Apple Earns Delay on Publishing Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

[DrNeroCF]

Are you seriously implying that without iPad there wouldn't be any tablets? You know there were tablets years before the iPad right?

Yes, we all know that 'tablets' existed before the iPad

But if you think that tablets as they exist today would still be there without the iPad's existence, that's just plain crazy talk.

No one would be talking about or buying them today, just as hardly anyone talked about or bought them back then.

 

[Maximara]

As far as I can tell, it's because of a primary difference between the American and English (and some EU) legal systems:

In their system, if a company brings up a case like this and loses, they have to pay the piper.

It's been debated for years in America if we should adopt the same system in order to keep the number of frivolous lawsuits down. (If you know the door swings both ways, you supposedly wouldn't be so quick to file suit.)

The flip side of that system was demonstrated in the infamous McLibel (McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris). Furthermore, the ECHR (the EU version of the Supreme Court) ruled the way the case had been handled (burden on the defendant) violated the rights to a fair trial.

 

[KnightWRX]

But if you think that tablets as they exist today would still be there without the iPad's existence, that's just plain crazy talk.

Sure they would. The iPad didn't really invent anything. In fact, iPad-like tablets (tablets with limited OSes and locked eco systems) existed before the iPad.

No one would be talking about or buying them today, just as hardly anyone talked about or bought them back then.

That's because tablets just aren't that convenient. They're awkward to manipulate in most situations IMO, and much less convenient for long typing sessions than laptops.

I'd say a Android/iOS laptop like device would probably work much better on the market than tablets in general. The "Post-PC" era is not about a hardware form factor, it's the software that runs on it.

 

[Gasu E.]

LOL, poor apple... why are people so hung up on defending apple though? Do they have some sort of deep connection to the company? Are they shareholders (I doubt there are that many)?

For greater than 10 years I was continually informed I was a weird cultist because I insisted on using a minority computer. That is the where the "deep connection" lies.

 

[MythicFrost]

Sure they would. The iPad didn't really invent anything. In fact, iPad-like tablets (tablets with limited OSes and locked eco systems) existed before the iPad.

Apple made the tablet market what it is today, prior to the iPad, tablets used full OSes with a UI and apps which are designed for a keyboard and mouse, x86 hardware, and they were heavy, expensive, had poor quality displays and had shocking battery life. Even modern x86 tablets still are expensive, heavy and have poor battery life: e.g, Surface Pro.

There may have been a few tablets that tried to break that tradition, but obviously none of them ever took off.

Even after Apple released the iPad, it still took like eight months for any competition to come out -- and the first couple of tablets were really bad too, it was another month or two after that before any decent tablets came out.

Apple didn't invent the tablet, but they did innovate it.

 

[samcraig]

Actually you're wrong. Tablets used full OSes with a UI that was designed for touch, pens AND keyboards. And they were heavy, had poor quality displays and battery life (similar to laptops at the time - so not shocking) less than now.

Newsflash: It's because the technology wasn't available/cheap enough to integrate until more recently.

One would also argue that Apple ENTERED the competition. It didn't take other companies 8 months to ENTER a category that already existed.

My .02

Apple made the tablet market what it is today, prior to the iPad, tablets used full OSes with a UI and apps which are designed for a keyboard and mouse, x86 hardware, and they were heavy, expensive, had poor quality displays and had shocking battery life. Even modern x86 tablets still are expensive, heavy and have poor battery life: e.g, Surface Pro.

There may have been a few tablets that tried to break that tradition, but obviously none of them ever took off.

Even after Apple released the iPad, it still took like eight months for any competition to come out -- and the first couple of tablets were really bad too, it was another month or two after that before any decent tablets came out.

Apple didn't invent the tablet, but they did innovate it.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple made the tablet market what it is today

There may have been a few tablets that tried to break that tradition, but obviously none of them ever took off.

If by "Apple made the tablet market what it is today" you mean "made them take off", I'll agree with you. Otherwise, the iPad didn't invent jack squat. It was all out there, albeit it just wasn't selling.

Apple didn't invent tablets, they didn't innovate tablets, they marketed them successfully.

 

[theluggage]

Are you seriously implying that without iPad there wouldn't be any tablets? You know there were tablets years before the iPad right?

You mean like the Newton?

Seriously, there are two separate arguments here:
(1) did Samsung, Motorola et. al. copy the iPad/iPhone?
(2) did they actually infringe on any valid Apple copyrights, patents or trademarks?

(Actually, that's 4+ questions since copyrights, patents and trademarks all have different rules).

Pre-iPad PDAs and tablet computers were nothing like the iPad and had failed to make any significant impact on the market. The "Windows Tablets" were a niche market for people who needed to use a computer standing up, and the PDAs (Palm etc. - all obvious descendants of the Newton) had been wiped out by phones, apart from the gizmos that UPS hand you to sign your name on. They were all stylus-based. Then, suddenly, Apple introduces the iPad and every Tom Dick and Harry is falling over themselves to launch a tablet (and took about 2 years to come up with anything that could give the iPad a run for its money).

If you really think that the current crop of Android tablets were inspired by those, a Samsung photo frame, the 1970s sketch of a "Dynabook" or maybe the newspads in "2001" - then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might want to buy.

Whether things like slide-to-unlock, multitouch gestures and "inertial" scrolling (which helped distinguish the iPhone/iPad from previous tablets) should be patentable, however, is another matter.

 

[MythicFrost]

Actually you're wrong. Tablets used full OSes with a UI that was designed for touch, pens AND keyboards. And they were heavy, had poor quality displays and battery life (similar to laptops at the time - so not shocking) less than now.

Some did use modified UIs which were more suitable for touch, but that doesn't matter because every application you had available to you was designed entirely for keyboard and mouse input.

Actually they would've had a lot worse battery life than laptops, and a lot less processing power too.

Newsflash: It's because the technology wasn't available/cheap enough to integrate until more recently.

I'm well aware that the availability and price of technology had to do what those tablets could utilize at the time, but that has little to do with them being able to make an ARM based tablet with a touch based OS. It was possible for one to be made

Even recent x86 tablets still have the same key flaws, look at the Surface Pro for example. It's got an IPS display, an SSD, a decent ULV CPU, which is all good... but it still is expensive, heavy and has poor battery life. And this will always be true when compared to an ARM based tablet. And apps are still designed for keyboard and mouse input, not touch, although Microsoft is trying to change that with their app store.

One would also argue that Apple ENTERED the competition. It didn't take other companies 8 months to ENTER a category that already existed.

My .02

You can't enter the competition when there's nothing to compete with. The x86 tablets back then were expensive, and had poor hardware and the iPad on the other hand was much cheaper and had great quality hardware.

The two don't compete at all: x86 tablets were a niche market for those who needed to run Windows applications, and the iPad was for everyone else, for anyone who wanted a content consumption device, and today, it's even good for some content creation.

It took eight months for any competition (meaning an ARM based tablet which can actually compete in the areas where the iPad excels) to come out, and it was another month or two after that before anything decent came out.

If by "Apple made the tablet market what it is today" you mean "made them take off", I'll agree with you. Otherwise, the iPad didn't invent jack squat. It was all out there, albeit it just wasn't selling.

No I mean they made it what it is today. Before the iPad there wasn't even anything decent, yet alone good or great... it was all rubbish -- a combination of poor hardware and software at a horrible price point, that's why none of them were selling. The iPad was just the opposite of that: great hardware and software at a great price point.

Apple didn't invent tablets, they didn't innovate tablets, they marketed them successfully.

There wasn't anything like the iPad before Apple made it. Instead of going with a x86 tablet and a full OS, Apple went with ARM hardware and a touch based OS. They coupled great hardware and software together, and then they sold it at a really great price point.

They didn't invent the tablet, but they did innovate it, and then they marketed it well.

 

[samcraig]

You must not have ever used one. Because I had one. A Compaq tablet with pen. And I know at least the Office Suite had a pen based version. So not EVERY application was designed for keyboard and mouse.

And again - my compaq's battery had no issues. If you had a tablet back then - maybe it was your battery. Did you ever consider getting it replaced? tested?

Being possible for one to be made and being affordable/reasonable are too different beasts.

It's ok - you have your bias. It's cool.

Some did use modified UIs which were more suitable for touch, but that doesn't matter because every application you had available to you was designed entirely for keyboard and mouse input.

Actually they would've had a lot worse battery life than laptops, and a lot less processing power too.

I'm well aware that the availability and price of technology had to do what those tablets could utilize at the time, but that has little to do with them being able to make an ARM based tablet with a touch based OS. It was possible for one to be made

Even recent x86 tablets still have the same key flaws, look at the Surface Pro for example. It's got an IPS display, an SSD, a decent ULV CPU, which is all good... but it still is expensive, heavy and has poor battery life. And this will always be true when compared to an ARM based tablet. And apps are still designed for keyboard and mouse input, not touch, although Microsoft is trying to change that with their app store.

You can't enter the competition when there's nothing to compete with. The x86 tablets back then were expensive, and had poor hardware and the iPad on the other hand was much cheaper and had great quality hardware.

The two don't compete at all: x86 tablets were a niche market for those who needed to run Windows applications, and the iPad was for everyone else, for anyone who wanted a content consumption device, and today, it's even good for some content creation.

It took eight months for any competition (meaning an ARM based tablet which can actually compete in the areas where the iPad excels) to come out, and it was another month or two after that before anything decent came out.

No I mean they made it what it is today. Before the iPad there wasn't even anything decent, yet alone good or great... it was all rubbish -- a combination of poor hardware and software at a horrible price point, that's why none of them were selling. The iPad was just the opposite of that: great hardware and software at a great price point.

There wasn't anything like the iPad before Apple made it. Instead of going with a x86 tablet and a full OS, Apple went with ARM hardware and a touch based OS. They coupled great hardware and software together, and then they sold it at a really great price point.

They didn't invent the tablet, but they did innovate it, and then they marketed it well.

 

[MythicFrost]

You must not have ever used one. Because I had one. A Compaq tablet with pen. And I know at least the Office Suite had a pen based version. So not EVERY application was designed for keyboard and mouse.

And again - my compaq's battery had no issues. If you had a tablet back then - maybe it was your battery. Did you ever consider getting it replaced? tested?

Being possible for one to be made and being affordable/reasonable are too different beasts.

It's ok - you have your bias. It's cool.

I don't "have my bias". Sure there were probably a handful of apps which had pen versions, but certainly not many yet alone a large portion of the apps that exist.

Firstly what year was this and what model was it? I'd like to look up the specs if I can, and secondly what do you consider to be 'battery issues'? Two hours during light use? Four?

 

[KnightWRX]

There wasn't anything like the iPad before Apple made it. Instead of going with a x86 tablet and a full OS, Apple went with ARM hardware and a touch based OS. They coupled great hardware and software together, and then they sold it at a really great price point.

They didn't invent the tablet, but they did innovate it, and then they marketed it well.

Again, you're ignoring what I've been stating all along : x86 tablets with Windows were NOT the only tablets out there before the iPad. Far from it. Apple did not innovate tablets. They marketed one model successfully. There were ARM tablets with specialized OSes prior to the iPad, heck, prior to the iPhone.

Now please stop trying to pretend x86 and full OSes were all there was to tablets prior to the iPad, you're the only one that's in denial to reality here.

2005. Nokia 770. Texas Instruments OMAP SoC with Maemo as an operating system, cheaper than an iPad. Look it up. Apple neither invented nor innovated tablets. They marketed them successfully. They popularized it. Stop pretending otherwise.

 

[Appman2000]

Am I the only one who finds KnightWRX's claim ludicrous (despite how many times he's posted it)? Of course Apple innovated the tablet as we know it. The innovation is IOS, without which tablets were previously unusable. This was not "marketing"; it was a thoughtful merger of software (IOS) and hardware (touchscreen technology). The recently-disclosed documents seem to suggest that Samsung's argument is that Apple was *only* about marketing; but then why did they destroy the document stream that charts their earnest efforts to copy what Apple was doing?

 

[madseven]

wwwhhhhaaaaaaaa

Apple didn't invent the tablet, but they did innovate it.[/QUOTE]

Here's a link to Apples innovation...read it and watch the video

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html

 

[MythicFrost]

Again, you're ignoring what I've been stating all along : x86 tablets with Windows were NOT the only tablets out there before the iPad. Far from it. Apple did not innovate tablets. They marketed one model successfully. There were ARM tablets with specialized OSes prior to the iPad, heck, prior to the iPhone.

Now please stop trying to pretend x86 and full OSes were all there was to tablets prior to the iPad, you're the only one that's in denial to reality here.

2005. Nokia 770. Texas Instruments OMAP SoC with Maemo as an operating system, cheaper than an iPad. Look it up. Apple neither invented nor innovated tablets. They marketed them successfully. They popularized it. Stop pretending otherwise.

I never stated that there were no ARM tablets at all prior to the iPad, so stop putting words in my mouth.

Why use the Nokia 770 as an example? It only has a 4.1 inch display? The N800 was released in Jan 2007 with a 4.13 inch display. But they hardly compare to a 9.7 inch iPad. I'd want to see something at least 7-9 inches around 2007-2009 but I don't believe it exists.

Tablets never became popular because they all were horrible. Poor hardware, software, and on top of that they were expensive. Apple innovated by creating a device with great hardware, software and design at an affordable price. They got everything right.

Here's a link to Apples innovation...read it and watch the video

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html

I've seen that before. I don't see your point? That was a mock up of what would be, but all the other tablets were still rubbish whether they were ARM or x86. They basically made the mold for what future tablets will need to have in regards to design, hardware and software. They did innovate with the iPad.

 

[KnightWRX]

I never stated that there were no ARM tablets at all prior to the iPad, so stop putting words in my mouth.

Why use the Nokia 770 as an example? It only has a 4.1 inch display? The N800 was released in Jan 2007 with a 4.13 inch display. But they hardly compare to a 9.7 inch iPad. I'd want to see something at least 7-9 inches around 2007-2009 but I don't believe it exists.

Tablets never became popular because they all were horrible. Poor hardware, software, and on top of that they were expensive.

You've just put your finger on it. 4.13 inch display is all Nokia could manage in 2005 to get the price point low enough. The problem you're talking about is technology not being at a point that it was affordable to put in a package like Apple wanted to make.

The Nokia 770 was a tablet, no matter its size. It was ARM based. It ran a specialised OS. I'm just pointing out to you that Apple didn't pull the iPad out of the rabbit hat. They had tons of examples out there to base their work on, tons of people who had made "mistakes" so they could learn from them.

Apple innovated by creating a device with great hardware, software and design at an affordable price. They got everything right.

That's not innovation as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring. That's good marketing and delivery. The hardware part is based on pricing of components, something the markets simply need to wait on with technology. Software is subjective, Maemo never was bad on tablets.

I've seen that before. I don't see your point? That was a mock up of what would be, but all the other tablets were still rubbish whether they were ARM or x86. They basically made the mold for what future tablets will need to have in regards to design, hardware and software. They did innovate with the iPad.

Stop using innovate, that's not what it means. The iPad was nothing novel. Heck, the iPod Touch was prior art to the iPad.

I don't know why you feel that Apple needs to have innovated with the iPad. They didn't. Doesn't change the fact that they brought a good product that is selling very well to market, innovative or not.

 

[MythicFrost]

You've just put your finger on it. 4.13 inch display is all Nokia could manage in 2005 to get the price point low enough. The problem you're talking about is technology not being at a point that it was affordable to put in a package like Apple wanted to make.

Yeah, I know. But still no one else was trying to make an ARM based tablet around the time the iPad was released, as far as I know. It took eight months before any tablet came out to challenge it.

The Nokia 770 was a tablet, no matter its size. It was ARM based. It ran a specialised OS. I'm just pointing out to you that Apple didn't pull the iPad out of the rabbit hat. They had tons of examples out there to base their work on, tons of people who had made "mistakes" so they could learn from them.

I'm aware of that.

That's not innovation as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring. That's good marketing and delivery. The hardware part is based on pricing of components, something the markets simply need to wait on with technology. Software is subjective, Maemo never was bad on tablets.

Stop using innovate, that's not what it means. The iPad was nothing novel. Heck, the iPod Touch was prior art to the iPad.

I don't know why you feel that Apple needs to have innovated with the iPad. They didn't. Doesn't change the fact that they brought a good product that is selling very well to market, innovative or not.

I disagree with that, I do think they innovated with the iPad. They took something and did it better than everyone else through the use of great hardware, software and design.

Maemo doesn't look that good to me. It sort of reminds me of the OS on the Nokia N95.

 

[AnonMac50]

Reading the article I felt that this ruling was unfair, however...

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf

Linked to from :

http://www.apple.com/pr/

Contains the text :



Feel free to revise your opinion now.


----------



No, he's just proving the Judge's point about Apple having irreperably harmed Samsung's reputation and their need to make amends.

...after reading the above, I completely changed my mind.

 

[Nightarchaon]

Function, defines form, by apples logic all car manufacturers should be suing the hell out of each other for all copying each others "boxes on wheels"

A tablet computer needs to essentially be a slab of glass on which information is displayed, of course there all going to look similar, the look is designed by the function of the damn thing, i expect my tablet computer to look like a tablet computer, the same why i expect my car to look like a car, the bells and whistles on each are what differentiate them from one another, so the extra ports on one tablet over another, or the software loaded on it, just like on a car its the differences in the bodywork and interior that make the box on wheels a slightly different box on wheels from the next one.

apple should get over themselves, the iPad is not the first tablet, its just the first successful tablet, if anything the firms that made those failed tablets should be suing apple for copying them, same with the smartphones.

Apple, its time to get over yourself, your not the poor nitch company anymore, your the 100lb gorilla , and throwing your weight around like this is not going to do you any favours, ask Microsoft, they have been through all this before.

Do you listen to music on an MP3 player or an iPod, most people will say iPod even though they own a generic MP3 player.
Do you use Bing to search the internet ?, your still Googling something to the general Public.
When you vacuum your house, you don't Dyson it, you Hoover.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yeah, I know. But still no one else was trying to make an ARM based tablet around the time the iPad was released, as far as I know. It took eight months before any tablet came out to challenge it.

Except as pointed out, what you're aware of is far from reality. The Nokia 770 and its successors is one example. The JooJoo Pad is another.

I'm aware of that.

If you're aware that the Nokia tablet was a ARM based tablet running a specialised OS in 2005, with successors shipping at regular intervals until the iPad, why do you keep denying their existance then, like you did above ?

Seems to me that's called denial.

I disagree with that, I do think they innovated with the iPad. They took something and did it better than everyone else through the use of great hardware, software and design.

Doing something better using the same design/parts/paradigms as everyone else is not innovation, it's iterativeness. It's not "novel", which is the very basis of innovation.

Innovation is a word that is abused on this forum. It's almost to the point it means nothing. Anyone releasing a new iterative product is now "innovative" by your definition.

Call me when the iPad did something novel, new, fresh, different. As it stands, all it was was the proper tech at the proper time with the proper software, all things that had been around but couldn't be packaged up together due to certain factors.

Maemo doesn't look that good to me. It sort of reminds me of the OS on the Nokia N95.

Of course that's your subjective opinion and why has "look good" suddenly come into the competition ? Now that you've been introduced to a "specialised mobile OS" and that your argument as fallen apart, you're moving goalposts to "looks good" ?

That is the reason we can never have intelligent conversation here. Somehow, Apple must always win, always be innovative.

Apple is where they are today because they don't always win and they don't always innovate. Sometimes they lose, learn from their mistakes and come back better. Sometimes they don't innovate, because the wheel works fine, it just needs a little grease to get going, which Apple provides. That's why I think Apple is great and to say otherwise, that they must always wow us with novel concepts and innovative product is insulting to what Apple has done. And these insults to Apple always come from their hard core fanbase, which is what is more surprising.

 

[DeathChill]

Without getting into a long, boring argument I'd say that Apple defined what a tablet should be with the iPad.

 

[turtlez]

Are you seriously implying that without iPad there wouldn't be any tablets? You know there were tablets years before the iPad right?

yes and those tablets would still be as little known to the world as they were before the iPad was introduced. Do you seriously think other companies would have quickly developed their iPad clones without the iPad around? They were calling it iPad (tampon) and oversized toy that no one will buy on its release date.

----------

Without getting into a long, boring argument I'd say that Apple defined what a tablet should be with the iPad.

pretty damn obvious huh. Too bad some people choose to just go against anything Apple does. If Apple says the sky is blue, you will get people saying Apple is wrong lol.

----------

Except as pointed out, what you're aware of is far from reality. The Nokia 770 and its successors is one example. The JooJoo Pad is another.



If you're aware that the Nokia tablet was a ARM based tablet running a specialised OS in 2005, with successors shipping at regular intervals until the iPad, why do you keep denying their existance then, like you did above ?

Seems to me that's called denial.



Doing something better using the same design/parts/paradigms as everyone else is not innovation, it's iterativeness. It's not "novel", which is the very basis of innovation.

Innovation is a word that is abused on this forum. It's almost to the point it means nothing. Anyone releasing a new iterative product is now "innovative" by your definition.

Call me when the iPad did something novel, new, fresh, different. As it stands, all it was was the proper tech at the proper time with the proper software, all things that had been around but couldn't be packaged up together due to certain factors.



Of course that's your subjective opinion and why has "look good" suddenly come into the competition ? Now that you've been introduced to a "specialised mobile OS" and that your argument as fallen apart, you're moving goalposts to "looks good" ?

That is the reason we can never have intelligent conversation here. Somehow, Apple must always win, always be innovative.

Apple is where they are today because they don't always win and they don't always innovate. Sometimes they lose, learn from their mistakes and come back better. Sometimes they don't innovate, because the wheel works fine, it just needs a little grease to get going, which Apple provides. That's why I think Apple is great and to say otherwise, that they must always wow us with novel concepts and innovative product is insulting to what Apple has done. And these insults to Apple always come from their hard core fanbase, which is what is more surprising.

If you can't stand having conversations here then why do you continue to do so?

 

[KnightWRX]

If you can't stand having conversations here then why do you continue to do so?

Because not everyone sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "INNOVATION" without having the slightest clue what the word even means. Not everyone is closed minded and makes comments about things they have no knowledge of (like a certain someone with lack of knowledge of IP protection laws uh ? ).

For those other users, I simply move them to ignore after a time.

 

[MythicFrost]

Except as pointed out, what you're aware of is far from reality. The Nokia 770 and its successors is one example. The JooJoo Pad is another.

If you're aware that the Nokia tablet was a ARM based tablet running a specialised OS in 2005, with successors shipping at regular intervals until the iPad, why do you keep denying their existance then, like you did above ?

Seems to me that's called denial.

How are you taking what I wrote as saying that no ARM based tablet existed before the iPad? Read what I said again... I said no one else was trying to make a tablet around the time the iPad was released. (I'm meaning prior to its release if that isn't clear.) The JooJoo was announced after, and released nearly a year later on Mar 2010, and it had its own flaws.

The last "successor" to the 770 tablet that I know of was the N800 in 2007.

Doing something better using the same design/parts/paradigms as everyone else is not innovation, it's iterativeness. It's not "novel", which is the very basis of innovation.

Call me when the iPad did something novel, new, fresh, different. As it stands, all it was was the proper tech at the proper time with the proper software, all things that had been around but couldn't be packaged up together due to certain factors.

The minimalist design was innovative, everyone else had buttons and clutter and then Apple released the iPad. Now every tablet has a minimalist design.

I consider getting the hardware, software and design, in a market which was desolate and where everyone was doing everything wrong, to be innovative. They did something new, and fresh.

You say "As it stands, all it was was the proper tech at the proper time with the proper software, all things that had been around but couldn't be packaged up together due to certain factors.", but why for eight months did no competition come out to compete with the iPad? The technology was available, but no tablets. It seems to me that no one was trying to make a fresh product in the tablet market at the time, until the iPad. It was given up on, because no one thought it could be done successfully and then BAM! Everyone's making them.

Innovation is a word that is abused on this forum. It's almost to the point it means nothing. Anyone releasing a new iterative product is now "innovative" by your definition.

No, not at all.

Of course that's your subjective opinion and why has "look good" suddenly come into the competition ? Now that you've been introduced to a "specialised mobile OS" and that your argument as fallen apart, you're moving goalposts to "looks good" ?

My argument has anything but fallen apart. I merely commented on the OS, I think it looks pretty bad to be honest, particularly back in 2005.

That is the reason we can never have intelligent conversation here. Somehow, Apple must always win, always be innovative.

No, but credit is due where credit is due.

Apple is where they are today because they don't always win and they don't always innovate. Sometimes they lose, learn from their mistakes and come back better. Sometimes they don't innovate, because the wheel works fine, it just needs a little grease to get going, which Apple provides. That's why I think Apple is great and to say otherwise, that they must always wow us with novel concepts and innovative product is insulting to what Apple has done. And these insults to Apple always come from their hard core fanbase, which is what is more surprising.

I've never said that.

----------

Because not everyone sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "INNOVATION" without having the slightest clue what the word even means. Not everyone is closed minded and makes comments about things they have no knowledge of (like a certain someone with lack of knowledge of IP protection laws uh ? ).

For those other users, I simply move them to ignore after a time.

Definition of innovation.

Also see the definition on dictionary.reference here.

 

[inscrewtable]

Samsung should call their next phone a Sosumi