch is merely a cutout in the screen to minimise bezels.
Ah yes, it's completely organic that the knockoffs reached this point in their product design immediately after Apple's controversial decision, and that their entire casings, trim, icons, notch shapes, wallpaper, and even product photography are designed to ape the X.
There's no way this is just a shameless ripoff by another chinese knockoff, right?
As I said very clearly. A notch is a notch is a notch. If we are talking about that, notches, Apple wasn't first and saying (as some do) that there were rumours about the Apple notch and that Essential and Sharp quickly took those rumours and brought products to market first, is simply laughable.
Another thing is if someone makes a clone of the whole thing.
One thing I am understand is - Why is Apple NOT suing them? This would teach them a lesson and also prevent blatant copying like what is going on, particularly with the notch.
At the very least, Apple would struggle to demonstrate that it owns the notch design. As it says in the article, Essential came out with a notch before Apple did. LG also filed a patent in 2016 that had a phone with a notch in the illustration. Let's be realistic, the notch is not an intentional design, it's a workaround before anyone figures out how to make a bezel-free phone.
It "came" out with it only if in an universe where up is down.
Considering the timeline and the sales volume and the fact no phone looks like the essential and all look like the Iphone X and none look like that other phone, I'd call you des-ingenuousness at best.
Finally, have you seen the new Huawei MateBook Pro? It is also very similar to MacBook Pro.
This one is interesting because it's also sold in the USA. Looking closely at it, some aspects are similar, however it's also very different. The touch display's aspect ratio is 3:2 (same as Microsoft's Surface line), the camera is hidden in the keyboard, and the shape of the body is different.
While I can't speak for the Xiaomi phone, Huawei actually made a. computer that well exceeds the 2017 MacBook Pro in a number of key areas. Higher keyboard key travel, quad core Intel CPU, NVIDIA dGPU with VRAM, 3:2 aspect ratio, higher resolution, etc. And then comes the fact that the top tier model with 16 GB RAM / 512 GB storage is $1,499.
Currently, general opinion is that it is best in class and marking the way for others to follow - Apple included. Spill proof keyboard too.
Available in the US at quite frankly an amazing price point.
One thing I am understand is - Why is Apple NOT suing them? This would teach them a lesson and also prevent blatant copying like what is going on, particularly with the notch.
At the very least, Apple would struggle to demonstrate that it owns the notch design. As it says in the article, Essential came out with a notch before Apple did. LG also filed a patent in 2016 that had a phone with a notch in the illustration. Let's be realistic, the notch is not an intentional design, it's a workaround before anyone figures out how to make a bezel-free phone.
1) While I don't think the notch is protectable, it's disingenuous to imply that Essential was first with the idea (which may or may not be what you're implying) when the rumours of the notched phone predate Essential Phone's first announcement of their design that only notched the camera. This notion gets even more warped when you see people saying that Apple stole the idea from Essential when it's impossible based on the timeline of their products, unless one can prove that Apple had a spy into Essential's designs and took the idea from them.
2) The notch is absolutely intentional. "Workarounds," if you want to call it that, are intentional. It's very clearly a motion to make more of the front face the display but needed to keep certain sensors and components front facing. It's because of the nw display tech that allows it to exist. The notch is not an accident! Notching was going to happen as soon as foldable display tech became available.
His post is fine when taken in the right context.
When he says the notch is not an intentional design, it is the context of it being a compromise and that if it were possible to not have it while maintaining the same functionality, it wouldn't exist. It is a workaround.
The same logic applies to every other notch out there.
By this absurdly stupid logic -- cars with wheels are not an intentional design, because were it possible to have anti-grav-powered flying cars while maintaining the same functionality, wheeled cars would not exist.
Do you even listen to yourself? Or is the desire to apologize for chinese knockoffs so deep that you must convolute yourself into these absurdist positions?
The notch is merely a cutout in the screen to minimise bezels.
Ah yes, it's completely organic that the knockoffs reached this point in their product design immediately after Apple's controversial decision, and that their entire casings, trim, icons, notch shapes, wallpaper, and even product photography are designed to ape the X.
There's no way this is just a shameless ripoff by another chinese knockoff, right?
As I said very clearly. A notch is a notch is a notch. If we are talking about that, notches, Apple wasn't first and saying (as some do) that there were rumours about the Apple notch and that Essential and Sharp quickly took those rumours and brought products to market first, is simply laughable.
Another thing is if someone makes a clone of the whole thing.
I don't recall anyone saying X was the first to release a device with a protrusion into the screen, but their protrusion, shaped and defined as a "notch" is unique even from Essential. And further, the post-X clones are shameless ripoffs in every way they can achieve.
Can you say it, perhaps just one time: "These are ripoffs of the X". Try it.
The notch is merely a cutout in the screen to minimise bezels.
Ah yes, it's completely organic that the knockoffs reached this point in their product design immediately after Apple's controversial decision, and that their entire casings, trim, icons, notch shapes, wallpaper, and even product photography are designed to ape the X.
There's no way this is just a shameless ripoff by another chinese knockoff, right?
As I said very clearly. A notch is a notch is a notch. If we are talking about that, notches, Apple wasn't first and saying (as some do) that there were rumours about the Apple notch and that Essential and Sharp quickly took those rumours and brought products to market first, is simply laughable.
Another thing is if someone makes a clone of the whole thing.
I don't recall anyone saying X was the first to release a device with a protrusion into the screen, but their protrusion, shaped and defined as a "notch" is unique even from Essential. And further, the post-X clones are shameless ripoffs in every way they can achieve.
Can you say it, perhaps just one time: "These are ripoffs of the X". Try it.
If one were to do one of those before and after the iPhone images, I think it's just Essential Phone with the round camera cutout, then the iPhone X in the middle, and then all the devices that came after it with an iPhone X-esque notch.
The notch is merely a cutout in the screen to minimise bezels.
Ah yes, it's completely organic that the knockoffs reached this point in their product design immediately after Apple's controversial decision, and that their entire casings, trim, icons, notch shapes, wallpaper, and even product photography are designed to ape the X.
There's no way this is just a shameless ripoff by another chinese knockoff, right?
As I said very clearly. A notch is a notch is a notch. If we are talking about that, notches, Apple wasn't first and saying (as some do) that there were rumours about the Apple notch and that Essential and Sharp quickly took those rumours and brought products to market first, is simply laughable.
Another thing is if someone makes a clone of the whole thing.
I don't recall anyone saying X was the first to release a device with a protrusion into the screen, but their protrusion, shaped and defined as a "notch" is unique even from Essential. And further, the post-X clones are shameless ripoffs in every way they can achieve.
Can you say it, perhaps just one time: "These are ripoffs of the X". Try it.
If one were to do one of those before and after the iPhone images, I think it's just Essential Phone with the round camera cutout, then the iPhone X in the middle, and then all the devices that came after it with an iPhone X-esque notch.
TBH it shouldn't be surprising. I doubt Apple was one of the very first to consider one to otherwise maximize screen real estate, but certainly one of the very first to "have the courage" to use it on a shipping phone and see what the buyer reaction would be. Now that Apple has proved at least some good percentage of the buying public is perfectly OK with it of course there will be followers.
The notch is merely a cutout in the screen to minimise bezels.
Ah yes, it's completely organic that the knockoffs reached this point in their product design immediately after Apple's controversial decision, and that their entire casings, trim, icons, notch shapes, wallpaper, and even product photography are designed to ape the X.
There's no way this is just a shameless ripoff by another chinese knockoff, right?
As I said very clearly. A notch is a notch is a notch. If we are talking about that, notches, Apple wasn't first and saying (as some do) that there were rumours about the Apple notch and that Essential and Sharp quickly took those rumours and brought products to market first, is simply laughable.
Another thing is if someone makes a clone of the whole thing.
I don't recall anyone saying X was the first to release a device with a protrusion into the screen, but their protrusion, shaped and defined as a "notch" is unique even from Essential. And further, the post-X clones are shameless ripoffs in every way they can achieve.
Can you say it, perhaps just one time: "These are ripoffs of the X". Try it.
If one were to do one of those before and after the iPhone images, I think it's just Essential Phone with the round camera cutout, then the iPhone X in the middle, and then all the devices that came after it with an iPhone X-esque notch.
TBH it shouldn't be surprising. I doubt Apple was one of the very first to consider one to otherwise maximize screen real estate, but certainly one of the very first to "have the courage" to use it on a shipping phone and see what the buyer reaction would be. Now that Apple has proved at least some good percentage of the buying public is perfectly OK with it of course there will be followers.
If we're talking about making the display cover more of the front face, then sure, but if we're talking about the Xiaomi 6, then I don't see their design as being anything but a direct attempt to copy Apple as much as they could. I don't think they said, "Oh, now that Apple has proven it's viable, we can dust off our coincidentally nearly identical looking design."
The notch is merely a cutout in the screen to minimise bezels.
Ah yes, it's completely organic that the knockoffs reached this point in their product design immediately after Apple's controversial decision, and that their entire casings, trim, icons, notch shapes, wallpaper, and even product photography are designed to ape the X.
There's no way this is just a shameless ripoff by another chinese knockoff, right?
As I said very clearly. A notch is a notch is a notch. If we are talking about that, notches, Apple wasn't first and saying (as some do) that there were rumours about the Apple notch and that Essential and Sharp quickly took those rumours and brought products to market first, is simply laughable.
Another thing is if someone makes a clone of the whole thing.
I don't recall anyone saying X was the first to release a device with a protrusion into the screen, but their protrusion, shaped and defined as a "notch" is unique even from Essential. And further, the post-X clones are shameless ripoffs in every way they can achieve.
Can you say it, perhaps just one time: "These are ripoffs of the X". Try it.
If one were to do one of those before and after the iPhone images, I think it's just Essential Phone with the round camera cutout, then the iPhone X in the middle, and then all the devices that came after it with an iPhone X-esque notch.
TBH it shouldn't be surprising. I doubt Apple was one of the very first to consider one to otherwise maximize screen real estate, but certainly one of the very first to "have the courage" to use it on a shipping phone and see what the buyer reaction would be. Now that Apple has proved at least some good percentage of the buying public is perfectly OK with it of course there will be followers.
If we're talking about making the display cover more of the front face, then sure, but if we're talking about the Xiaomi 6, then I don't see their design as being anything but a direct attempt to copy Apple as much as they could. I don't think they said, "Oh, now that Apple has proven it's viable, we can dust off our coincidentally nearly identical looking design."
Agreed. Looks to me like Xiaomi used it on that handset simply because they could.
Comments
Android Xiaomi Mi 8 copy/share with iPhone X.
First of all, the notch is supported by the new Google Android OS that Apple never dared to sue Google from the beginning.Second Xiaomi used the same manufacturer Foxcomm to make the copycats. It is very easy for Foxcomm engineers to forward iPhone X design to Xiaomi, right?
Finally, have you seen the new Huawei MateBook Pro? It is also very similar to MacBook Pro.
While I can't speak for the Xiaomi phone, Huawei actually made a computer that well exceeds the 2017 MacBook Pro in a number of key areas. Higher keyboard key travel, quad core Intel CPU, NVIDIA dGPU with VRAM, 3:2 aspect ratio, higher resolution, etc. And then comes the fact that the top tier model with 16 GB RAM / 512 GB storage is $1,499.
There's no way this is just a shameless ripoff by another chinese knockoff, right?
https://medium.com/rethink-reviews/airpods-and-the-three-stages-of-apple-criticism-fed70b84e435
Stage 1: Anger
Stage 2: Blaming the Victims
Stage 3: Acceptance
When he says the notch is not an intentional design, it is the context of it being a compromise and that if it were possible to not have it while maintaining the same functionality, it wouldn't exist. It is a workaround.
The same logic applies to every other notch out there.
2) I don't think "the same logic applies to every other notch out there." I think many companies, specifically Xiaomi, intended to copy Apple at every move they could. Their placement for the dual cameras, for example, is not a mere coincidence, but because Apple did it that way. The same goes for the notch. First and foremost the entire design is an intentional copy to grab onto as much of Apple's mindshare as possible within their budget constraints.
Another thing is if someone makes a clone of the whole thing.
Available in the US at quite frankly an amazing price point.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17396818/huawei-matebook-x-pro-laptop-review-specs-price
While Apple probably wouldn't use a touchscreen, I think they will definitely get the bezels down to a minimum.
And it's time to bring back the illuminated Apple logo!
Do you even listen to yourself? Or is the desire to apologize for chinese knockoffs so deep that you must convolute yourself into these absurdist positions?
I don't recall anyone saying X was the first to release a device with a protrusion into the screen, but their protrusion, shaped and defined as a "notch" is unique even from Essential. And further, the post-X clones are shameless ripoffs in every way they can achieve.
Can you say it, perhaps just one time: "These are ripoffs of the X". Try it.