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

[BaldiMac]

The APIs and libraries would've been nigh useless for anyone besides Apple, considering the first iPhone had no way to directly install apps to speak of.

They certainly weren't useless to the people that bought iPhones and took advantage of the features they enabled.

An actual, honest PC equivalent webkit browser? Oh yes. Very much so. This one feature is symbolic of the biggest change Apple made to the smartphone market. It wasn't technology or UI design that helped them along, rather it was how they treated the platform as a small computer, rather than a PDA/Phone.

iTunes integration? Nice, but hardly revolutionary. They streamlined the process a bit using a specific piece of software to do all the work for you, but that's only a smallish tweak to an already familiar process. People have been putting videos and music onto portable devices for at least a couple of years by that point.

Large screen? Not exactly a surprise here. The Prada and other similar phones had roughly the same sized screens by that point.

Capacitive multitouch? Yes and no. Apple was, as far as I know, the first company to release a portable multitouch device. Does that mean they pioneered the entire field, and it never would've happened had they not bravely shown up on the scene? No. It's a natural evolutionary step for the previously long line of touchscreen devices to take. There have been plenty of phones that used a stylus or a single finger as the primary method of input. Plenty of devices that used the screen as the sole method of input. Apple jumped ahead of everyone else in the game, but didn't invent the idea, nor the technology behind it.

And don't say "it's obvious now that Apple's done it". That's a cop out answer. It's obvious in the sense that it's the obvious next step. Single touch makes way for multitouch. Haptic technologies are probably the next obvious step beyond that.

Direct updates and no carrier involvement? I applaud Apple for this move. It's one of the reasons why I bought my iPhone to begin with. But how is that revolutionary or unprecedented? OSes have been doing this for years. The only thing Apple did was tell the carriers off. It's a plus for their negotiation skills, nothing more.

This is a ridiculous argument. The iPhones innovation wasn't in creating any of these feature individually. It was putting them all together in one device. Every invention is the same.

And it's been answered many a time. The Prada.

I missed samcraig saying that. Can you link to the post? Would you care to explain how that supports his original point?

The vast number of WinMo phones. Symbian phones. They're all natural predecessors to the iPhone, which was a device that shook things up a bit, but didn't reinvent entirely.

Okay. But we have to ignore what happened in real life to accept that.

Strange how WinMo and Symbian phones didn't actually evolve into iPhone peers despite your claims that they were "natural predecessors". Maybe you are just referring to the simple fact that they came first.

 

[uknowimright]

So because it wasn't instantly revolutionary, the fact that it IS revolutionary doesn't matter? By that definition, Samsung makes only crappy feature phones, at best. Have you seen their first phone? What a piece of junk that was. It had a horrible little screen on it with ridiculous calculator numbers. And all it had were these big white buttons that could dial a phone number. That's it. Nothing else. You called people, and you hung up. Utter junk. No way those guys could ever make anything decent. \sarcasm

The fact that in one generation of phones Apple leapfrogged all of them is utterly amazing. How could a company new to the business so thoroughly crush all the big players for years before anyone even got close to catching up?

That's called innovation, kids. Differentiation. Thinking differently.

So all of you on here who think Samsung is just a victim of poor timing... I'd like you to think about this for a minute: They were making parts for the original iPhone and they STILL took years to catch up. How is that possible if they're already on the same path and Apple doesn't do anything new or different than anyone else? How does that logic work in your head, exactly?

just pointing out that the iPhone was not a godsend from day one like some people like to pretend it was

 

[Geckotek]

They certainly weren't useless to the people that bought iPhones and took advantage of the features they enabled.

I still suggest the lack of access to those APIs means the original iPhone was a feature phone.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Again, I go back to my example I posted in response to you. Where did they get their solution from Apple ? Their solution is different than Apple's!

I know in some instances it is. In one slide it shows Apples icon for the calendar where it automatically updates the correct date without opening the app up. Samsung response was to do the same thing as Samsungs app always shown the 7th.

 

[bawbac]

iphone only started being revolutionary until people started hacking it and adding apps and then Apple decided oh that's actually a good idea

How quickly people forget that apple even copied or even stolen a concept because it wasn't patented.

 

[BaldiMac]

It didn't take Samsung or others YEARS to catch up. And do you have any idea how long it takes to get a phone from concept to launch? Seriously. Because I do. First hand.

The first Android phone was released 21 months after the iPhone was announced. Unless you are implying that the initial Android release was on par with the iPhone, I think the claim that in took years to catch up to the iPhone is pretty reasonable.

Personally, I think Android arguably "caught up" to iOS on the smartphone with 2.3.

 

[lucas107]

You asked a question. It's one that is asked often and resorts to the same argument because no one chooses to define what they mean by "truly new" or "invention" or "innovation". I asked you to clarify what you mean by the question, so I could answer it.

using the word arbitrary makes it seem like you want to get a rise out of me and not actually care about the question.
but just for ***** from products listed in this thread: washing machines, dryers, microwaves, fridges, modern bullets, and cars
all things that also take existing ideas but dont just slightly improve on them but make them exponentially better. iphone took ideas from other phones and and a few new things that were not new ideas just then financially reasonable to include but would of been included in new devices. smoothness does not make it revolutionary. and if you really think other phones were not working on making a better internet browser at the time i might as well just give up on you like some other already have.

 

[BaldiMac]

I still suggest the lack of access to those APIs means the original iPhone was a feature phone.

Except feature phones often had third party applications as well, so that distinction is rather arbitrary.

 

[hchung]

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

View attachment 352185

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.

If you want to do the pick-a-page-that-supports-your-opinion game, fine. But there's plenty of pages which seem to suggest the opposite of "do ... our own approach."

Page 131:
iPhone: "Light used for a three dimensionality; gives a luxurious feel. Curves are fluid to give a soft and comfortable feel."
i9000: "Menu icons lacking in three dimensional effect using light. icon edge curvature not fluid. Strong impression that iphone's icon concept was copied."
Directions for Improvement: "Insert effects of light for a softer, more luxurious icon implementation. Make the edge curve more smooth to erase the hard feel. Remove a feeling that the iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design."

Contrast with a competitor:
Microsoft obviously does the opposite by using no light effects, even less color, and shape square edges.

Comment: Clearly there's different ways of making nice looking icons. Clearly their own engineer had a feeling that they're copying the iPhone. Obviously this warning went unheeded.

Page 128:
iPhone: "Screen rotates during transition when Keypad or Hide Keypad is tapped during calls."
i9000: "Screen switches without effects."
Directions for Improvement: "Add screen transition effects such as rotation/fly-in when operating each kind of option menu."

Comment:
There's a meaningful difference between simply "add a screen transition effect" and suggesting a transition where the first suggestion is exactly what the iPhone does. If I were thinking of transitions, the most obvious to me is actually a crossfade, not a rotation.

Page 117:
Their QA engineer says "Feels awkward since all icons have frames on background." Their QA engineer suggests that a solution would be "use the icons only."

Their QA engineer actually suggested that using the stock Android icons (where there's no square background) would have been easier and "a clean and uniform feel." What they actually did? Deliberately ignored the advice and pick the solution that looks more like the iPhone's icons.

Page 103:
Directions for Improvement: "Need improvements to enable one button access like the iPhone."

Comment: It's obvious to us now. But back then, if stuff like this was common sense, why wasn't it done in the first place?

Page 101:
Basically, i9000 hides scroll bar until touched. iPhone always shows it. We should show it.

Comment: Hiding and showing UI element took extra work to implement. It took a comparison with another product to figure out that the extra work done was a decrease in usability? Wouldn't something like this have been easy to figure out while designing?

 

[Renzatic]

They certainly weren't useless to the people that bought iPhones and took advantage of the features they enabled.

But it wasn't exactly widespread. To me, the iPhone didn't come into its own and become something truly great until the 3G. The iPhone 1 was rather lackluster in comparison.

This is a ridiculous argument. The iPhones innovation wasn't in creating any of these feature individually. It was putting them all together in one device. Every invention is the same.

Strange how WinMo and Symbian phones didn't actually evolve into iPhone peers despite your claims that they were "natural predecessors". Maybe you are just referring to the simple fact that they came first.

And the "bringing them together into a single whole" is just as ridiculous. You can point out a 1001 and one tiny features on the iPhone, and I can just as easily turn around and point out something similar that had been done before. The one thing that separates the iPhone from what came before is the polish and ease of use. That's Apple's bread and butter, and what they do better than anyone else. But what they didn't wasn't a complete revolution of design and UI. Rather, a natural progression of what came before.

If you can explain to me how this...

...wasn't the obvious precursor to this...

...and had absolutely nothing to do with how this came out...

...then I might say you have a point. Most people here can only attempt to prove their argument by dipping down into the microcosmal differences. "Well, these things that came before didn't do email like this", or "that doesn't look at all like the iPhone, it doesn't have a status bar along the top and it's monochrome".

...but at it's most fundamental, the way the information is displayed onscreen, the way you interact with it, the iPhone is nothing more than a glorified, modernized, simplified, sleek Palm Pilot. It's done a ton of little things differently or better, but that's to be expected. March of technology and all that. Overall, it's just the latest thing in a long line of latest things.

Apple refined. Didn't invent.

 

[hchung]

I would argue that this lawsuit really won't hurt or help either party nor cause any of the items you discussed. It will just mean Samsung (if they lose) has to do more work arounds to make their skin/phones less iPhoney. Pun not originally intended.

I'm certainly not implying that one outcome or the other will result in a massive effect along those lines. But at the same time, can you argue against the idea that those workarounds and less iPhoney UIs will result in products with different UXs?

 

[BaldiMac]

using the word arbitrary makes it seem like you want to get a rise out of me and not actually care about the question.

Sorry, I was just using the word because I thought it was appropriate. No offense!

but just for ***** from products listed in this thread: washing machines, dryers, microwaves, fridges, modern bullets, and cars
all things that also take existing ideas but dont just slightly improve on them but make them exponentially better.

But, again, the line here is completely arbitrary (). Washing machines are just a mechanical, agitating barrel and a couple valves to add and drain water. Obviously, I'm being facetious, but that is often how the iPhone is dismissed.

iphone took ideas from other phones and and a few new things that were not new ideas just then financially reasonable to include but would of been included in new devices. smoothness does not make it revolutionary. and if you really think other phones were not working on making a better internet browser at the time i might as well just give up on you like some other already have.

And yet the iPhone did revolutionize the industry. And it took years for competitors to catch up.

All inventions are made up of things that already existed. They are just put together in a new and innovative way.

 

[Geckotek]

Except feature phones often had third party applications as well, so that distinction is rather arbitrary.

Agreed, and so by your definition, since they have APIs as well, we need a new definition of a smartphone.

 

[boronathan]

I saw their answers and I saw other interpretations as well. Do you just swallow everything they feed you?

I'm not by any means saying they are in trouble, but concern exists.

Swallow everything who feeds me? Apple? They haven't fed me anything, i just don't think a company like that is in any danger. Your "interpretation" is clearly different, but when they rebound like they always do, will you concede that you were just being a little FUDdy with the "concern" bit?

Full disclosure: i own aapl, and the money they made me leaves me in the realm of least concern

 

[BaldiMac]

But it wasn't exactly widespread. To me, the iPhone didn't come into its own and become something truly great until the 3G. The iPhone 1 was rather lackluster in comparison.

Absolutely.

And the "bringing them together into a single whole" is just as ridiculous. You can point out a 1001 and one tiny features on the iPhone, and I can just as easily turn around and point out something similar that had been done before. The one thing that separates the iPhone from what came before is the polish and ease of use. That's Apple's bread and butter, and what they do better than anyone else. But what they didn't wasn't a complete revolution of design and UI. Rather, a natural progression of what came before.

I disagree. I already pointed out the significant features that they brought together in one package. The 1001 tiny features are just a bonus.

If you can explain to me how this...

Image

...wasn't the obvious precursor to this...

Image

...and had absolutely nothing to do with how this came out...

Image

...then I might say you have a point. Most people here can only attempt to prove their argument by dipping down into the microcosmal differences. "Well, these things that came before didn't do email like this", or "that doesn't look at all like the iPhone, it doesn't have a status bar along the top and it's monochrome".

Easy. Same argument as before. They were precursors of individual features. Not the iPhone, except in the basic sense that they were smartphones that came before the iPhone.

...but at it's most fundamental, the way the information is displayed onscreen, the way you interact with it, the iPhone is nothing more than a glorified, modernized, simplified, sleek Palm Pilot. It's done a ton of little things differently or better, but that's to be expected. March of technology and all that. Overall, it's just the latest thing in a long line of latest things.

Apple refined. Didn't invent.

But, as usual for this argument, you decline to give your arbitrary definition of invention that manages to exclude the iPhone.

 

[Geckotek]

Swallow everything who feeds me? Apple? They haven't fed me anything, i just don't think a company like that is in any danger. Your "interpretation" is clearly different, but when they rebound like they always do, will you concede that you were just being a little FUDdy with the "concern" bit?

Full disclosure: i own aapl, and the money they made me leaves me in the realm of least concern

They fed you a response on why they missed analyst projections. Now you either believed it or you didn't. Pretty simple. Personally, I think there was some truth to it, but I don't think they told the whole story. The fact that Samsung smartphone sales just surpassed iPhone sales for the first time is pretty telling.

Once again, I'm not saying Apple is in trouble, but to act like profits are "not in any danger" is to ignore the dogs nipping at their heels daily.

Disclosure: I don't own AAPL nor do I own any interest in Samsung (I may buy some AAPL options before the annoucement though). I do own every iPhone since the 3G and have in the past owned Samsung dumbphones (no smartphones).

 

[lucas107]

Sorry, I was just using the word because I thought it was appropriate. No offense!



But, again, the line here is completely arbitrary (). Washing machines are just a mechanical, agitating barrel and a couple valves to add and drain water. Obviously, I'm being facetious, but that is often how the iPhone is dismissed.



And yet the iPhone did revolutionize the industry. And it took years for competitors to catch up.

All inventions are made up of things that already existed. They are just put together in a new and innovative way.

my argument was always that the iphone was not revolutionary in that the industry was heading in that direction anyway not that it was bad just that it wasnt overly innovative and especially not revolutionary

radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.

 

[samcraig]

The first Android phone was released 21 months after the iPhone was announced. Unless you are implying that the initial Android release was on par with the iPhone, I think the claim that in took years to catch up to the iPhone is pretty reasonable.

Personally, I think Android arguably "caught up" to iOS on the smartphone with 2.3.

Personally I think one would have to define "caught up" and even that is subjective because what is great and useful to you might not be to me. There are things the iPhone today is still playing catch up for from years ago.

Reasonable is also subjective. For example - I am sure you think all your posts are reasonable. I don't

 

[BaldiMac]

Agreed, and so by your definition, since they have APIs as well, we need a new definition of a smartphone.

I didn't provide a definition. But the original iPhone was almost universally referred to as a smartphone, so that probably counts for something.

 

[NT1440]

...but at it's most fundamental, the way the information is displayed onscreen, the way you interact with it, the iPhone is nothing more than a glorified, modernized, simplified, sleek Palm Pilot. .

Didn't the Newton predate the Palm Pilot?

Also, how is Siri not just a stripped down version of Apple's Knowledge Navigator concept? To follow your logic

 

[Renzatic]

Easy. Same argument as before. They were precursors of individual features. Not the iPhone.

No. They're fundamentally the same. Apple's App Store might be better integrated with the OS, might have sported a better browser, but these are improvements upon original ideas. Not original ideas in and of themselves.

But, as usual for this argument, you decline to give your arbitrary definition of invention that manages to exclude the iPhone.

Then tell me what I'm failing to include. What did Apple invent for the iPhone? Capacitive multitouch? Siri? The App Store? All of these are improvements upon previous ideas. Hell, most of them weren't even invented for the iPhone specifically, nor invented inhouse at Apple.

 

[BaldiMac]

my argument was always that the iphone was not revolutionary in that the industry was heading in that direction anyway not that it was bad just that it wasnt overly innovative and especially not revolutionary

And yet it took years for competitors to match the iPhone and none of the established players within the mobile phone industry have even managed to release a competitive OS. It took an outsider (Google) to provide them with the software technology almost 2 years later. The closest thing to an insider (Microsoft) took almost 4 years for a legitimate response.

Personally I think one would have to define "caught up" and even that is subjective because what is great and useful to you might not be to me. There are things the iPhone today is still playing catch up for from years ago.

Reasonable is also subjective. For example - I am sure you think all your posts are reasonable. I don't

I'm not interested in another semantic argument.

Do you want to comment on the actual point?

 

[Geckotek]

I didn't provide a definition. But the original iPhone was almost universally referred to as a smartphone, so that probably counts for something.

Sorry, I thought this quote was defining a smartphone, but I see now that it wasn't.

Look, I can sell you a milkshake and throw the label deluxe on it, but just because I put that label on it doesn't make it deluxe.

I'm not the only one in this forum that thinks the first iPhone was just a feature phone with a lot of polish. There were other devices and OSes on the market that were more powerful and more functional, but they lacked the polish and ease of use the iPhone had. What made the iPhone stand out was the polish and simplicity, not the fact that someone mislabled it as a "smartphone".

My understanding of a smartphone based on using devices prior to the iPhone's release was that I could manipulate and manage the device in a manner that allowed me to make it fit my needs. Loading 3rd party apps was a big part of that.

The first iPhone didn't even offer features available on my old Palm III! This is why I skipped over the first device completely. They won me over with the 3G.

Edit: could've swore I posted your quote re: what you found key to the first iPhone...oh well, I think you'll recall the post I mean.

 

[NT1440]

No. They're fundamentally the same. Apple's App Store might be better integrated with the OS, might have sported a better browser, but these are improvements upon original ideas. Not original ideas in and of themselves.



Then tell me what I'm failing to include. What did Apple invent for the iPhone? Capacitive multitouch? Siri? The App Store? All of these are improvements upon previous ideas. Hell, most of them weren't even invented for the iPhone specifically, nor invented inhouse at Apple.

How about bringing a full featured web browser to the mobile world, which was atrocious before hand?

Not a new idea, but revolutionized (and still is) a part of the industry.

 

[BaldiMac]

No. They're fundamentally the same. Apple's App Store might be better integrated with the OS, might have sported a better browser, but these are improvements upon original ideas. Not original ideas in and of themselves.

Fundamentally? Only if you discount the features that made the iPhone unique. And, again, you continue with the arbitrary usage of "original ideas" vs "improvements.

Then tell me what I'm failing to include. What did Apple invent for the iPhone? Capacitive multitouch? Siri? The App Store? All of these are improvements upon previous ideas. Hell, most of them weren't even invented for the iPhone specifically, nor invented inhouse at Apple.

That's the point that you seem to keep missing. They invented the iPhone. Just like every other invention in the history of the world, it was based on existing parts.