Samsung's Massive Document Outlining How to Improve Galaxy S by Adopting iPhone Solutions Surfaces

[KnightWRX]

Of course it does. What set's this apart from a normal design review document or a UX analysis is the direction for improvement section, which always suggests a change to be like the iPhone in the comparison.

You see "be like iPhone", I don't see that. Random example :



Here, we have a problem relating to the dialed string being too long to display. The iPhone way is to shrink the font size and finally display "..." if it gets too long.

What does the "Directions for improvements" say in this ? I don't see "reduce font size" in there. I don't see "use ..." in there. So what is the suggested direction saying if not "let's not do what the iPhone does, but here is how we could improve it, because frankly, our way is inferior to the competition, case in point, the iPhone".

That again is how most of the document is. It's never quite so much "rip off Apple! Copy paste colors and icons!" always just "they do it better, let's also do it better in our own approach".

And again, for a project that size, to have only 132 issues of usability is quite the feat. Notice how this document is working from some late Q&A build. So they have done a lot of work and this is just some left over polishing. Would it really make sense to be "copying" the iPhone at this point after so much work as been done ? Of course not. If you truely set out to copy, you do so from the design and prototyping phase, you'll save a lot of time and make it easier than try to retrofit your working code.

 

[boronathan]

Hum, you do understand this is the document we're discussing here right ? We've all read it and see... it doesn't say what you think it says, at least to most of us. Otherwise, we wouldn't be participating in this very thread.

If you go in thinking "Samsung copied Apple... Samsung copied Apple... OH LOOK PROOF!" then sure, that's what you'll read. If on the other hand you just read the document, and not just look at the pretty pictures, you'll notice that it has nothing to do with copying.

To be fair, the "most of us" you speak of are really mostly just five of you: you, kdarling, samcraig, oletros and rodimus prime.

That being said, both you and kdarling almost always source your statements, and if you don't you'll provide one if asked.

Samcraig makes a lot of assumptions, sources sometimes, but often says "i don't care if you believe me" when challenged.

Rodimus just calls everyone a fanboy and insults everyone.

And oletros, well oletros only asks incessant annoying questions that usually start with "can you show me where?" and doesn't really contribute to the conversation.

I think that about covers it

 

[KnightWRX]

"Peoples" in Apple (who earn a lot more than I do) have decided that its time to make a point with Samsung, and they know more than I so heres hoping.

Maybe instead of going after competitors with legitimate offerings in these complicated court proceedings, where proving copying is a semantics game, they should go after actual KIRF producers/vendors. Walking around Boardwalks in Maine or New Jersey, you can see the "iPods" in "iPod packaging" that is really just a chinese MP3 player that has nothing to do with Apple. Now even at a quick glance I can't tell the difference myself, only with real careful examination can you really tell.

These are mostly Shuffle and Nano imitations. But really, that is what is "ripping" off Apple. Not the semantic game they are playing with Samsung.

But Apple won't go after these. Finding these shell companies peddling this stuff as Boardwalk game prizes, it has no visibility and frankly, it's not what loses them money. Samsung coming into the market and selling twice as many phones as they do poses a threat, and courtrooms are just as good as any other place to compete it seems.

Sad really.

 

[samcraig]

To be fair, the "most of us" you speak of are really mostly just five of you: you, kdarling, samcraig, oletros and rodimus prime.

That being said, both you and kdarling almost always source your statements, and if you don't you'll provide one if asked.

Samcraig makes a lot of assumptions, sources sometimes, but often says "i don't care if you believe me" when challenged.

Rodimus just calls everyone a fanboy and insults everyone.

And oletros, well oletros only asks incessant annoying questions that usually start with "can you show me where?" and doesn't really contribute to the conversation.

I think that about covers it

Ok - I'll bite. Please show me evidence of how I "often" say I don't care if you believe me.

Sweeping generalizations are sweeping generalizations. No different than calling someone a fanboy, fandroid, etc - all hyperbole and makes posts less valuable. From most of what I've read - I would think you're above it.

 

[twosee]

Oh look, a piece from AppleInsider denigrating Android, how unbiased, factual and objective that must be.

Next link me some piece of www.phandroid.com about how bad Apple is with iCloud security or what new OS X "virus" is in the wild.

So the internal document they are referencing is not fact?

 

[kaori.hinata]

Yeah - because it was used for emotional, not logical reasons.

PS: Challenge is still there, how would you make a button bigger without increasing its size ?
Anyone ?

Instead of joining in on the argument, I thought I'd answer your P.S. question. I'm a little late to the party though so I don't know if someone has answered it already.

There are two ways I've seen this issue solved.

The first is to increase the area of the clickable element with padding instead of blank margin so that touch/click events will still activate the element some distance outside of it's visual bounds. This would work well in the case of grids of buttons, but you run the risk of affecting the available space available to surrounding elements if there are many of them. Likewise, you (usually) cannot overlap other elements.

The second is to decouple (somewhat) the touch/click events from the the visual bounds of the element when the element isn't surrounded by other elements that can accept touch/click events. A good example would be text in iOS web views. A clickable link in an iOS web view has a touchable/clickable area outside of its visual bounds that clearly overlaps with surrounding text, but this is made a non-issue when the element in question isn't surrounded by other elements that can accept a touch/click event.

The trouble with both issues is obvious. If you place many elements close to eachother, it can actually become challenging to predict which element you will actually touch/click. On a small screen (like that of the iPhone) in which the zoom levels play a larger part, you then have to adjust which elements receive the touch/click event based on visibility. A link that's 3 pixels high because the user zoomed out probably shouldn't receive the touch/click event when the user probably inteded to click the 800 pixel image next to it, for example. Likewise, you can try to predict what the user "meant", by analyzing the shape of the initial touch event. This could give clues for orientation, handedness, etc. I think iOS handles this by simply having fixed orientations and calculating a hot spot based on the orientation, but I'm not an Apple engineer, so I can't say definitively.

As a side note, I timed out my session in the process of writing this post and am now late for work.

 

[samcraig]

Agreed - but I really don't think this lawsuit is going to do much in hurting Samsung's sales or increasing Apple's. Best/Worst case scenario - some UI elements will be tweaked and Samsung will either have to modify (although not too much) their physical design and/or they won't. The consumer will probably never really know the difference. Forum members here and/or on Android sites will - but they aren't the majority, are they?

Maybe instead of going after competitors with legitimate offerings in these complicated court proceedings, where proving copying is a semantics game, they should go after actual KIRF producers/vendors. Walking around Boardwalks in Maine or New Jersey, you can see the "iPods" in "iPod packaging" that is really just a chinese MP3 player that has nothing to do with Apple. Now even at a quick glance I can't tell the difference myself, only with real careful examination can you really tell.

These are mostly Shuffle and Nano imitations. But really, that is what is "ripping" off Apple. Not the semantic game they are playing with Samsung.

But Apple won't go after these. Finding these shell companies peddling this stuff as Boardwalk game prizes, it has no visibility and frankly, it's not what loses them money. Samsung coming into the market and selling twice as many phones as they do poses a threat, and courtrooms are just as good as any other place to compete it seems.

Sad really.

 

[babyj]

Hum, you do understand this is the document we're discussing here right ? We've all read it and see... it doesn't say what you think it says, at least to most of us. Otherwise, we wouldn't be participating in this very thread.

If you go in thinking "Samsung copied Apple... Samsung copied Apple... OH LOOK PROOF!" then sure, that's what you'll read. If on the other hand you just read the document, and not just look at the pretty pictures, you'll notice that it has nothing to do with copying.

The majority of people here that have read that document came to the conclusion it is very damning on Samsung. You are the one with the minority view and just because the majority of people don't agree with you it doesn't mean they haven't read the document, that they don't understand it or are stupid.

On it's own the document is damning. It won't be so bad if there are similar documents from the same time frame performing a similar analysis of devices from other manufacturers. But where are they?

It also wouldn't look so bad if it wasn't for other supporting documents, such as Google saying your devices look too similar to Apple and the crisis of design singling out Apple. These make it a lot stronger than it is on its own.

If someone can produce documents from Samsung that show; they performed a proper analysis of the mobile market (ie not just the iPhone), took a selection of the best features from other devices and added their own to come up with a final user interface and design, evidence of their design process and evolution leading them to the devices they produced - then I will happily backtrack and fully support Samsung. Until that moment the facts clearly show to me that they copied Apple.

 

[TMay]

A point - and agree, I hope it stands. But competitors will definitely aim for a leading product / solution. There are countries that have a very healthy GDP thats based almost exclusively on copying & repackaging "anothers" work for less money.

"Peoples" in Apple (who earn a lot more than I do) have decided that its time to make a point with Samsung, and they know more than I so heres hoping.
Only thing that crosses my mind is what they hope to gain at the tail end of millions - in reality. Unfortunately I have a feeling small insignificant charges (relative) and small changes at the most.

There isn't any odds in Apple pursuing this for money. One speculation is that there are other disruptions coming, and Apple wants to make the point that there will be no respite for copiers.

Something not discussed is that Apple (MS, et al) are not only pursing legal recourse, but are gaining tremendous expertise at it.

Needless to say, so are Samsung, Moto, and Google, but arguably Apple and MS each have a more potent arsenal and money to burn.

 

[KnightWRX]

So the internal document they are referencing is not fact?

The spin they are putting on it isn't. The same spin that places like Phandroid puts on their "factual" stories. You do understand how biased media works right ? It takes a fact or factoid. Then it trims context a bit so that you don't know the origin or the surrounding facts that tie into it. Next it does selective quoting, removing a few choice words or using a few choice words to make a quote.

Then hyperbole the headline.

Phandroid, AppleInsider, both are the fox news for their relative "platform". Both are pretty shoddy places to get your "information" about Android or iOS.

 

[boronathan]

Ok - I'll bite. Please show me evidence of how I "often" say I don't care if you believe me.

Sweeping generalizations are sweeping generalizations. No different than calling someone a fanboy, fandroid, etc - all hyperbole and makes posts less valuable. From most of what I've read - I would think you're above it.

Just an observation of MINE. I really have no interest in going through this thread and finding examples.

I actually respect what you say, except that little hiccup we had yesterday with the discovery thing where you started going off on a tangent about projection or what not.

I prefer conflicting opinions otherwise this place would be boring. I was just disagreeing with knightwrxs assertion that "most of us" don't think Samsung copied. I think most of us actually do. What i think doesn't matter though, it's those nine people in the jury box who do.

 

[babyj]

Agreed - but I really don't think this lawsuit is going to do much in hurting Samsung's sales or increasing Apple's. Best/Worst case scenario - some UI elements will be tweaked and Samsung will either have to modify (although not too much) their physical design and/or they won't. The consumer will probably never really know the difference. Forum members here and/or on Android sites will - but they aren't the majority, are they?

I might be wrong but aren't there some Apple patents included in this case which would also apply to other Android devices? There are also the Samsung FRAND patents involved. The decision in this case could be a lot more far reaching than you think, maybe not the fatal blow for either side but definitely a step towards it.

 

[BassPlayer]

God!!! All this bickering is tiring to read (especially when I'm trying to work)

Anyone have an old StarTac II they want to sell? I'm going to boycott iOS and Android and BB and WMP altogether!!! WHO'S WITH ME!?!?!?!?!

 

[samcraig]

Sorry - couldn't resist.

The majority of people here that have read that document came to the conclusion it is very damning on Samsung. You are the one with the minority view and just because the majority of people don't agree with you it doesn't mean they haven't read the document, that they don't understand it or are stupid.

On it's own the document is damning. It won't be so bad if there are similar documents from the same time frame performing a similar analysis of devices from other manufacturers. But where are they?

It also wouldn't look so bad if it wasn't for other supporting documents, such as Google saying your devices look too similar to Apple and the crisis of design singling out Apple. These make it a lot stronger than it is on its own.

If someone can produce documents from Samsung that show; they performed a proper analysis of the mobile market (ie not just the iPhone), took a selection of the best features from other devices and added their own to come up with a final user interface and design, evidence of their design process and evolution leading them to the devices they produced - then I will happily backtrack and fully support Samsung. Until that moment the facts clearly show to me that they copied Apple.

----------

Fair enough - but (and I could be mistaken) I think he meant most of us as in most of the people who are posting differing views. Not most of us as in most of macrumors posters.

Just an observation of MINE. I really have no interest in going through this thread and finding examples.

I actually respect what you say, except that little hiccup we had yesterday with the discovery thing where you started going off on a tangent about projection or what not.

I prefer conflicting opinions otherwise this place would be boring. I was just disagreeing with knightwrxs assertion that "most of us" don't think Samsung copied. I think most of us actually do. What i think doesn't matter though, it's those nine people in the jury box who do.

 

[boronathan]

The majority of people here that have read that document came to the conclusion it is very damning on Samsung. You are the one with the minority view and just because the majority of people don't agree with you it doesn't mean they haven't read the document, that they don't understand it or are stupid.

On it's own the document is damning. It won't be so bad if there are similar documents from the same time frame performing a similar analysis of devices from other manufacturers. But where are they?

It also wouldn't look so bad if it wasn't for other supporting documents, such as Google saying your devices look too similar to Apple and the crisis of design singling out Apple. These make it a lot stronger than it is on its own.

If someone can produce documents from Samsung that show; they performed a proper analysis of the mobile market (ie not just the iPhone), took a selection of the best features from other devices and added their own to come up with a final user interface and design, evidence of their design process and evolution leading them to the devices they produced - then I will happily backtrack and fully support Samsung. Until that moment the facts clearly show to me that they copied Apple.

Precisely. if Samsung does this with every competitor they'll produce a detailed document like this when it's their turn to argue their case. (and sam, that means they already have it)

Don't hold your breath on it, though.

 

[boronathan]

[/COLOR]Fair enough - but (and I could be mistaken) I think he meant most of us as in most of the people who are posting differing views. Not most of us as in most of macrumors posters.

That wouldn't make sense given the context of what he said (because wouldn't he just say "all of us who offer differing opinions"?), but ok.

 

[subsonix]

You see "be like iPhone", I don't see that. Random example :

The whole document is a comparative analysis between the iPhone and Galaxy S, the suggestion for improvement is taken from the comparison. Do you expect them to explicitly mention iPhone or Galaxy S when that is the entire scope of the document.

 

[samcraig]

Precisely. if Samsung does this with every competitor they'll produce a detailed document like this when it's their turn to argue their case. (and sam, that means they already have it)

Don't hold your breath on it, though.

Or they won't. And there could be several reasons. Either it was never entered into discovery. Maybe the other documents would open Samsung up to further scrutiny by other manufacturers. Who really knows. We also might have transcripts of the proceedings - but we aren't there. And one of the jobs a lawyer has is to read the jury and determine the best strategy. Maybe this document hasn't played as badly in court as it has here. Maybe it's played worse. Samsung's lawyers have to assess everything.

We can talk until the cows come home on what they or Apple should or shouldn't say or do - but we're not there.

 

[boronathan]

The spin they are putting on it isn't. The same spin that places like Phandroid puts on their "factual" stories. You do understand how biased media works right ? It takes a fact or factoid. Then it trims context a bit so that you don't know the origin or the surrounding facts that tie into it. Next it does selective quoting, removing a few choice words or using a few choice words to make a quote.

Then hyperbole the headline.

Phandroid, AppleInsider, both are the fox news for their relative "platform". Both are pretty shoddy places to get your "information" about Android or iOS.

Clearly you've never been to droid-life. That place is a mess!

 

[mark28]

Doesn't Apple also have documents which has outlined what Android does better than iOS? *hints at Notification centre*

Besides, Apple was inspired by Sony designs.

 

[samcraig]

The whole document is a comparative analysis between the iPhone and Galaxy S, the suggestion for improvement is taken from the comparison. Do you expect them to explicitly mention iPhone or Galaxy S when that is the entire scope of the document.

Your interpretation. I still don't think intent alone can or would win this case. The proof is in the execution.

Even if the document said flat out "change the icon to match the iPhone's exactly" - if it never happened - what does matter what the document said?

That's why I posed the question - of these 132 pages - how many of the illustrations were actually executed on...

 

[KnightWRX]

The majority of people here that have read that document came to the conclusion it is very damning on Samsung. You are the one with the minority view and just because the majority of people don't agree with you it doesn't mean they haven't read the document, that they don't understand it or are stupid.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that your majority here (that's just a few posters that are the usual culprits. After a few pages, these threads tend to be left with 2-3 posters on each "side") went into the document thinking it was a smoking gun.

Look, we could have said the same thing about Oracle v. Google, when Florian posted this tidbit :

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/judge-orders-overhaul-of-oracles.html

One of the most interesting passages in today's order quotes from an October 2005 email by Google's Android boss Andy Rubin:

"If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way"

If a jury sees that statement (and if there is a trial, then the jury will see it for sure), Google has a very serious problem.

I'd be there saying the statement in context means nothing, it's not what people think, blah blah blah. You'd come in and say "the majority of people here think this is pretty damning for Google, you're in the minority, read the article, we read it and understand it".

At the end of the day, what happened ? Yes, the statement meant nothing. Andy was right in the end, "Do Java anyway" without Sun, using project Harmony and the language specification according to licenses granted by Sun, but without Sun's direct help in the whole thing. And it was all uninfringing.

That's the problem with biased news sources. They put spin, hyperbole and make "smoking guns" out of Nerf toys.

Same for Samung and this document. They compare their TouchWiz UI experience to the iPhone and find it has a few flaws not present in Apple's offering. They offer solutions to those. Is that copying ? I posted an example on the last page where the solution isn't "do it like iPhone!", it's just "do it better, on the same level as the iPhone!".

That's the distinction people going in with the mindset that "Samsung copied!" don't read. They don't make the distinction between "Copying" and "Having the same level of experience". Sometimes the solution is the same as the iPhone (the calculator not rotating both ways, iPhone does, so what else should they do but rotate both ways ? Makes sense...).

----------

The whole document is a comparative analysis between the iPhone and Galaxy S, the suggestion for improvement is taken from the comparison. Do you expect them to explicitly mention iPhone or Galaxy S when that is the entire scope of the document.

Respond to my example. Where was the "Copy iPhone!" in that ? You're just evading it. I posted many of these "let's do it better, on the same level as the iPhone, but not like the iPhone" examples. How many more do you need to understand the document ?

I see a document about relative levels of user experience. The iPhone is used as a benchmark. Making the levels of user experience the same is not making the user experience the same. That's the nuance this document has. It's about matching their level of user experience, not matching the user experience of the iPhone.

Context. Ain't it a bitch.

 

[boronathan]

Or they won't. And there could be several reasons. Either it was never entered into discovery. Maybe the other documents would open Samsung up to further scrutiny by other manufacturers. Who really knows. We also might have transcripts of the proceedings - but we aren't there. And one of the jobs a lawyer has is to read the jury and determine the best strategy. Maybe this document hasn't played as badly in court as it has here. Maybe it's played worse. Samsung's lawyers have to assess everything.

We can talk until the cows come home on what they or Apple should or shouldn't say or do - but we're not there.

If they didn't enter it into discovery and meant to, their lawyers are fools. If it opens them up to scrutiny from other manufacturers, that's even more proof they copy. There is really no defense they can wage other then semantics. As for execution, you have a skyrocket. Check out how many things were executed. It may surprise you.

 

[twosee]

The spin they are putting on it isn't. The same spin that places like Phandroid puts on their "factual" stories. You do understand how biased media works right ? It takes a fact or factoid. Then it trims context a bit so that you don't know the origin or the surrounding facts that tie into it. Next it does selective quoting, removing a few choice words or using a few choice words to make a quote.

Then hyperbole the headline.

Phandroid, AppleInsider, both are the fox news for their relative "platform". Both are pretty shoddy places to get your "information" about Android or iOS.

Yes I do understand how biased media work, I also recognize when someone is trying to be condescending. And I certainly don't see the bias in that article. Seems YOU are being biased and trying to spin it into some sort of shoddy writing full of misleading information. The headline reads:

"Half of the TV audience mistook Samsung Galaxy Tab for iPad in ads"

Don't see any spin there.

Also in the article basically just has quotes and figures. Not much "opinion" in it if you ask me.

 

[KnightWRX]

I might be wrong but aren't there some Apple patents included in this case which would also apply to other Android devices? There are also the Samsung FRAND patents involved. The decision in this case could be a lot more far reaching than you think, maybe not the fatal blow for either side but definitely a step towards it.

There will be no fatal blows, for either side in this case. It covers mostly old devices that are not on the market anymore. Heck, this document we're talking about is for the Samsung Galaxy S GT-i9000, the original model. It's not even being sold, being 2 generations old.