Apple Takes Jab at Samsung in Full Page Earth Day Newspaper Ad

[lilo777]

Funny how things are common sense after you see them.







Again, Apple didn't patent rounded corners. They didn't sue over rounded corners. The whole "rounded corners" argument is nothing but Samsung PR.

Apple did patent rounded corners (a design patent) and they did sue Samsung over it.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple did patent rounded corners (a design patent) and they did sue Samsung over it.

Again, no they didn't. They patented an overall design. Practically every phone and tablet uses rounded corners. Almost none of them, aside from the Samsung devices in question, infringed on the design patent.

 

[Born Again]

Tomorrow morning: Samsung Announces 'Galaxy Campus 3'.

And you know what ? Apple loyalists would still cry that they're copying apple

 

[Dave.UK]

With regards to them flaming Samsung, imagine you spent millions developing a new product, then all of a sudden, someone else makes something that blatantly rips the design. It's not really fair. I'll leave you with the following pic,

Image

I'll raise you a picture

 

[Dave.UK]

Moreover, a stylus should not be a selling point for your products. Wake up Samsung, the palm pilot/pocket pc died a long time ago. Reintroducing old standards into the market is not mind blowing. Am I alone of this thought process?

Your argument is flawed as this isnt just a "stylus". As you can see below where the S-pen scored 9/10

The S-Pen is capable of so much more than a standard stylus because of the Wacom digitser built into the Samsung Galaxy Note 2. This lets the phone sense differing levels of pressure from the pointer, and pinpoint the stylus's position when it is some way away from the screen surface.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsu...eview_s-pen-stylus_Page-3#ImPCI6c6ykAxbq48.99

 

[rish]

I'll raise you a picture

It's well documented that the implementation of multitouch in the iPhone and not just it's design is what is also the issue. What anyone had in a design lab is one thing. What someone successfully implemented and brought to market is another.

If recollection serves well, the look and feel of the iPhone is what the competitor copied from the iPhone. That is well documented. Quite flattering thought as well when you consider the lengths to which the competitor has gone.

 

[Dave.UK]

Reading through this thread, I wouldnt have expected anything less.

Samsung makes an ad which shows Apple in a negative light - "That is so tacky etc etc"

Apple makes an ad which trys to show other companies in a negative light - "Well done Apple, brilliant ad"

Once again Apple is late to the party. Ive worked in a Home Office building since 2008 which is run on solar energy and the rain water is collected and used to flush the toilets.

Samsung has been green for quite some time - Guess Apples decided to copy their lead.

http://www.samsung.com/us/guide-page/green/

 

[ucantgetridofme]

Samsung is in Apples head now. Whatever Samsung is doing it's working. Just mentioning Samsung in Apples ads is good advertisement for Samsung.

 

[samcraig]

It's well documented that the implementation of multitouch in the iPhone and not just it's design is what is also the issue. What anyone had in a design lab is one thing. What someone successfully implemented and brought to market is another.

If recollection serves well, the look and feel of the iPhone is what the competitor copied from the iPhone. That is well documented. Quite flattering thought as well when you consider the lengths to which the competitor has gone.

Actually it does matter. Because there are those here that believe that it was only after the iPhone that companies deciding to make devices like this. And that's not true. The industry was already heading there. I give credit where credit is due though - Apple showed everyone that many people were ready to ditch a keyboard (although based on sales, for business - a keyboard was still VERY popular for a few more years). They showcased a slick UI which was fun to use even if the phone itself was a bit limited in use.

 

[SmileyBlast!]

Reading through this thread, I wouldnt have expected anything less.

Samsung makes an ad which shows Apple in a negative light - "That is so tacky etc etc"

Apple makes an ad which trys to show other companies in a negative light - "Well done Apple, brilliant ad"

Once again Apple is late to the party. Ive worked in a Home Office building since 2008 which is run on solar energy and the rain water is collected and used to flush the toilets.

Samsung has been green for quite some time - Guess Apples decided to copy their lead.

http://www.samsung.com/us/guide-page/green/

Dave.UK you are such a troll...

I thought the Apple Advertisement was classy and maybe too subtle.
It is designed to make you feel good about buying apple products. I think it works.

That Apple solar array data center is original isn't it, for its vastness and scale?

Something for Samsung and Google to copy.

 

[Dave.UK]

Dave.UK you are such a troll...

I thought the Apple Advertisement was classy and maybe too subtle.
It is designed to make you feel good about buying apple products. I think it works.

That Apple solar array data center is original isn't it, for its vastness and scale?

Something for Samsung and Google to copy.

A troll on here appears to be someone that posts logic and reason that isnt overly positive towards Apple.

Did you even look at that Samsung link?

As a member in the EPA's Green Power Partnership, we employ renewable energy in places like our wind-powered semiconductor facility in Austin, Texas, or our solar-powered space in Los Angeles, which is also equipped with electric-vehicle charging ports.

Samsung are already green and have been for sometime.

So taking something already established and just making it bigger equals being "first"? That should create an interesting discussion about copying when the larger iPhones come out.

 

[BaldiMac]

Actually it does matter. Because there are those here that believe that it was only after the iPhone that companies deciding to make devices like this. And that's not true. The industry was already heading there.

And you know it's not true because you've seen the alternate reality where the iPhone didn't exist.

 

[samcraig]

And you know it's not true because you've seen the alternate reality where the iPhone didn't exist.

I know it's true because in the early 2000s I worked for a company that had these phones in the pipeline as well as prototypes.

 

[Rafterman]

Funny how things are common sense after you see them.







Again, Apple didn't patent rounded corners. They didn't sue over rounded corners. The whole "rounded corners" argument is nothing but Samsung PR.

A black, glass rectangle with rounded corners does not take a great deal of imagination to come up with.

Rounded corners are part of the "overall look", no?

 

[BaldiMac]

I know it's true because in the early 2000s I worked for a company that had these phones in the pipeline as well as prototypes.

I'm sure. We've had this discussion before. You don't even know what kind of software "these phones" were running. There's a big difference between prototypes and failures and bringing a phone like the iPhone to market.

What we do know without the benefits of alternate realities is that the first phone that was legitimately "like the iPhone" was released almost two years after the iPhone was demoed. And that was with the benefit of Google entering the mobile market with a competitive OS. Phone manufacturers weren't anywhere close.

A black, glass rectangle with rounded corners does not take a great deal of imagination to come up with.

Rounded corners are part of the "overall look", no?

You can argue all you want about what requires imagination and what should be patentable and whatever else you want to discuss subjectively. I'd probably agree with most of it. But that doesn't change the fact that Apple didn't claim to invent rounded corners, nor did they sue anyone simply for having rounded corners.

 

[Rafterman]

I'm sure. We've had this discussion before. You don't even know what kind of software "these phones" were running. There's a big difference between prototypes and failures and bringing a phone like the iPhone to market.

What we do know without the benefits of alternate realities is that the first phone that was legitimately "like the iPhone" was released almost two years after the iPhone was demoed. And that was with the benefit of Google entering the mobile market with a competitive OS. Phone manufacturers weren't anywhere close.



You can argue all you want about what requires imagination and what should be patentable and whatever else you want to discuss subjectively. I'd probably agree with most of it. But that doesn't change the fact that Apple didn't claim to invent rounded corners, nor did they sue anyone simply for having rounded corners.

You keep dancing around that comment "Apple didn't claim rounded corners" but rather, "the look". Well, aren't rounded corners part of the look? Its a flat black glass rectangle. There are only so many unique "looks" something like that can have.

 

[samcraig]

Phone manufacturers weren't anywhere close.

Your opinion. If we're discussing alternative universes - which one are you living in that you can state that as fact?

 

[Dave.UK]

 

[macjonny1]

awesome!

 

[BaldiMac]

You keep dancing around that comment "Apple didn't claim rounded corners" but rather, "the look". Well, aren't rounded corners part of the look? Its a flat black glass rectangle. There are only so many unique "looks" something like that can have.

I'm not dancing around anything. Yes, the overall look includes rounded corners. But that is nowhere close to claiming to invent rounded corners. Again, almost all phones and tablets contain rounded corners. They aren't all getting sued over their design. Just specific Samsung models.

Your opinion. If we're discussing alternative universes - which one are you living in that you can state that as fact?

Do I have to restate the part that you removed from my quote?

What we do know without the benefits of alternate realities is that the first phone that was legitimately "like the iPhone" was released almost two years after the iPhone was demoed. And that was with the benefit of Google entering the mobile market with a competitive OS. Phone manufacturers weren't anywhere close.

 

[Auha]

To me, Apple isn't very original in the technologies they use. Using solar to power datacenters, buildings, etc. have been around for a while.

The innovation of Apple is the execution of the technology.

 

[olowott]

Love it, after all they want to copy everything.

 

[Dave.UK]

Love it, after all they want to copy everything.

I know, Apple will learn one day.

http://www.samsung.com/us/guide-page/green/

 

[peterdevries]

I know it's true because in the early 2000s I worked for a company that had these phones in the pipeline as well as prototypes.

There were many companies that had prototypes and commercial products of various nature that go in the direction of the iPhone. Just as tablets existed before the iPad.

But from a strategic analysis point of view it was Apple that opened the market. All the others were unsuccessful in making a dent in those markets for various reasons:

• lack of geographic reach
• underdeveloped products
• Lack of marketing budget
• Failure to investigate, understand and address customer need

This list can go on and on. Not that Apple does everything right, but it cannot be disputed that Apple is the most successful company in opening up under-performing markets (smartphones, tablets, ultra books).

It is an important distinction. It doesn't really matter if Apple is the first or someone else. What matters here is that Apple is usually the first company that really succeeds in a given market.

 

[samcraig]

There were many companies that had prototypes and commercial products of various nature that go in the direction of the iPhone. Just as tablets existed before the iPad.

But from a strategic analysis point of view it was Apple that opened the market. All the others were unsuccessful in making a dent in those markets for various reasons:

• lack of geographic reach
• underdeveloped products
• Lack of marketing budget
• Failure to investigate, understand and address customer need

This list can go on and on. Not that Apple does everything right, but it cannot be disputed that Apple is the most successful company in opening up under-performing markets (smartphones, tablets, ultra books).

It is an important distinction. It doesn't really matter if Apple is the first or someone else. What matters here is that Apple is usually the first company that really succeeds in a given market.

I never disputed Apple's role in the marketplace. I give them a lot of credit. I also give the rest of the industry credit for evolving technologies and infrastructure to a point where Apple could enter it. Another reason I find it a ridiculous assertion that people want to ridicule Samsung for just being copycats and ignoring the decades of innovation (yes innovation) and technology advances they made in the industry.

Then again - I'm not too surprised since it appears some people here think nothing in the cell phone industry existed before 2007.