Am I the only one that sees that the only unique thing about the iPad is the single home button? The rest is generic stuff, rectangular, screen in the center, bezels all around, and rounded corners. Hey Apple, rounded corners aren't new. For the longest time now people have discovered that sharp corners can cause injuries and have remedied it with rounded corners.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales in U.S.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, I know that.That's not what we were talking about just 2 seconds ago. We were talking about the previous ruling in Decem... err.. you know what ? NVM. I didn't say anything, I never replied to you *steps away slowly*
Isn't it just easier for you to write "oh I made a mistake, sorry?" In a thread that starts with a link to a story about yesterday's ruling, in which of my posts did I switch to talking about her smartphone rulings? (Answer: none)
Or is this another instance where you are re-defining commonly used words to mean something else (such as "forced"), such that when you wrote this you were talking about the December ruling even though the appellate ruling did not yet exist?
It shows that apple has lied and falsified evidence in court before.....apple wants to be the only company on the planet that is allowed to sell a tablet with a touch screen.
At this point, I don't even think you're following the conversation anymore. Please just stop. You've changed subjects on me 3 times. I can't have made a mistake, when you've changed the subject every time you've replied to me.
That's what the *steps away slowly* was for. You're obviously not even understanding a word I'm typing here.I really have no time to go back, requote 4 posts, explain to you the chain of conversation you've obviously missed while actively participating in it. I'll leave that to you as an exercise for my last parting gift.
I'll move you to ignore I think. Forget I ever replied to you, that was my mistake.
At this point, I don't even think you're following the conversation anymore. Please just stop. You've changed subjects on me 3 times. I can't have made a mistake, when you've changed the subject every time you've replied to me.
I really have no time to go back, requote 4 posts, explain to you the chain of conversation you've obviously missed while actively participating in it. I'll leave that to you as an exercise for my last parting gift.
I'll move you to ignore I think. Forget I ever replied to you, that was my mistake.
Just as another use predicted 5 pages back:
It must be hard to be so misunderstood by so many.
If you would like a copy of the court opinions, send me a PM and I will be happy to send you a copy with a friendly note. It's obvious you haven't read them.
if you mistake a Galaxy Tab for an iPad after looking it over, playing with the Android OS and picking up a retail box with a logo that obviously looks nothing like an apple with a bite out of it, you are a moron
and I love how people ignore evidence that disproves their Apple invents everything train of thought
and I love how people ignore evidence that disproves their Apple invents everything train of thought
widget shaped widget
Make any sense now?
I thought they just owned the pull-down to refresh? Maybe they own that one too.
Make any sense now?
I thought they just owned the pull-down to refresh? Maybe they own that one too.
Attachments
Last edited:
Sorry I had to work all day, but I'll give you the cliff notes version of my response.Really ? Sure the second statement is true, but the first ? You see, software being useless without hardware does not imply that software has to work in unison with hardware.
Software has been design as hardware agnostic for years. Linux, runs on things like TVs, networking equipment, watches, PCs, set top boxes for media viewing, etc.. etc.. It's a piece of software that's pretty much hardware agnostic. It does not work in unison with hardware, it exposes a driver architecture that permits hardware makers to write a compatibility layer for their devices.
Android uses Linux as a kernel, but goes 1 step farther. Android, the framework (not the OS), is written on top of the Java language and using a Java to bytecode compiler, is then run on a VM (Davlik) before being fed as native ARM code into the device through Linux' exposed syscall API to talk to the hardware, as presented by the driver layer (Linux translates the system calls to actual driver calls so that Davlik doesn't need to know what the underlying hardware is). But if one compiles Davlik for x86 instead of ARM, you can then run Android applications on top of x86 based devices (like Intel's new SoC for smartphones/tablets).
So the software doesn't know what architecture it's running on, it needs to know the Android framework. The Android framework needs to compile to bytecode to run on Davlik. Davlik knows of Linux system call interfaces. Linux knows about its driver architecture. The driver knows about the hardware.
All of that, so the software doesn't need to know any real fundamental details about the underlying hardware.
But of course, you'd need to actually know a thing or two about writing software and how modern OSes work to understand any of this. Feel free to go on thinking that "Android = Phone with a kaaaaybooooard then a touch screeeeeenn!!".
The fact is simple : Android and iOS are very different beasts. You want to claim the HTC Desire or the Samsung Galaxy SII is an iPhone clone ? Do so, that's another topic. You claimed with specifity that Android (the OS, software, the frameworks, name it) is a clone of iOS. Do you even understand the design philophies behind both OSes enough to make such a claim ? The UI design paradigms and where they come from ? Because frankly, I doesn't seem like it to me.
In fact, I'd claim ChrisTX is a blatant copy of all the other people that don't know squat about this subject in this case.
Microsoft does an excellent job of providing their windows software to MANY different vendors and outside of vista seemed to run quite well. Google on the other hand seemed to struggle with this until ICS. Honeycomb on tablets wasn't so great, and earlier versions of Android just weren't as buttery smooth as iOS. Therefore the argument that software has to work in unison with hardware might not be 100%. However I still believer in order for the user experience to be acceptable, it should.
Lastly, I only think Samsungs earlier versions of Touchwiz as found on the original Galaxy S truly mimicked iOS in form and function. What I was getting at is the general feel of the OS. No webkit browsing like Apple introduced with Safari pre iPhone, and no multitouch gestures pre iPhone. Otherwise I don't believe the overall UI is a blatant ripoff, but the feel of Android certainly drew some inspiration.
When you look at the mobile landscape, the only ones doing something completely different these days is Microsoft. I haven't had a chance to read an Google I/O news just yet, so it will be interesting to see what they brought to the table.
surely that's sarcasm(?) Has to be. No one could defend such a ludicrous statement.
----------
A great treatise on software engineering. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything to do with similarities between iOS and Android. The front-end UI is where the creative vision is expressed. How some coding wanks implement it is irrelevant. It's easy enough to have Apple demonstrate a revolutionary mobile phone UI, then engineer a back end that can replicate it (however clumsily).
But that's your opinion on how to design systems. Other vendors and makers have other visions, ones which are more hardware agnostic in nature. Something for everyone.
How so ? Samsung's original Galaxy S UI is pretty much what it still is today, and uses Android's paradigm of a customizable widget interface :
Of course, Apple tends to only show pictures with the device showing it's Application drawer open, to sort of "mimic" iOS. I think in this instance, Apple is trying hard to tell us Samsung copied the UI, when in fact, it's all smoke and mirrors.
Android's UI and iOS' UI paradigms and design goals are different. Android is for customizability which offers a user a chance to make the device truely is while iOS is for rigidity, which makes a user able to pick up any iOS device and be productive with it instantly.
Both approaches have pros and cons and both have merit. Both might not appeal to the same crowd.
No different than Apple that drew inspiration off Android, RIM and Windows Mobile. No different than Palm drew inspiration off other players, same for everyone in this industry. That's how innovation and moving forward works. People get inspired by others, and perfect ideas, invent new ones, re-invent old ones or simply ignore bad ones.
What's different about Windows Phone 7 really ? Live tiles ? They're just icons. Everyone does tons of things different from each other, however except for Windows Phone, most other platforms are "mature" (have been with us for more than 2-3 years, so we're used to seeing them). No one is reinventing their UI and design drastically, because that could alienate users (no matter how much people here clamor for the big iOS UI redesign).
The front-end UIs are also different. They have different goals and design philosophies. To claim iOS' rigidity and familiarity is what Android is after is ludicrous. To claim Android's customizability and flexibility is what iOS is after is also quite ridiculous.
I have covered this already in many posts.
So the back-ends are designed differently, the front-ends are designed differently. Goals seem to be polar opposites in many cases between the platforms. What exactly is it you people want to claim Android copied from iOS ? Icons ? Is it really icons ?
Last edited:
It's really not too much to expect a giant company to design their tablets to be unique enough that one wouldn't mistake one for an iPad at first glance. It's quite possible; Sony, Microsoft, Acer, and many other have unique designs that don't resemble the iPad at all.
Many of you are acting as if Samsung has no other choice. This is NOT the case - as I said previously in this thread, their aim is to market their Galaxy line as iPhones and iPads that cost less than real iPhones and iPads. Top this off with Samsung's prior shady history of copying other companies and it becomes even more clear.
Many of you are acting as if Samsung has no other choice. This is NOT the case - as I said previously in this thread, their aim is to market their Galaxy line as iPhones and iPads that cost less than real iPhones and iPads. Top this off with Samsung's prior shady history of copying other companies and it becomes even more clear.
Icons you touch. That's what makes it a total and complete ripoff.
I also love how the guy bags on the engineers while praising the all might Apple designers. A pretty UI slapped over a sloppy framework that takes 10 minutes to launch an app isn't doing anyone any good, is it? On the flipside of that, the fastest OS in the world doesn't amount to much if you have to read a 500 page manual before you can comfortably use it.
I think some of these people who read Steve Job's bio and think themselves computer marketing geniuses who yearn to make products that Just Work need to take a step away from Steveland and realize that the engineers are just as important as the designers when it comes to technology. You can't have a good product without either one of them.
Define pointless. How can you possibly state that Google+ is on its way to be a failure? Do you have some magic crystal ball? No. You just have an unmitigated bias. Which is fine if you want to just admit it.
Google Wave never really took off because most of the time it was in beta, never went remotely full featured and people didn't "get it."
Google+ doesn't remotely have those issues.
Imagine if Ford sued their competitors because they put round wheels on their cars. That's just about as silly as what Apple are doing towards Samsung.
Oh, and downvote away, this place is filled with fanboys who can't see that what Apple is doing is completely insane anyway.
Oh, and downvote away, this place is filled with fanboys who can't see that what Apple is doing is completely insane anyway.
Just a patriotic decision. In most countries such kind of lawsuit would never give any dividends to Apple.
No one ever said that. The issue is that Samsung took a little too much 'inspiration' and has potentially violated a trade dress patent. We'll see in the final trial if it plays out that way but Judge Koh believes there are enough points of commonality to make it a case worth continuing.
Yeah, of course it doesn't...
It just has nearly every design claim that iPad presented during the trial.
Wrong.
Pointless injunction. Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 already hitting the stores and Note 10.1 due to follow shortly. If Samsung really want to continue sales of the original 10.1 they will just use the 10.1N version as in Germany, until a full trial takes place.
It's sort of like a tablet producer suing the Original iPad as it will not effect sales of subsequent models.
But Apple are like a dog with a bone on any alleged patent infringement. Any bets on the Google Nexus 7 being the next tablet in the firing line? Or does size negate the fact that it's a tablet with a centred screen and a black bezel with metal rim?
It's sort of like a tablet producer suing the Original iPad as it will not effect sales of subsequent models.
But Apple are like a dog with a bone on any alleged patent infringement. Any bets on the Google Nexus 7 being the next tablet in the firing line? Or does size negate the fact that it's a tablet with a centred screen and a black bezel with metal rim?
A what now ? There is no such thing as "trade dress patents". There is Trade dress (which is akin to trademark) and there are design patents. Both are different components of Apple's complaint.
The injunction granted today was over design patents against the Galaxy Tab. An injunction that previously denied on the basis of the validitity of the patent that Judge Koh was questioning over prior art.