Samsung Turning Dispute with Apple to its Advantage in Australian Marketing

[KnightWRX]

Try not attacking people if you want real answers.

It wasn't an attack. Try not to read what is not there if you want me to hold an honest conversation.

It was a legitimate question. From the quote, I understood that you don't fact check because it's frankly not worth your time, you'd rather just spout whatever comes up in your mind as if it were fact.

 

[foiden]

I think the issue is using visuals alone as an idea somebody else ripped off. Of course lots of stuff came out before that seemed to get the visuals similar. I think the only thing that becomes more of a ripoff is when the look, feel, and behavior of another system is copied to a tee. But of course, I'd see a bunch of folks here trying to come up with machines (previous to iOS) that had the full combo of icon view, accelerated scrolling, an OS, system-wide applications designed specifically for multi-touch, and multi-touch before Apple put it out.

So in a way, I think limiting it to one thing is asking for too much. It does look highly suspect when someone comes along and grabs an entire combo of technologies (some of which you patented) and creates the like device. The visuals then just become that last bit of icing on the cake. Kind of wonder how the entertainment media gets away with protecting their IPs. Considering that the individual parts of what makes Pokemon could never be seen as something Nintendo came up with, but all of the Pokemon-like things never copied as many combinations of ideas together to make their product. Which, of course, makes them a whole different monster of their own still allowing Pokemon to seem more unique in both the mythos and the style of environment and combat.

I still think the more exact aspects of all the litigation to be a bit silly. If they were to litigate, they should've went the route of marking the combo of techs instead of trying to hit on 1 single one as it's much harder to accept a ruling on issues of just 1 single aspect of your product. The most important patent they should've dealt with was one that talked about the combo of several important technologies together in one product, which would've forced competitors to have to find other methods to offer similar functionality or a new inventive and better way. Force the same ingenuity level that you had to do.

I love the whole concept of competition. And I definitely want it. But here's where I differ than some. When I see competition, I want them to compete on similar merits of ingenuity. I want them to offer something truly different. My beef with *some* of the competitors is that they're trying to offer the exact same product with their name on it. It's here when I'm practically thinking the windows 8 idea seems better than some because they actually look like they're trying to offer something different within that form factor, and hopefully (to them) they actually come up with an even better idea in tablet use. Just because iPad came out and got popular first doesn't mean that someone else couldn't come up with an even easier to use and better tablet system that works differently but better. It's rather closed-minded to think that Apple's approach is the only way and that companies that follow that example are the only ones that are doing it right.

 

[divinox]

Thanks! I did not know there were other tablets designed like this before the iPad. (NOT being sarcastic).



Which is why I said, "The point is, as soon as Apple proves one form factor as a successful one" . I knew I didn't know my history. That's why I knew I could be wrong and allowed for that mistake.

I would like to know, did those other tablets use their own OS? Or were they using Windows? Because if so, then the iPad is still the first to use the grid of icons and the whole designed for multitouch OS.

I still think Samsung is basically ripping Apple off. I don't think the other tablet makers should be forced to change their design, but there's no denying that Samsung isn't just following a popular form factor, they're blatantly ripping off.

As they were generally PC's (in the x86 sense), they'd run pretty much any PC-compatible OS that you'd put on them. And yes, there were also tablets using non-MSFT software (Moblin, Ubuntu mobile, Kubuntu, Symbian etc.); the MID (Mobile internet device) spectrum is full of them (and full of Win CE devices too, of course). That said, I do, however, fail to see how any of this is relevant. In a sense, the wheel is still a wheel, regardless of how many times you claim to have reinvented it.

 

[phySi0]

The Courier was never announced, hence it really can't be vaporware; it never ware (sic!)

That's what vapourware is!

What next? Somebody patenting the clear pane, forcing everyone else to smudge it? Yeah, that seems sensible, right?

I've now conceded that other tablet makers shouldn't be forced to change their design. However, I still haven't changed my position on Samsung, who are just blatantly ripping off Apple.

Correction, it happens every time SOMEONE makes a successful device.

True. I guess we're just tired of Apple changing whole industries, only to see all the old, established players start following their lead. It can't be helped, but, to me at least, it gets tiring. I'm sure Steve is pretty frustrated too. Imagine you make something so well-received. Wouldn't you get annoyed if almost everyone followed your lead and the excuse everytime was, "How else can we do it?" It may be a legitimate excuse, but it's tiring, no?

Now, if we are to apply MR-reasoning: Apple shouldn't be allowed to sell desktop (paradigm) computers (incl. iOS). Sure, Apple had done GUI work, but they weren't successful. It was Microsoft (Win95) who "got it right", and pushed the shift in paradigm. Clearly then, no one other than MSFT (who made the "(digital) form factor" successful) should be able to do what they did; no one should be allowed to copy their success - right?

Apple creating desktops that challenge conventions or do something new/unexpected (already mentioned examples include: B&W Power Mac G3, iMac, TAM. Others include: iMac G4, iMac G5, Cube, PowerBook G4 12", PowerBook G4 12", Original Macintosh, MacBook Air. My history goes further, but I'm less sure on those computers, so I won't mention them.) is not the same as a host of competitors jumping on your bandwagon with minimal "improvements".

The best the competition can do is not to offer something new, but to offer something Apple doesn't have that everyone knew would be filled in, i.e. Sideloading apps (too predictable, of course they'd offer this, but Apple didn't for a reason. They just saw this is a feature that people want and offered it. Not like how Apple sees a feature that would be a new, never before done feature that changes the world and offers it, e.g. the GUI, multitouch, iMac G4's screen)

 

[KnightWRX]

That's what vapourware is!

Vaporware are things that are announced but never shipped. The Courrier was never announced as an actual product.

 

[divinox]

That's what vapourware is!

No; see KnightWRX response above.

I've now conceded that other tablet makers shouldn't be forced to change their design. However, I still haven't changed my position on Samsung, who are just blatantly ripping off Apple.

Good for you, that makes you more sensible than the average in here.

True. I guess we're just tired of Apple changing whole industries, only to see all the old, established players start following their lead. It can't be helped, but, to me at least, it gets tiring. I'm sure Steve is pretty frustrated too. Imagine you make something so well-received. Wouldn't you get annoyed if almost everyone followed your lead and the excuse everytime was, "How else can we do it?" It may be a legitimate excuse, but it's tiring, no?

Why would anyone be tired of that? Rather, embrace it. If everyone were forced to leapfrog everything, and never build cumulatively, we'd be far worse off in pretty much every way possible. And, Apple are no different than anyone else. They too follow at times; like expected. Further, its not so much an excuse as a reason. Like i said: Business 101.

Apple creating desktops that challenge conventions or do something new/unexpected (already mentioned examples include: B&W Power Mac G3, iMac, TAM. Others include: iMac G4, iMac G5, Cube, PowerBook G4 12", PowerBook G4 12", Original Macintosh, MacBook Air. My history goes further, but I'm less sure on those computers, so I won't mention them.) is not the same as a host of competitors jumping on your bandwagon with minimal "improvements".

I was talking about the software side of things, rather than hardware design. Point still remains: MSFT were the successful one: why should others (read: Apple) be allowed to free-ride on their success?

What a lot of people say around here are just as senseless as the paragraph above.

The best the competition can do is not to offer something new, but to offer something Apple doesn't have that everyone knew would be filled in, i.e. Sideloading apps (too predictable, of course they'd offer this, but Apple didn't for a reason. They just saw this is a feature that people want and offered it. Not like how Apple sees a feature that would be a new, never before done feature that changes the world and offers it, e.g. the GUI, multitouch, iMac G4's screen)

Why should everyone else do this, but not Apple? For example, Apple were extremely late to running apps natively. Similarly, they were late on having 3G (and subsequently 4G), front-facing camera and god knows.

As for never seen before, new, features: what are you referring to? GUI - seen and done. Multitouch - seen and done. The only thing standing out is the G4 (a design indeed worthy of protection - since its actually designed, rather than un-designed), but i don't see many copying that either (the screen part was in fact seen and done, so that deserves little protection on its own).

And, why should anyone be able to protect the never before seen or done, per se? Like stated, that would leave the world far less behind progress wise. Wright brothers made a plane. Should no one other than them have been allowed to make a plane after they succeeded with theirs? Does that seem right, good and sensible? I think not.

 

[phySi0]

Vaporware are things that are announced but never shipped. The Courrier was never announced as an actual product.

Ah, my bad! I was thinking in terms of a product that people act as if it existed, but it doesn't. Your definition is the correct one and I should have used that definition.

Why would anyone be tired of that? Rather, embrace it. If everyone were forced to leapfrog everything, and never build cumulatively, we'd be far worse off in pretty much every way possible. And, Apple are no different than anyone else. They too follow at times; like expected. Further, its not so much an excuse as a reason. Like i said: Business 101.

That is probably what we should do. However, when this happens repeatedly, it gets tiring. Apple make such successful products and then people try to imitate the success without really understanding why it's so successful.

I was talking about the software side of things, rather than hardware design. Point still remains: MSFT were the successful one: why should others (read: Apple) be allowed to free-ride on their success?

What a lot of people say around here are just as senseless as the paragraph above.

I don't think Apple free-rode on Microsoft's success. They were the first to bring the GUI to the consumer market and Microsoft popularised it by making it cheap, not by improving on it in any way.

Apple popularises because they actually create something people want. Microsoft and some others popularise by making it cheap, and people buy because they are not tech-savvy and believe they will get a similar experience for cheap. As people are finding out that's not true, Macs are getting more and more popular, while PCs are being left behind.

Why should everyone else do this, but not Apple? For example, Apple were extremely late to running apps natively.

This was a response to consumer demand, not to someone else deciding to do it. It wasn't like they saw a successful way to do something and thought, "we should do that!" It was that they decided to do something different and they took a risk, and even when allowing software natively, they still did it differently and took a risk with that.

Similarly, they were late on having 3G (and subsequently 4G), front-facing camera and god knows.

3G and 4G are hardly Apple copying someone. They're carrier networks that (almost?) every carrier offers. They're standard features. Kudos to the first company to add cameras onto phones, but it's hardly like getting rid of almost all the hardware buttons on a device and using only a touchscreen, a home button + volume buttons, silencer and power button. The second is a massive risk.

Apple takes a lot of risks. The problem with these other companies is that if something is too much of a risk, they'll wait for Apple to do it, then do the same if it's successful. If that isn't free-riding, I don't know what is.

As for never seen before, new, features: what are you referring to? GUI - seen and done.

Once before and not really successful. Apple took a risk. I keep using that word, but it's true. Plus, Steve went to Xerox and didn't just look at the system and decide to take it for himself. The Xerox employees were paid for the privilege of having their work copied. Plus, Steve added many elements that the Xerox computer didn't use and didn't just copy outright.

Multitouch - seen and done.

Touch was done. Multitouch, I believe, wasn't. Apple bought a company called FingerWorks and used their multitouch technology and not only that, made it the focus of the whole phone, so that if it failed, the whole phone failed. That was another risk.

And, why should anyone be able to protect the never before seen or done, per se?

Like I said, the other tablet makers shouldn't be forced to change their designs. But Samsung is not just copying Apple or following their lead, but blatantly ripping them off.

Like stated, that would leave the world far less behind progress wise. Wright brothers made a plane. Should no one other than them have been allowed to make a plane after they succeeded with theirs? Does that seem right, good and sensible? I think not.

It's not nice when you make something and it's repeatedly copied. Your successes are free-rode off of and you become the guinea pig that other companies wait to try new things.

But you present a good conundrum. How to not let people free-ride of anothers' success, while allowing the world to progress? I think it's just a matter of at least adding your own worthwhile changes.

So far, Android hasn't done that, in my opinion. Sure they've offered features that Apple doesn't, but these were features that were known that certain people wanted and they just shoddily added these on and waited for the money to roll in. They don't care about their users or progressing the world. Apple does! That's what makes them different.

I think the people who want to progress the world can and will do that without free-riding on others' successes. They will add their worthwhile changes, because after all, they want to progress the world, right?

 

[divinox]

That is probably what we should do. However, when this happens repeatedly, it gets tiring. Apple make such successful products and then people try to imitate the success without really understanding why it's so successful.

It happens repeatedly because that is the fundamental principle of the a) market b) cumulative knowledge process. And, don't pull that "they don't get it" carp (because it is just that, c rap). They get it, they just opt for a different route that makes sense for them given their organization-specific capabilities.

I don't think Apple free-rode on Microsoft's success. They were the first to bring the GUI to the consumer market and Microsoft popularised it by making it cheap, not by improving on it in any way.

Who cares - it didn't sell before MSFT made it so; its still a derivative of Xerox Alto and Star. Apple made it somewhat cheaper. Good for them. They still failed. MSFT made the product viable. Further, MSFT has surely made their fair share of improvements of the "GUI" (call it WIMP instead, thats what it is).

Apple popularises because they actually create something people want.

Yada yada. If that was the case, they wouldn't have failed as the value proposition would've been correct. It wasn't... It was Microsoft that did it so.

Microsoft and some others popularise by making it cheap, and people buy because they are not tech-savvy and believe they will get a similar experience for cheap.

Apple commercialized by making it cheap (relative Xerox Star). Do you even have a point here, other than the oh-so-standard "Apple gets it, the rest don't". And, no, Apple is certainly no benchmark for experience. Most people haven't even touched one - so how could it?

As people are finding out that's not true, Macs are getting more and more popular, while PCs are being left behind.

Left behind... yeah. I mean, there is after all only like 1.4 billion out there, 95% being non-Apple. But yes, evidently, people are stupid and Apple buyers smart. Or not. Install W7 on your mac, it'll run like a charm. People buying a $299 computer will get a $299 experience. Buy a $1999 PC, and you'll get a $1999 experience. Simple, really.

This was a response to consumer demand, not to someone else deciding to do it. It wasn't like they saw a successful way to do something and thought, "we should do that!" It was that they decided to do something different and they took a risk, and even when allowing software natively, they still did it differently and took a risk with that.

Huh? How is it always consumer demand when Apple imitates, and never when someone imitates Apple. I don't get it. Yes, Apple reacts to consumer demand. Yes, others do to. However, Apple were not the first to allow for native apps. Hence, they obviously imitated someone else. They followed; i.e., they most certainly saw "we should do that" (it was right in plain sight) - and did it.

Further, consumer demand is what makes Samsung make tablets. Rectangular ones too. Even black ones with rounded corners. Once more, is there a point in your ramblings?

3G and 4G are hardly Apple copying someone. They're carrier networks that (almost?) every carrier offers. They're standard features. Kudos to the first company to add cameras onto phones, but it's hardly like getting rid of almost all the hardware buttons on a device and using only a touchscreen, a home button + volume buttons, silencer and power button. The second is a massive risk.

Sure they are. Someone else did something. Apple did too, only later. When you're not first, you're after; following. Are they standard features? Yes. So is multi-touch. You were saying? And, as far as getting rid of all the buttons, we had that in 1992 (IBM Simon). It was also dominant in the PDA strain of the smartphone convergence. We saw it in MIDs and Internet tablets too. For example, take a N800, add capacitive touch (instead of resistive) and you essentially end up with an iPhone-esque smartphone (sans the phone). Not good enough? How about the P800, a phone introduced in 2002.

its younger brother, P910 came a few years later (with P900 in between)

Further, the risk wasn't huge at all. Apple had very much to gain, and very little to lose. If you want to see risk, look at Win 8 or Nokia allying with Microsoft; thats risk!

Apple takes a lot of risks. The problem with these other companies is that if something is too much of a risk, they'll wait for Apple to do it, then do the same if it's successful. If that isn't free-riding, I don't know what is.

First, lets not confuse business risk with doing things different(ly). Second, others do to. Someone made a bet on SSDs, someone made a bet on Capacitive touch. Apple capitalizes on both. Similarly, someone will capitalize on a new market such as that of the smartphone (2.0). This is how business works. Apple is part of the very same train as everyone else, free-riding in some instances, pulling in others. Pretty much their whole product suite is dependent on others showing the way at first: e.g. the iPod in which Sony showed the way to portable music.

 

[divinox]

Once before and not really successful. Apple took a risk. I keep using that word, but it's true. Plus, Steve went to Xerox and didn't just look at the system and decide to take it for himself. The Xerox employees were paid for the privilege of having their work copied. Plus, Steve added many elements that the Xerox computer didn't use and didn't just copy outright.

Everything is relative. Apple weren't really successful either, relative MSFT. Did Apple take a risk? Sure. So did PARC. So did MSFT. So did IBM. So did... just stop the nonsense. Further, who cares if they paid? Stop moving goalposts outside of the arena. How is that even remotely relevant?

And, since you brought it up, according to Xerox themselves Apple did in fact steal their IP in the end. They went to court over it (and lost).

Further, "Android added many elements that the iPhone computer didn't use and didn't just copy outright". Exchange Android with whatever you want, really. You still don't have a point; at least not a sensible one.

Touch was done. Multitouch, I believe, wasn't. Apple bought a company called FingerWorks and used their multitouch technology and not only that, made it the focus of the whole phone, so that if it failed, the whole phone failed. That was another risk.

Multi-touch was done. For decades. At PARC too, since we already brought them up. MSFT started their work on Surface in 2001. Jeff Han demoed his take on multi-touch at TED in 2006.

The risk part is dealt with already. While you're right in point, you're risk overall assessment is off the chart.

Like I said, the other tablet makers shouldn't be forced to change their designs. But Samsung is not just copying Apple or following their lead, but blatantly ripping them off.

According to you. According to me "Samsung added many elements that the iDevice didn't use and didn't copy outright".

It's not nice when you make something and it's repeatedly copied. Your successes are free-rode off of and you become the guinea pig that other companies wait to try new things.

Who cares? Theres no nice in business - not even a ni. In the market everyone is playing the same game. Granted, people play it differently. But in the end, its all connected. Without companies like Samsung, Apple couldn't build a successful iPhone. Not only would the price have to had been substantially higher, the components would've been substantially worse.

But you present a good conundrum. How to not let people free-ride of anothers' success, while allowing the world to progress? I think it's just a matter of at least adding your own worthwhile changes.

Regardless of Samsung, Apple certainly has gotten more than sufficient ROI on their investment, risk included.

So far, Android hasn't done that, in my opinion. Sure they've offered features that Apple doesn't, but these were features that were known that certain people wanted and they just shoddily added these on and waited for the money to roll in. They don't care about their users or progressing the world. Apple does! That's what makes them different.

Thats your opinion. The world outside of Macfans disagree. And, i disagree with your whole argument. You need to snap out of the RDF.

I think the people who want to progress the world can and will do that without free-riding on others' successes. They will add their worthwhile changes, because after all, they want to progress the world, right?

Evidently, Android is giving people worthwhile changes, since people ask for these features and Apple later on include the same things.

 

[phySi0]

According to you. According to me "Samsung added many elements that the iDevice didn't use and didn't copy outright"

If you can look at this and claim Samsung hasn't copied Apple, I feel sorry for you. You must be blind. Sure, they may have added elements, but it's obvious they are trying to copy Apple in as many ways as they can to try to confuse consumers.

I don't know, I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing they thought they could get away with it, since they supply Apple and Apple may need them. I don't know the full situation there. What I do know is that what that picture shows is not coincidence.

I'm not going to argue with you any longer. This is a pointless conversation. I didn't even know there were such things as Samsung fanboys .

 

[divinox]

If you can look at this and claim Samsung hasn't copied Apple, I feel sorry for you. You must be blind. Sure, they may have added elements, but it's obvious they are trying to copy Apple in as many ways as they can to try to confuse consumers.

I don't know, I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing they thought they could get away with it, since they supply Apple and Apple may need them. I don't know the full situation there. What I do know is that what that picture shows is not coincidence.

I'm not going to argue with you any longer. This is a pointless conversation. I didn't even know there were such things as Samsung fanboys .

a) Look at what?
b) Did they, or did they not add stuff? If they did, your original argument is evidently flawed. Formulate an argument that holds and stick with it. Its impossible to argue against a moving target.

p.s.

I have yet to own a single Samsung product. Don't think i ever will either. PLS aside, theres not much of interest to me in their portfolio.

Correction:

Just remembered, my MBA has a Samsung SSD, and my PC might have a Samsung HD.

 

[phySi0]

It happens repeatedly because that is the fundamental principle of the a) market b) cumulative knowledge process.

I'm not denying why it happens. I just said it's tiring.

And, don't pull that "they don't get it" carp (because it is just that, c rap). They get it, they just opt for a different route that makes sense for them given their organization-specific capabilities.

Yeah, the route which is not caring about the consumer. Just produce a new phone every few months, have an abundance of models, which causes headaches for the consumer, but they don't care because this is what makes money. Just take the free, open-source OS, skin it and don't bother to actually create a good experience for the customer.

Who cares - it didn't sell before MSFT made it so; its still a derivative of Xerox Alto and Star. Apple made it somewhat cheaper. Good for them. They still failed. MSFT made the product viable. Further, MSFT has surely made their fair share of improvements of the "GUI" (call it WIMP instead, thats what it is).

You said Apple freerode on Microsoft's success. I said that's not true, because they had already made the effort. You say because they've failed, and MS succeeded, they freerode on their success. No, because freeriding would mean to just wait for someone else to succeed and put in zero effort or care and then use that success to make you money. If Apple already done something that Microsoft then copied and made successful, that's MS freewheeling on Apple's ideas. Bill saw the Mac OS and copied it. And no, MS has not made any mildly major improvements to the GUI. They've stepped it backwards. Countless studies have been done that show that the Mac OS is easier to use, more efficient and easier to learn than the Windows OS. More info at http://macvspc.info.

Yada yada. If that was the case, they wouldn't have failed as the value proposition would've been correct. It wasn't... It was Microsoft that did it so.

What did they fail exactly? The iPhone and iPad are the most-wanted gifts for Christmas and are extremely successful in terms of market share, while also seeing the iPhone grab more than half of all profits of the mobile phone industry.

Apple commercialized by making it cheap (relative Xerox Star). Do you even have a point here, other than the oh-so-standard "Apple gets it, the rest don't".

Like I said, Apple asked for permission and didn't just steal. They also added their own improvements. Others just copy and commoditise. They don't care about the consumer's experience.

And, no, Apple is certainly no benchmark for experience.

Lol, you make me laugh.

Most people haven't even touched one - so how could it?

What the heck are you talking about?

Left behind... yeah. I mean, there is after all only like 1.4 billion out there, 95% being non-Apple.

1. How old is this 95% figure? And where did you get it from?
2. Keyword being "being".

But yes, evidently, people are stupid and Apple buyers smart. Or not. Install W7 on your mac, it'll run like a charm.

And still be less efficient than the Mac I use, while also being home to second-class software, despite having the most. Oh and it won't come bundled with the great iLife suite and I'll probably be forced to deal with crapware pre-installed if I'd bought a new computer.

People buying a $299 computer will get a $299 experience. Buy a $1999 PC, and you'll get a $1999 experience. Simple, really.

Not really! You still have to deal with Windows and there's still no replacement for iLife and Apple's store and Apple's Genius Bar and their phone customer support. In short, Apple has the highest customer satisfaction ratings for a reason. When buying a $1999 computer from Dell, I'll get the same support as buying a $299 computer. And trust me, it's not at the same level as Apple's support.

Huh? How is it always consumer demand when Apple imitates, and never when someone imitates Apple. I don't get it.

Apple does not copy as a response to seeing someone being successful with something and wanting to emulate their success. They copy because the consumers clamoured for it and they caved.

Yes, Apple reacts to consumer demand. Yes, others do to. However, Apple were not the first to allow for native apps. Hence, they obviously imitated someone else.

Yet they still did it differently and tried to add their own element to it.

Sure they are. Someone else did something. Apple did too, only later. When you're not first, you're after; following. Are they standard features? Yes. So is multi-touch. You were saying?

Multitouch was a marquee feature of the iPhone and people laughed at it. As soon as they saw its success, they scrambled to add multitouch. It is now a standard feature and I don't blame any company for using it. You have to now; it's an almost expected feature of a smartphone.

And, as far as getting rid of all the buttons, we had that in 1992 (IBM Simon). It was also dominant in the PDA strain of the smartphone convergence. We saw it in MIDs and Internet tablets too. For example, take a N800, add capacitive touch (instead of resistive) and you essentially end up with an iPhone-esque smartphone (sans the phone). Not good enough? How about the P800, a phone introduced in 2002.

its younger brother, P910 came a few years later (with P900 in between)

Thanks, I didn't know this.

If you want to see risk, look at Win 8 or Nokia allying with Microsoft; thats risk!

I never thought I'd say this, but the next version of Windows does look good. You have a point there. It's also risky. I wouldn't know about Nokia partnering with MS though. I'm not an expert on business, so…

Further, the risk wasn't huge at all. Apple had very much to gain, and very little to lose.

Really? I don't think so…

First, lets not confuse business risk with doing things different(ly). Second, others do to. Someone made a bet on SSDs, someone made a bet on Capacitive touch. Apple capitalizes on both.

True, others do, but it's not the norm. In Apple, risk is their culture. I don't blame any company that doesn't take risks, but I'm not going to support them over Apple am I?

Sorry, I'll finish the argument later. I'm kind of bored. I've got other stuff to do. No offense.

 

[phySi0]

a) Look at what?

Whoops! Sorry, here you go:

b) Did they, or did they not add stuff? If they did, your original argument is evidently flawed.

Yes, they did! No, it's not!

Formulate an argument that holds and stick with it. Its impossible to argue against a moving target.

Sorry!

I should have said Apple adds improvents and doesn't just copy outright. However, while Samsung may add things of their own, it doesn't matter since they are still trying to copy Apple in as much way as possible on purpose, which I use the picture to back up my claim.

p.s.

I have yet to own a single Samsung product. Don't think i ever will either. PLS aside, theres not much of interest to me in their portfolio.

Correction:

Just remembered, my MBA has a Samsung SSD, and my PC might have a Samsung HD.

It was a joke, relax. Or was that just there for completeness? To annihilate my flawed logic completely, yeah ?

 

[divinox]

Whoops! Sorry, here you go:
Image

Half of that list has been debunked, the other half is quite insubstantial. To me, its as relevant for the discussion as the "before iPad, after iPad" image thrown around on boards like these; not a whole lot, that is.

Yes, they did! No, it's not!

According to logic, it is. You see, while you might, logic doesn't give much for double-standards.

Sorry!

I should have said Apple adds improvents and doesn't just copy outright. However, while Samsung may add things of their own, it doesn't matter since they are still trying to copy Apple in as much way as possible on purpose, which I use the picture to back up my claim.

If they are adding, they are not copying. They're building, cumulatively. If that picture is your essential argument, I'm afraid you don't have much at all.

It was a joke, relax. Or was that just there for completeness? To annihilate my flawed logic completely, yeah ?

Whatever.

Also, next time: use TIMG. Big images are one way tickets to forum-hell.

 

[Dbrown]

I hope apple does make a TV. I'd love to see how they can make their TV look different from what's already been done without "copying."

Oh and eventually apple will have a 4" screen device and have no hardware buttons too. Will apple be copying samsung since they did it first?

 

[foiden]

Windows success was not based on their GUI alone. I think a lot of people who make that claim either wasn't around in the 80s-90s or just plain forgot how the industry worked. The bigger issue was that in business, the PC already took over with DOS. They didn't even have a GUI. What businesses didn't want to do was buy new machines. They wanted the window-like environment offered with Macs but they did not want to invest in new machines. The commodore Amiga offered full pre-emptive multitasking to the consumer market 10 years before the other did it, but it failed mostly because Commodore couldn't manage worth squat.

The REAL reason others failed was that Windows could run on the same machines already in the business offices. That was the main point. (Hey. We can get this operating system and keep the same hardware?? Where do I sign??)

So technically, the only competition was OS/2, which actually worked better and had better multi-tasking at the time. It was also a heck of a lot more reliable for running stuff without crashing. Windows killed it by getting all the software support first. So all those nice business-helping apps, you could get on Windows, but not OS/2, and the windows library was growing a lot faster.

So due to that, Macs failed because businesses would have to buy new machines. Plain and simple. The industry was just not planning to upgrade. They'd rather have crappy performance on something they invested much less money on, and to get these apps which were multiplying at a steady pace. It was simply a hardware cost issue, that's all. There was only 1 way apple could've been successful there, design their OP system to run on the PCs at the time. The bad? The hardware and CPUs were horrible for real graphic OS machines, and the way they handled memory was atrocious. Windows was really a bandaid for architecture not really designed for that stuff.

The only bad thing that really came out of it was that good Pre-emptive multitasking for the consumer market, was delayed by 10 years. This is one case in which I actually saw the industry hold back technological progress due to marketing. We're actually at least 10 years behind where we could've been. Windows '95 should've been Something '85. If anything, Microsoft actually slowed the industry, not innovate.

 

[phySi0]

Half of that list has been debunked, the other half is quite insubstantial. To me, its as relevant for the discussion as the "before iPad, after iPad" image thrown around on boards like these; not a whole lot, that is.

Please don't tell me you still think Samsung isn't purposely trying to imitate Apple as much as possible after seeing this picture!

That's the Samsung Smart Cover Ripoff.

According to logic, it is. You see, while you might, logic doesn't give much for double-standards.

Read the explanation, debunk it, then tell me this.

If they are adding, they are not copying. They're building, cumulatively. If that picture is your essential argument, I'm afraid you don't have much at all.

What? So based on this logic, if my brother starts a computer company and I then decide to do the same, but add my changes, then he starts a retail company and I do the same, but add my changes, then he starts a transportation business and I then do the same, but add my changes, etc. that's not copying?

Just because I've added changes or improved the product, the fact remains that I've copied what my brother has done for whatever reason, to catch up to him, because I have no ideas of what business to start next, or in the case of Samsung, to imitate Apple as closely as possible to confuse consumers.

Also, next time: use TIMG. Big images are one way tickets to forum-hell.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

By the way, you claim that half the images are debunked and the other half are insubstantial. Please tell me which ones are insubstantial and explain why and which have been debunked.

The only really insubstantial/debunked ones I can think of are the App Store icons in the store, since it's not an official Samsung store. The others may all seem insubstantial to you, but together, they create the whole. Steve was a master of the insubstantial. Have you heard the story about the 'O' in Google being the wrong shade and Steve getting Google to fix it? He done that for a reason. Because while on its own it doesn't matter, together with all the other tiny issues he fixed, they improve the experience or completed the phone.

Sure, the USB charger is not Apple's 30-pin cable, but together with all the other copies, it's clear that Samsung is using that specific charger for a reason.

 

[ChazUK]

Please don't tell me you still think Samsung isn't purposely trying to imitate Apple as much as possible after seeing this picture!
Image
That's the Samsung Smart Cover Ripoff.

No it isn't. It's made by a company called Anymode and if it's a clone of anything, it's a clone of InCase's original iPad case.

 

[phySi0]

b) Did they, or did they not add stuff? If they did, your original argument is evidently flawed.

This is untrue!

 

[dethmaShine]

No it isn't. It's made by a company called Anymode and if it's a clone of anything, it's a clone of InCase's original iPad case.
Image

Hey I totally agree that its not a smart cover rip-off, but to be very honest, you're just trying to ignore the bigger picture.

I believe that just a handful of people knew about Incase case and Apple really pushed the design popularising the folding design including some enhancements using magnetics and smart lock (=> smart cover). Apple put smart covers in their keynote and all their ads.

Anymode didn't follow Incase's lead to design their case; they just took to iPads popularity and introduced these covers soon after Smart Covers were a common name. The so called "Smart Case" and availability in different colours instead of one/two and marketing in the exact same fashion Apple did originally, provides significant argument that Anymode ripped off Apple's Smart Covers instead of Incase designs.

I hope you come back with a valid argument here.

 

[phySi0]

No it isn't. It's made by a company called Anymode and if it's a clone of anything, it's a clone of InCase's original iPad case.
Image

It's/it was sold in Samsung stores and was "Samsung certified" until they embarassedly had to say that it was an "oversight."

CoM - "Anymode is owned by Youngbo Engineering, headed by the nephew of Samsung chairperson Kun-Hee Lee, according to 9to5Mac."

I hope to continue this debate later. I have to go right now.

 

[ChazUK]

Hey I totally agree that its not a smart cover rip-off, but to be very honest, you're just trying to ignore the bigger picture.

I believe that just a handful of people knew about Incase case and Apple really pushed the design popularising the folding design including some enhancements using magnetics and smart lock (=> smart cover). Apple put smart covers in their keynote and all their ads.

Anymode didn't follow Incase's lead to design their case; they just took to iPads popularity and introduced these covers soon after Smart Covers were a common name. The so called "Smart Case" and availability in different colours instead of one/two and marketing in the exact same fashion Apple did originally, provides significant argument that Anymode ripped off Apple's Smart Covers instead of Incase designs.

I hope you come back with a valid argument here.

Arguement? Who's arguing here?
To insinuate that Samsung is copying Apple based on a third party case design is absurd.

People can make judgements based on the things that Samsung are directly responsible for by all menas but going by this logic, Sony are copying Microsoft for this:

Hey, it's not made by Sony but it looks like an XBOX360 controller after all. Boo, hiss Sony!

----------

It's/it was sold in Samsung stores and was "Samsung certified" until they embarassedly had to say that it was an "oversight."

CoM - "Anymode is owned by Youngbo Engineering, headed by the nephew of Samsung chairperson Kun-Hee Lee, according to 9to5Mac."

I hope to continue this debate later. I have to go right now.

Samsung never did sell the case in any of its stores, nor does it currently. If you can find it in stock on any of Samsung's websites, I'll gladly take what I believe to be true back,

http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/19/samsung-pulls-controversial-anymode-smart-case-says-it-never-re/

If you can link to those Samsung stores, that would be great.

 

[dethmaShine]

Arguement? Who's arguing here?
To insinuate that Samsung is copying Apple based on a third party case design is absurd.

People can make judgements based on the things that Samsung are directly responsible for by all menas but going by this logic, Sony are copying Microsoft for this:

Image

Hey, it's not made by Sony but it looks like an XBOX360 controller after all. Boo, hiss Sony!

I think you should first read the comment instead of being aggressive for absolutely no reason.

I replied to your comment: "Anymode didn't ripoff SmartCovers, instead produced Incase's original design clones."

I "argued" that this could be viewed from different angles. I explained that even though I myself think that Anymode designs basically clone Incase cases, they basically ripped off Apple. Reasons are given in the argument above, which you may wish to read again.

Hence, please come back with a valid argument to refute my argument.

 

[ChazUK]

I think you should first read the comment instead of being aggressive for absolutely no reason.

I replied to your comment: "Anymode didn't ripoff SmartCovers, instead produced Incase's original design clones."

I "argued" that this could be viewed from different angles. I explained that even though I myself think that Anymode designs basically clone Incase cases, they basically ripped off Apple. Reasons are given in the argument above, which you may wish to read again.

Hence, please come back with a valid argument to refute my argument.

I originally responded to this in case you missed i:

"Please don't tell me you still think Samsung isn't purposely trying to imitate Apple as much as possible after seeing this picture!

That's the Samsung Smart Cover Ripoff."

The contents of the said picture has nothing to do with Samsung in an official manner.

For the record, I think Anymode took Incase,'s design and fused it with Smart Cover inspiration.

 

[kaizenmx]

Every single physi0's arguments was shattered into million pieces, yet he still clings like a desperate dying man.