Apple Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales in U.S.

[samcraig]

Whether it's a "failure" or not seems debatable. Does anyone even remember the name of Apple's social network?

The original Apple evangelist Guy Kawasaki has nothing but good things to say about it:
http://mashable.com/2012/05/22/guy-kawasaki-google-plus/

And before you jump to click "Reply" with some comment like "But he's selling a book!", take a moment to consider who you're writing about. That's Guy Frickin' Kawasaki. He hardly needs the money.

Agreed. The poster I have been discussing this with in this thread pronounced Google+ not just a failure. But a stinging failure. It's WAY too early to "call it." And quite honestly - even if it doesn't succeed - referring to it as a stinging failure seems a tad biased whether it's now or later.

 

[ristlin]

I didn't bring up Ping at all. Spotify isn't a social network. Stop throwing random comments into the discussion which have nothing to do with the "argument."

Yeah. Much like when Apple boasted about their 1+ Million Ping users. That data wasn't "shady" at all...

What a failure.

 

[phpmaven]

That's exactly what it has to do with :

"The copying is so pervasive, that the Samsung Galaxy products appear to be actual Apple products -- with the same rectangular shape with rounded corners, silver edging, a flat surface face with substantial top and bottom black borders, gently curving edges on the back, and a display of colorful square icons with rounded corners," the complaint said"

Source : http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/apple-sues-samsung-says-it-copied-ipad-301

The main issues of contention are not the shape but the software.

 

[ristlin]

Agreed. The poster I have been discussing this with in this thread pronounced Google+ not just a failure. But a stinging failure. It's WAY too early to "call it." And quite honestly - even if it doesn't succeed - referring to it as a stinging failure seems a tad biased whether it's now or later.

It would be biased if I held some sort of prejudice against Google or Google+, but I don't. I actually have several gmail accounts and a Google+ account and was hoping to ditch Facebook for it.

 

[samcraig]

It would be biased if I held some sort of prejudice against Google or Google+, but I don't. I actually have several gmail accounts and a Google+ account and was hoping to ditch Facebook for it.

"some of my best email accounts are gmail"

You like the word failure.

My ping reference was relevant (unlike yours) because it was a rebuttal to your reference to Google being shady with it's reporting. Try and keep up.

 

[A.S.A.P]

When is Apple going to sue Android manufacturers for copying iOS's pulldown notification center?

I hope that was sarcasm... ANDROID has had this feature since Day 1...years before your beloved iphone 4s...If that was patented by Google then Apple would be infringing...yet none of the hard core Apple supporters will even acknowledge the fact. Apple wants to run Android to the ground but in essence Android is what's making iOS better...

----------

Which is why Apple is suing every tablet and Android phone over this particular issue...oh...wait...it's just Samsung? Nobody else?

Well, if Apple is just being a jerk and this works so well, why do you think they're limiting themselves to just one company? Surely you have an answer to that question, right?

I need to do your research... Samsung is one of many being sue by Apple... U didn't know?

 

[ristlin]

"some of my best email accounts are gmail"

You like the word failure.

My ping reference was relevant (unlike yours) because it was a rebuttal to your reference to Google being shady with it's reporting. Try and keep up.

"Those guys aren't being honest so its OK that Google isn't" is hardly a rebuttal as it does nothing to address the central issue.

Here's something that does:

 

[samcraig]

"Those guys aren't being honest so its OK that Google isn't" is hardly a rebuttal as it does nothing to address the central issue.

Here's something that does:

1) An infotainment graphic can't predict the future. The past doesn't equal the future. The present doesn't even equal the future.

2) Since Google has already begun integrating Google+ into their search results it already makes Google+ more valuable than in the past.

3) Comparing Google+ to Facebook and Twitter right NOW is pretty irrelevant. Oh you can do it. But it's a stretch to try and prove anything based on the stats.

4) Stop introducing a straw man argument. I never said one company was better or worse for doing the same activity. I pointed out that both were guilty of the same action.

 

[ristlin]

1) An infotainment graphic can't predict the future. The past doesn't equal the future. The present doesn't even equal the future.

2) Since Google has already begun integrating Google+ into their search results it already makes Google+ more valuable than in the past.

3) Comparing Google+ to Facebook and Twitter right NOW is pretty irrelevant. Oh you can do it. But it's a stretch to try and prove anything based on the stats.

4) Stop introducing a straw man argument. I never said one company was better or worse for doing the same activity. I pointed out that both were guilty of the same action.

1) Based on these numbers alone we don't even have to wait for the future, lol. The little piece about Pinterest vs. Google+ development cost

2) The data on the graphic were updated this month.

3) Google+ likes to call itself a social media site. A lot of people call it that. Comparing Google+ to Facebook and Twitter is quite relevant as we can gauge the success of each social media site as it stands today. It proves that less people use Google+ today (one year after launch) than Google likes to admit.

4) Take another look at the definition of a straw man argument. What I used:
""Those guys aren't being honest so its OK that Google isn't" is hardly a rebuttal as it does nothing to address the central issue."
Is not a straw man argument. It's called a criticism.

Let's go back to the main point. The only thing that matters is that Google is hiding its true numbers and based off the latest data (as of June 2012) it's clear that Google+ isn't doing so well. It's actually doing so poor to justify my opinion that Google+ is a stinging failure.

The data you are basing your assumption on is old data as it's been pointed out to you. Whether or not you want to accept the new data is your problem. But the fact that you're using data several months old to draw your conclusion simply illustrates your bias. Go and find data to prove your point that is more current and I will gladly admit I was wrong. See how that works?

Found the new data (presented a few posts above). Now its your turn to admit you were wrong.

 

[melendezest]

This device would like to once again, refute you.
Image
I can't claim it 1st.
but it sure was around prior to the iphone.

again, Apple didnt invent, nor were they the first. They were just really damn good at 'image'. and the apple image sold.

this image wasn't generated via the iphone or iOS either. Thats the kicker.

Apple's image really came back to the forefront of industrial design around a similar, but much different device.
Image

It was THIS iconic device that made apple a household name again. it was this iconic device that made everyone go "holy crap, apple knows industrial design". it was the ipod's insane adoption as the leading Mp3 maker that made headway for apple to even make the iphone, which was far from the first smartphone.

The Ipod wasn't even the first hard drive based mp3 player. so were they in fact ripping off the concept and design from others?


Apple fanboys... they're always a lark. What i'm trying to understand here is, so now you agree that apple didnt actually invent any of those technologies, But because they took them, put them all together in one of the most popular packages, they should in fact be given complete ownership of the concept of putting them together?

sense. Doesn't that make

It doesn't make sense to you. I said putting those elements together in the way that they did. The way they did it is the key, and that is why they became more successful than any other player in the business. Customers preferred it over any other implementation of those elements that already existed. So yes, they should own their "formula". It's like a cooking recipe.

Now, this is all opinion. When it comes down to it, the only ones that can make an assertion as to what is right and wrong in discussions like this are the judges overseeing the IP and copyright cases, within the limits of existing laws. You'll never find "facts" in any forum, just hearsay.

So don't get bent out of shape and start attributing the "Apple fanboy" thing to the fact that I and others like me disagree with you. Or go ahead and do that. It doesn't matter at all.

 

[melendezest]

Can you link where do you have seen Android BEFORE the iPhone was released? Or is because you work at Google?

Yawn. No. Not because I can't (I saw it in this very thread), but because I'm exhausted of going in circles over this.

Like I told someone else in this thread, you'll never get "facts" or "proof" here, which is what you're fixated on. This is ALL opinion and hearsay, based on individual research and experience. The only ones that can say this is a "fact", are the judges overseeing the IP and copyright cases, and even that is limited in scope by existing laws.

So this is an exercise in futility.

The takeaway from all this is that, based on what I assume is your own research, you don't believe Android is an iOS clone. Fine. Based on my own personal research, I believe it is.

...walking away, to have a go at the wife.

 

[Compile 'em all]

The charger has a completely different color, the corners of the Samsung charger are less rounded and it appears to have a small ridge on the top that the Apple charger lacks.
The box; there's clearly much more white space between the product image and the edge of the box on the Samsung box, that's such an important difference. When you open the box, the only way to make that different is to add padding which would increase the size of the box, and you can't demand that they do that when they don't need to.

I don't know if you are being serious or just trolling. Just to invalidate all your "arguments", I will ask you to take a look at how Samsung chargers and packaging looked before and after the iPhone (iPad) was released. Thank you.

 

[Lennholm]

I don't know if you are being serious or just trolling. Just to invalidate all your "arguments", I will ask you to take a look at how Samsung chargers and packaging looked before and after the iPhone (iPad) was released. Thank you.

Not trolling, it's called tounge in cheek. When Apple fans want to show how others copied Apple, every small insignificant detail that is similar is used to show that. Therefore, I mentioned every small insignificant detail that is different to show the opposite.

 

[ryane67]

Does anyone else find it funny that apple has suits like this going on yet they are happy to use samsung components like their ssd's in the hardware they sell?