Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Does anyone remember when Apple posted all of those videos with different phone dropping antenna signals with the tight grip to make their iPhone 4 appear to have no antenna problems?? Don't get me wrong.. I like all of the Apple products but that doesn't stop me from seeing both sides of the argument.
 
good luck with that. i've asked that a few times since the whole lawsuit started.. not one response so far.

I would look at post #169 to see what some are talking about.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/14014988/


All things aside, I do see some similarities, and agree with the question, "if it isn't a copy, then why didn't they attempt to make something a bit more unique like others have"?

My opinion overall is still neutral, and I wonder why is Apple really so focused on Samsung? There have been many past examples of Apple products that have had aspects of them copied by their competition, but they have taken little or no action against many of those instances.

Did Samsung add the last straw causing Apple to say "This far no further"?

The problem is semantics. You are using "copy" in a different way.

I'd estimate semantics is the source of about 10% of all arguments at MacRumors.

I don't have Doctor Q's calculator handy, but I would guess the number would be closer to 20% or more ;) .
 
I've been meaning to put this together for a while.

I don't know if some of you were born yesterday or if you're just posting like it, but in case you were one of the many who said tablets were a fad and would never catch on, here's what the tablets on the market looked like BEFORE the iPad:
See this you apple fanbois pick ancient butt-ugly pre-ipad tablets and say they represent ALL tablets before the ipad.

edit: Not saying that now that there is the ipad people don't emulate the look because of it's popularity, I'm just saying it's no apple "innovation".
 
I wonder why is Apple really so focused on Samsung?

Easy :

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/28/samsung-claims-top-spot-in-global-smartphone-shipments-for-q3-20/

Samsung is quickly becoming the best Android handset OEM, while also being a WP7 OEM and having their own OS : Bada. They are also 2nd only to Nokia in overall phone sales (eclipsing Apple by a wide margin there) :

smartphone-vendor.jpg


That is why Apple is really focused on Samsung, because they came from behind and pushed ahead of Apple and with their Android crown, they are the best target to pursue Android indirectly since Apple have nothing on Google.
 
Someone should tell that little fact to HP then, because they are selling this unproduced product on their website for 799$ :

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/e...267-3955550-4332585.html?jumpid=in_r602_slate

Hurry to defend Apple a bit too quickly there did you ?

I'm giving the above poster the benefit of the doubt. I think he means it never went into production........... before the iPad even though they said it would:

April 3rd 2010 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad

October 22nd 2010 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Slate_500
 
Last edited:
I'm giving the above poster the benefit of the doubt. I think he means it never went into production........... before the iPad even though they said it would:

April 3rd 2010 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Slate_500

October 22nd 2010 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad

Not the first time I've corrected someone here over the Slate actually getting produced and sold and frankly, not too surprising considering the lack of marketing around it.

And also, the Slate is not some kind of "Apple reactionary product", HP have been doing tablets for years, another tidbit a lot of posters here ignore.

Don't worry, JAT is being consistent with his history. He doesn't know much outside of the going ons at Apple, and constantly proves it through his posts. It's not the first time I've pointed out errors in his post on the competition.
 
LOL so?

"Amateur hour is over", etc.

I recall that was quite an attention-grabber as well. Turned out quite differently.

Call me when your tablet actually sells, Samsung.

And barely two months ago, Samsung was all sunshine and roses, very apologetic. And now these crooks actually mention Apple by name in their attack ad.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/13671894/

I wouldn't trust this insanely corrupt organization as far as I could throw them.

Seriously? Attack ad? The ad states a simple fact. In what way is it an attack.
 
Not a timeline. Just a few of the many tablets I remember our engineering dept trying to use effectively over the years. They all sucked, and yet, we continued to buy them dozens at a time, on the promise that one day they'd change everything.

If that bottom one is the joojoopad or whatever it was called, it was conceptualized during the build-up to the iPad, was to be a reader only, and never hit market. Nor did any of the props on star trek or 2001.

That sleek minimalist white job looks like a nice late model Sahara as well. We had a couple of those. At $3500, they could barely run Excel. Illustrator was out of the question.

I wouldn't say either of them beat the iPad to anything.

Originally, Crunchpad - later JooJoo (after fallout between FG and techcrunchs Arrington --- revived as GridPad, another failure by the peeps at FG). Second, what the hell does "during the build-up to the iPad" mean? Apple was rumored to release a tablet, therefore anyone who did a tablet before Apple still copied them? Awesome.

Further, it was not to be a reader only. Not by a long shot. It had apps and services. And most certainly, envisioned replicating the (late) success of the iPhone app store. As for hitting the market, i'm not sure. It was released, and preorders were taken. Whether or not they actually delivered any devices is beyond my knowledge.


joojoo-screens.jpg


I checked: Engadget states that it did in fact hit market, and did have sales (albeit poor), but... yeah. Still: it was built, it functioned, and it pre-dates the iPad in terms of design (and type of OS).

But please, RMWebs, show us all the amazing models of the "tablet industry" that Apple copied to get where they are today. I'd certainly love to see what us and all the other design firms I've worked with that slagged on through the last 15 years missed. Perhaps you can start with the convertibles, you remember, what everyone decided was the future of tablets, because slates were impractical and useless.

Image

Some would hold that convertibles are still the future of tablets:

http://www-bgr-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/asus-transformer-prime-gray.jpeg

(the battery life on that one is beyond this world when docked. if I'm not mistaken, the dock actually works as a charger too).

Personally, i'd kill for a functioning 11" MBA-styled tablet that has three added modes.

1) removal of screen. Cf. Transformer above
2) swivel-lidding the screen. Cf. your convertible (i would assume that one swiveled into tablet mode)

and most importantly:

3) "re-hinging" of the screen, effectively placing the screen at an angle with the front end about where the keyboard sits today (still leaving the trackpad open).

obviously, the screen would be multi-touch and it would include a Dual-mode OS. Granted, somewhat of a pipe-dream to date, and one heck of an engineering feat. But still. Its something i'd gladly ship out $1999 for.

----------

don't know why you posted that Sahara tablet to back your claim about ipad having some insanely creative design, take that Sahara tablet, remove some buttons, make glossy, you pretty much have an iPad

Tablet kiosk (the company behind the Sahara) did that themselves already. Dont think they did end-to-end glass though.
 
Not the first time I've corrected someone here over the Slate actually getting produced and sold and frankly, not too surprising considering the lack of marketing around it.

And also, the Slate is not some kind of "Apple reactionary product", HP have been doing tablets for years, another tidbit a lot of posters here ignore.

Don't worry, JAT is being consistent with his history. He doesn't know much outside of the going ons at Apple, and constantly proves it through his posts. It's not the first time I've pointed out errors in his post on the competition.



As I recall, Engadget or maybe Ars reported that HP only planned to make 5,000 and had to product more when initial orders were 7,000. Too lazy to go look it up. HP hasn't produced these in any meaningful numbers.
 
Not the first time I've corrected someone here over the Slate actually getting produced and sold and frankly, not too surprising considering the lack of marketing around it.

And also, the Slate is not some kind of "Apple reactionary product", HP have been doing tablets for years, another tidbit a lot of posters here ignore.

Don't worry, JAT is being consistent with his history. He doesn't know much outside of the going ons at Apple, and constantly proves it through his posts. It's not the first time I've pointed out errors in his post on the competition.

A lot of PC manufacturers kinda sold tablet like devices. Some were kinda like Garmin Nuvi competition devices with more features, I think HP was way into that idea. Did some marketing thing with American Choppers. http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/29/hp-ipaq-rx5900-travel-companion-reviewed/

I'm not saying this is the only tabletesque device HP made circa 2006, I'm just saying they promoted it with American Choppers, so it wasn't something flying under the radar.
 
Good publicity or not...

The way I see it is that Samsung tried to be clever by using the APPLE name to their advantage but as proven in this forums not every consumer perceive ads the same way and for many this could be seen as why would I buy a product from company "A" (Samsung in this case) if even for them company "B" (Apple) is so important that they full on NAME IT in their paid ads!

Which is highly ironic as the "Law of unintended consequences" goes one step further and could easily enter a loop if you know what I mean.

And to be honest I just don't see this samsung tablet flying off the shelves but with the holiday season being upon us and with a lot of people just wanting a tablet I might be wrong but I just don't see it happening.
 
That is why Apple is really focused on Samsung, because they came from behind and pushed ahead of Apple and with their Android crown, they are the best target to pursue Android indirectly since Apple have nothing on Google.

Well, android is configurable by the OEMs. They choose how much the handset hardware and software and look and feel are modeled from the iPhone / iPad. I think given the packaging, accessory, and branding similarities to Apple, not to mention the product its self, Samsung is also the most egregious copycat. This is just my opinion.
 
Meanwhile, Engadget points to a Tweet from @maungle showing a new Galaxy Tab 10.1 newspaper ad from Samsung carrying the tagline "The Tablet Apple Tried to Stop," illustrating how Samsung is seeking to tie its advertising to the lawsuit and portray the tablet device as so significant a threat that Apple felt the need to prevent it from going on sale.

The Samsung newspaper ad could just quote Apple, since they were the ones who protrayed the Tab as a significant threat.

"In pushing for the injunction, Steven Burley, an attorney for Apple, told the court that even a temporary release of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 could substantially dent Apple's market share in Australia." - WSJ

Apple went on to say the Tab would be launched on the market with "the velocity of a firehose", stealing iPad sales and making buyers into Android users forever.
 
Well, android is configurable by the OEMs. They choose how much the handset hardware and software and look and feel are modeled from the iPhone / iPad. I think given the packaging, accessory, and branding similarities to Apple, not to mention the product its self, Samsung is also the most egregious copycat. This is just my opinion.

One I don't share. If you find the Samsung products to look anything like the Apple products, frankly, you're insulting Apple's craftsmanship (or really praising Samsung here).
 
I would look at post #169 to see what some are talking about.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/14014988/


All things aside, I do see some similarities, and agree with the question, "if it isn't a copy, then why didn't they attempt to make something a bit more unique like others have"?

My opinion overall is still neutral, and I wonder why is Apple really so focused on Samsung? There have been many past examples of Apple products that have had aspects of them copied by their competition, but they have taken little or no action against many of those instances.

i don't disagree that samsung has copied some of the presentation like the packaging, but the rest are being nitpicky.. like the touchwiz icons (which i won't even go into, since that whole icons argument has been done to death here - and it's also not even present in the galaxy tab) and the connector is actually a PDMI. the question was regarding the claim most here make about the galaxy tab.. even with a different os, aspect ratio, dimensions, camera and speaker layout, and even color... that it is a straight copy of the ipad. i haven't seen one response that actually has a strong point that clearly shows why the galaxy tab is a clone. it's just the order of progression. people want thin minimalist looking tablets nowadays, so how much more can you differentiate your product without having to add unnecessary space or bulk to it? a lot of tv's look the same to me, being that they are rectangle and have a screen, but (to my knowledge) you don't see those companies suing each other because their products look alike.. i mean a tv will look like a tv where a tablet will look like a tablet... a rectangle with a screen. samsung has gained some traction the past few years, so hence why the target is on their back. why didn't apple sue the other companies who also created similar looking products. why didn't apple sue the picture frame makers? i mean.. it's getting ridiculous. even when samsung did redesign their galaxy tab, they still went after them, and some here still claim that it's still a copy, when they themselves probably can't say what exactly was copied.
 
LOL so?

"Amateur hour is over", etc.

I recall that was quite an attention-grabber as well. Turned out quite differently.

Call me when your tablet actually sells, Samsung.

And barely two months ago, Samsung was all sunshine and roses, very apologetic. And now these crooks actually mention Apple by name in their attack ad.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/13671894/

I wouldn't trust this insanely corrupt organization as far as I could throw them.

Why do you constantly feel threatened by Apple's competition? It's the only real reason you are so incredibly biased in a polarized fashion.
 
One I don't share. If you find the Samsung products to look anything like the Apple products, frankly, you're insulting Apple's craftsmanship (or really praising Samsung here).

Do they look like Apple products when you're close enough to see any detail? Not really, no. Do they look like Apple products to someone sitting 5-6 feet away and watching you use them? Sometimes. I've run into this myself several times, where I pull my phone (Samsung Galaxy S 4G) out to use it and someone sitting nearby will ask which model iPhone I'm using. I have to correct them in almost every case. Granted, I'm known as a Mac guy (I do Mac consulting) so there's some bias there in people's opinions of me, but they weren't able to immediately identify the fact that my phone wasn't an iPhone.

jW
 
One I don't share. If you find the Samsung products to look anything like the Apple products, frankly, you're insulting Apple's craftsmanship (or really praising Samsung here).

Mmm, I disagree, but only with what I was talking about. I'm not really talking about craftsmanship here. I'm talking about a concerted effort to make their packaging, accessories, power adapters, plugs, icons, apps, and some aspects of their UI copy Apple's designs as closely as possible. I'm giving them credit for the number of things they copied, not the success of the final product.
 
Well, that perfectly describes Apple...

You're clearly just trying to be clever, and it's not working. If Apple's the underdog then who would be the favorite? Because usually underdogs aren't projected to lead, at least not under the definition of underdog that I'm aware of. You don't even need to be an Apple fan nor an Apple hater to answer that question properly.
 
Do they look like Apple products when you're close enough to see any detail? Not really, no. Do they look like Apple products to someone sitting 5-6 feet away and watching you use them? Sometimes. I've run into this myself several times, where I pull my phone (Samsung Galaxy S 4G) out to use it and someone sitting nearby will ask which model iPhone I'm using. I have to correct them in almost every case. Granted, I'm known as a Mac guy (I do Mac consulting) so there's some bias there in people's opinions of me, but they weren't able to immediately identify the fact that my phone wasn't an iPhone.

jW

And I'm not able to identify most phones from 5-6 feet away either. :rolleyes: Doesn't mean I really think they look like an iPhone.

Like you say, these people are biased into thinking you would go with an Apple solution, hardly an anecdote worthy of calling Samsung "copycats", especially since they have yet to be found guilty of actually copying the design of the iPad/iPhone in any court (including the German court that never compared the products, they found Samsung is likely infringing on the Community Design registration, which albeit, looks nothing like an iPad to begin with!).

Mmm, I disagree, but only with what I was talking about. I'm not really talking about craftsmanship here. I'm talking about a concerted effort to make their packaging, accessories, power adapters, plugs, icons, apps, and some aspects of their UI copy Apple's designs as closely as possible. I'm giving them credit for the number of things they copied, not the success of the final product.

I just don't see what you see, sorry. I see 2 products that share the same form factor. They look as much alike as my old MacBook looks like my work provided HP Elitebook.
 
And I'm not able to identify most phones from 5-6 feet away either. :rolleyes: Doesn't mean I really think they look like an iPhone.

Like you say, these people are biased into thinking you would go with an Apple solution, hardly an anecdote worthy of calling Samsung "copycats", especially since they have yet to be found guilty of actually copying the design of the iPad/iPhone in any court (including the German court that never compared the products, they found Samsung is likely infringing on the Community Design registration, which albeit, looks nothing like an iPad to begin with!).

I can, personally, identify the manufacturer of most phones from that distance, or at least whether or not they are an iPhone (barring cases I don't recognize, of course), but I understand I'm not the norm there. Also, I'm not arguing either way here, just wanted to note that if the argument is that they can be confusing to some consumers (which is indeed the legal argument being made in these cases), then I can definitely see how Apple could convince a judge of that fact.

jW
 
just wanted to note that if the argument is that they can be confusing to some consumers (which is indeed the legal argument being made in these cases)

What cases ? Apple have not sued Samsung over design, look and feel or trade dress in Australia, which is thread is about.

Apple can argue whatever they feel like, doesn't mean they're remotely right.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.