Quote:
Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill
You think you don't need to learn this stuff?
You can, (and probably will) dispute this, but you'll be wrong, because you don't understand design and your perspective is skewed.
|
That is what this discussion is all about isn't it.
You are under the impression that you are right and that I am wrong just because I view the subject from a different perspective than you. I do know for a fact that functional product designers can and have produced useful visual designs in the past, but no visual designer stands a chance of producing something useful in the function design arena. That is an element of the perspective difference.
You seem to be under the impression that visual design is in the same category of difficulty as functional design in a smartphone product. While such designs are of obvious importance, they are still trivial in comparison to functional product elements. Samsung is by far the leader in the design of smartphone functional products, in the context of this threads subject anyway. So much so, that Apple has been buying those functional elements from Samsung, since Apple was incapable of producing those functional elements themselves.
Also you seem to be substituting quantity of words for proof that the design elements that Samsung was sued about were actually worthy of the patent protection Samsung was wrongly accused of violating. That just does not work.