Samsung v. Apple

[pl001]

Originally Posted by Graham

snip...but I'd agree with you that unless something amazingly generic had been granted it's likely that there's no serious infringement within iOS or Android.

Graham

Amazingly generic? You mean like a lot of the stuff Apple is suing Samsung over?

Never underestimate how badly broken the US patent system is. The real issue may be that HP would have to go after Android as well, which could be damaging to future business relationships.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pl001

Just a clarification, the old iPhone was a 3:2 aspect ratio, which is the standard for photographs, the iPad is 4:3.

There's still a place for those aspect ratios, but for a media consumption device I strongly prefer 16:9.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Dave_S]

Tero Kuittinen, an analyst at the mobile communications consulting firm Alekstra, agreed. “The iPhone has remained pretty much static now for three generations,” he said. “The first iPhone was a revelation, in a class of its own.” With Apple holding on to the same interface for five years, “you can still claim the interface is better, but the difference has been shrinking every year,” he said. “On display, you can argue Samsung has taken the lead. Maybe you can slam Samsung for being an imitator, but when they imitate, they do it right.”

From the New York Times.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

From the New York Times.

That is an objective perspective. Consumers are not objective. When shown an iPhone 4s, but told it was an iPhone 5, and asked how it was compared to the iPhone 4s: it's way better, definitely noticeably better, it's a little thinner, looks like the screen is a little bigger, seems a little bit faster, faster, lighter, heavier, a lot lighter, a lot faster, definitely faster (this time by someone with a phone in her hand to directly compare), very nice, very updated, etc.

It doesn't matter if the actual improvements from one model to the next are small. They could make no changes at all, and consumers would still see vast improvements.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

When shown an iPhone 4s, but told it was an iPhone 5, and asked how it was compared to the iPhone 4s: it's way better, definitely noticeably better, it's a little thinner, looks like the screen is a little bigger, seems a little bit faster, faster, lighter, heavier, a lot lighter, a lot faster, definitely faster (this time by someone with a phone in her hand to directly compare), very nice, very updated, etc.

That was a very funny video but I am certain that there were many clips where people recognised that it was an iPhone 4S which didn't make it to the final version.

We shouldn't really use it to support our arguments!

Graham

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Didn't have an OS anything like iOS though. Thats what in its entirety means.

Visually, it wasn't that far removed, which was the crux of Apple's case. The suits were all about copying the visuals.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Ultimately it all becomes a "He started it!" problem. Google have recently sued Apple to ban sales of basically all Apple products. There are no current Apple vs Google lawsuits, so in that sense Google "started it", but it would be reasonable to see Google suing Apple as a natural extension of the Apple vs HTC suits, which Google has been involved in behind the scenes.

Going further back, Nokia sued Apple first, and Apple countersued.
Apple sued HTC first, and HTC countersued.
Motorola sued Apple first, and Apple countersued.
Apple sued Samsung first, and Samsung countersued.

with Nokia, that wasn't Google driven. Nokia is a direct competitor in the maps and mobile OS front. And even as they started moving away from their own OSs for their smartphones, they famously refused to go Android, and said some disparaging things about it.

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

They should sue. I don't think IP owners have a case myself -- and if they thought they could they would.

HP owns the Palm remnants now, and always has had a cordial relationship with Apple. HP was the company that started pushing iPods for non Macs.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It might be because of this:


I find it funny that the speculation about a mini iPad from a while back was centered around Apple sticking to the same aspect ratio.

I never understood that. 16:9 is more pervasive now. Its in Tv, games, movies, etc. Sticking to 4:3 just requies letterboxing for so much content.

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Visually, it wasn't that far removed, which was the crux of Apple's case. The suits were all about copying the visuals.





with Nokia, that wasn't Google driven. Nokia is a direct competitor in the maps and mobile OS front. And even as they started moving away from their own OSs for their smartphones, they famously refused to go Android, and said some disparaging things about it.




HP owns the Palm remnants now, and always has had a cordial relationship with Apple. HP was the company that started pushing iPods for non Macs.




I never understood that. 16:9 is more pervasive now. Its in Tv, games, movies, etc. Sticking to 4:3 just requies letterboxing for so much content.

It was all part of Jobs reality distortion field. That display ratio was in his brain.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Visually, it wasn't that far removed, which was the crux of Apple's case. The suits were all about copying the visuals.





with Nokia, that wasn't Google driven. Nokia is a direct competitor in the maps and mobile OS front. And even as they started moving away from their own OSs for their smartphones, they famously refused to go Android, and said some disparaging things about it.




HP owns the Palm remnants now, and always has had a cordial relationship with Apple. HP was the company that started pushing iPods for non Macs.




I never understood that. 16:9 is more pervasive now. Its in Tv, games, movies, etc. Sticking to 4:3 just requies letterboxing for so much content.

The iPhone was actually 3:2, the 4:3 is for the iPads. Now ios has 3:2 (old iphone and ipods), 16:9 (new iphone and ipods) and 4:3 (ipads). Fragmentation much? Maybe not, but it is telling that the OS can't cope with 3 aspect ratios and has to letter-box apps.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by afv011

The iPhone was actually 3:2, the 4:3 is for the iPads. Now ios has 3:2 (old iphone and ipods), 16:9 (new iphone and ipods) and 4:3 (ipads). Fragmentation much? Maybe not, but it is telling that the OS can't cope with 3 aspect ratios and has to letter-box apps.

An "Android Crusader" accusing iOS of fragmentation. Rich.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

They could make no changes at all, and consumers would still see vast improvements.

All of the consumers? Most of them? A few of them?

How many we talking about here?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Graham

That was a very funny video but I am certain that there were many clips where people recognised that it was an iPhone 4S which didn't make it to the final version.

We shouldn't really use it to support our arguments!

My point wasn't that nobody recognized it as the 4s. My point was that those that didn't recognize it have seen it as being different. They expected the new phone to be faster, so they've seen it as faster. Not everybody expected the new phone to be lighter, so not everyone has seen it as lighter. Expectations influence subjective impressions.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that this is a trait that afflicts only Apple consumers, or that this is something that happens only when looking at a device. What I'm talking about is more like this:

The two objects in the middle are the same color. Your eyes can only notice that if you cover the part where they touch with something like your finger.

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I never understood that. 16:9 is more pervasive now. Its in Tv, games, movies, etc. Sticking to 4:3 just requies letterboxing for so much content.

I never understood why someone would want to watch a movie on a screen this small.

I don't really see why there should be one screen size to rule them all. I've seen this parody about the iPhone 5, and when they showed the guitar app, my only thought was: this looks really nice. It wouldn't work as a phone, but a device with that format could still have it's uses.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by holymadness

An "Android Crusader" accusing iOS of fragmentation. Rich.

The difference being that you can throw an app to a multitude of screen sizes on Android and it will work. On the other hand, 3 screen sizes are one too many for iOS and apps have to be letter-boxed. Fail. Or is it iFail? No, it's rather uFail.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by afv011

No, it's rather uFail.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by afv011

The difference being that you can throw an app to a multitude of screen sizes on Android and it will work. On the other hand, 3 screen sizes are one too many for iOS and apps have to be letter-boxed. Fail. Or is it iFail? No, it's rather uFail.

Well, the apologists will say it doesn't matter. It is Apple, man! It "just works" in a letter box.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by afv011

The difference being that you can throw an app to a multitude of screen sizes on Android and it will work. On the other hand, 3 screen sizes are one too many for iOS and apps have to be letter-boxed. Fail. Or is it iFail? No, it's rather uFail.

Yawn. Your trolling is getting weak. Try harder.