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.
Samsung Tweaks Galaxy Tab 10.1 Design for Relaunch in Germany
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I give you the HP Slate:
The HP Slate’s design was released in January 22nd of 2010 and iPad’s was released January 27th. Proving me right that iPad was not the first sleek designed tablet.
Last edited:
Off the top of my head (There are more; I've been programming touch tablets, some custom built, as far back as 1992.)
If Apple can give homage to Braun / Rams by basing their calculator on the same look, colors and so forth, what's wrong with Samsung doing a vague homage to Apple as well?
Finally someone noticed the speakers
I have a Tab and I know where the speakers are on it so I noticed the difference right away.
Have I just spotted an excellent idea by Samsung, that Apple should follow?
Am I mistaken or do I see two forward facing stereo speakers either side in the new narrow metal band?
If that's right, it's actually an excellent idea. Having one speaker that's it's most loud when you are looking at the edge of the device, or cup your hand around it to bounce the sound waves forwards toward the front (where you head is) is, let's be honest a dumb idea.
I really did wonder how the front facing speaker issue could be resolved.
Have Samsung found the most practical and neat solution I wonder?
Top marks if those narrow slits are speakers on both sides.
Surprised no one has commented on this yet. It's a real genuine improvement on the initial speaker placement of virtually all tablets up till now.
I have a Tab and I know where the speakers are on it so I noticed the difference right away.
TVs look similar but no one cares
Right! How different can anyone expect it to look? It's a screen in a frame, people!
Right! How different can anyone expect it to look? It's a screen in a frame, people!
The Braun calculator in question is from the 1960s and not in direct competition with, for example, the iPhone.
There is (at least in my opinion) a huge difference between basing the design of my new radio clock on the design of a specific 1940s toaster, or basing the design of my new radio clock on the design of a competitor's radio clock that came out 2 months before and is still being sold.
And not only will I mimick the design of the competitor's product, I will also use a similar box design, font, the way the radio clock is packaged, the way the product is presented in ads, etc. (like this for example)
In my opinion there's really a huge, huge difference between what Apple is doing with the Braun designs as opposed to what Samsung is doing with the Apple designs.
Newgadgets.de have a video preview of the 10.1n on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Ja8nLGzV7g
Use this link to skip to the 10.1n comparison with iPad2 in the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Ja8nLGzV7g#t=491s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Ja8nLGzV7g
Use this link to skip to the 10.1n comparison with iPad2 in the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Ja8nLGzV7g#t=491s
Absolutely. Dieter Rams thinks rather highly of Apple and Steve Jobs attempts to make things easier and simpler to use. I believe to have read one interview or article about him where he states that Apple is the only company which designs he totally approves.
Needless to say that Apple think differently
rolleyes about Samsung...Anyway, by the time most of the legal cases regarding Samsung's tablet have been settled, the iPad 3 will probably available already. That will further diminish the demand for the Tab.
If there was any to begin with. For example in Hong Kong I have seen several promotions already, that if you sign up with these and that, you get a Samsung Tab on top. Doesn't scream successful product IMHO. Have also never seen one apart from the 7" version in the wild.
Absolutely. Dieter Rams thinks rather highly of Apple and Steve Jobs attempts to make things easier and simpler to use. I believe to have read one interview or article about him where he states that Apple is the only company which designs he totally approves.
You may believe, but without a link I don't believe.
Ok, this is not the article I have read (which was written in German anyway) but a 2s google, i found this (in English)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter-Rams-Apple-has-achieved-something-I-never-did.html
You know they are going to ignore this post right? Fanboys use blinders.
----------
Might have to pick me up one of these.
So long as the device is in any way similar to an iPad and runs Android, it will be under relentless attack. No other factors matter with the initial conditions defined.
Plonk.
Plonk.
A community design is a unitary right. If it's invalidated by OHIM or a community design court, it's invalid everywhere (art. 1(3) and art. 25 EU Regulation No 6/2002).
Last edited:
In order to be valid, a community design must be new, and of individual character. Novelty means that no identical design (different only in immaterial details) has been made available before the effective priority date of the filing.
A design has individual character if the overall impression it creates on the informed user is different from any other design that has been made available to the public.
When it comes to registration, there is no substantive examination to determine whether the design registration is valid. Examination is only for formalities like checking that the application form has been filled in properly. It's open to companies to check out what designs have been registered, and then they can apply to invalidate at any time.
For the purpose of a community design, disclosure is not deemed to have taken place if it could not reasonably have become known to the circles specialising in the sector concerned within the community. This limits the effect of very obscure designs, but the sector concerned is that of the alleged prior art, so its effect is more limited than it might at first appear.
A community design is infringed by any other design that creates the same overall impression on the informed user. Questions of whether copying took place are not relevant - copying is not a requirement for infringement, nor is it sufficient to determine infringement.
The scope of protection is not limited to a particular class or application, and is determined by the representation of the design as filed in the application. In the case of the Community Design Registration (CDR) that Apple used to get an injunction against Samsung, the scope of protection is not determined by considering whether a Galaxy tab creates the same impression as an iPad, but whether it creates the same impression as the design as shown in the representation filed. Since the Apple design representation is a line drawing, questions of colour and material are not relevant.
Features that are solely dictated by technical function are excluded from protection. This is interpreted in the sense of requiring that functionality is the only factor in the design of the feature (i.e. aesthetics being irrelevant).
In practice, recent cases before the UK community design courts appear to have shown that the bar is pretty high for infringement, and designs that were clearly "inspired" by striking designs which are protected by design registration have been held not to infringe. The informed user is not the average consumer, and to create the same overall impression is quite a high bar (see Dyson v Vax EWCA 2011 & EWHC 2010 for a recent example http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1206.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2010/1923.html)
I've not read up that carefully on the Apple v Samsung CDR dispute, but I understand that it has not reached judgement, but that an interim injunction has been sought and obtained. In the UK, this requires only that there is an arguable case, that damages are not an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience to the parties is in favour of granting the injunction (i.e. more or less that appears to be the most fair course of action).
Last edited:
Samsung didn't supply LCDs, cases or boards. They just sold Apple memory, cpu and power chips.
So there's no reason for Samsung to have known what any Apple product looked like before they were publicly revealed.
(OTOH, it seems quite possible for anyone to bribe someone in the factories to get pictures or samples of Apple products, if you wanted to.)
Which is why the Dutch judge ruled against the design: he found that its form followed function.
To him, the curved corners made sense from a easier-to-handle standpoint. The flat glass made functional sense because it keeps dust from collecting in grooves on the face. And so forth.
The German judges acknowledged, but ultimately ignored, the Dutch judge's design functionality thoughts. They said that minimal designs should be protected even if they were generic looking.
It appears that the Community wide injunction has just been partially lifted on the Galaxy Tab, and http://jiplp.blogspot.com/2011/11/euro-injunction-mechanism-in-community.html
Haven't read it all that closely.
----------
I forgot to mention that the degree of design freedom is taken into account in determining individual character. Where design is constrained by technical considerations, this has the effect of meaning that small differences in design will be considered significant.
I've not read the Dutch judgement - could you share a link? It may be that a variant of the above argument was deployed.
Haven't read it all that closely.
----------
I forgot to mention that the degree of design freedom is taken into account in determining individual character. Where design is constrained by technical considerations, this has the effect of meaning that small differences in design will be considered significant.
I've not read the Dutch judgement - could you share a link? It may be that a variant of the above argument was deployed.
Here there is an explanation and a link to the resolution (in Dutch)
http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung