Samsung v. Apple

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by PatNY

How are duplicate icons on a UI screen not an error? How is the keyboard obscuring a text field not a UI error? Can you answer that specifically?

There is no patent for errorless UI screens, legible type, or uncluttered space. Oh, unless you're Apple and you think you can get away with patenting anything under the sun.

And I never said that Samsung "was only correcting errors." Read again. I said that in those first 10 instances in the document, two were corrections of errors, and another 4 were increasing legibility or uncluttering screen space. And that therefore based on those first 10 examples, you mischaracterized the nature of the document.

Nope. Their true intentions were just as stated in the document. To fix errors and improve the UI but to try avoid infringing on Apple. It didn't work because their efforts collided with an out of control U.S. patent system and a jury run amok!

An error compared to what golden standard? Which examination board created the smartphone test and handed out multiple choice tests with right and wrong answers to UI design? The only correct standard recognized by Samsung was Apple. By describing these imitation as error fixes, you implicitly acknowledge that Apple created the standard of what is right and wrong. Fixing errors, de-cluttering screen space, and improving legibility in this context are just other ways of saying copying Apple. I hear this amusing phrase "common sense" from you and your companion over and over, but have yet to read an explanation of why such common sense features were not implemented by Samsung to begin with. Why did Samsung need to compare their bad UI to Apple's good UI to learn common sense? Does common sense work differently in Korea, I wonder?

They are in fact, just poor design choices. Samsung clearly has (or at least, had) very poor designers. So poor that the overwhelming superiority of iOS prompted them to recommend they redesign nearly every aspect of their TouchWiz operating system to more closely resemble Apple's. That is what imitators and knock-off brands do. The only objective error it is possible for such a company to commit is to not imitate enough. Everything else is relative to who is being imitated.

No. The second one clearly isn't. There very well may be others that are, so be my guest if you want to keep exercising your formidable copy and paste skills. That won't change the fact that the contacts icon is very different.

Heh, an icon which changes from a phone handset to a silhouette of a man, exactly like Apple's, clearly isn't a copy? How do you even take yourself seriously?

Samsung Before:

Apple:

Samsung After:

What an amazing coincidence.

Shrug. At some point I have to recognize that it's not possible to have a discussion with someone who is not willing to admit what's obvious. Ten pages of these sorts of defences could only come from individuals with infinite free time and finite capacity for honesty. What I don't understand—and will never understand—is why you go to such lengths to contort yourselves into such self-evident misrepresentations of reality. What is the source of your fanatical loyalty to Samsung? Did Samsung take care of the family pet the last time you went on vacation? Did Samsung jumpstart your car during a snowstorm? How do (presumably) thinking individuals come to identify so completely with a company? Marketers the world over would like to know.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

And yet here I am, participating. Weird.

Answering (or more accurately, refusing to answer) a direct question with a question is pretty much the definition of weasel words.

Hard as it is to believe, you are the least interesting person in a thread dominated by PatNY and afv011. Tragic, really.

When you are ready to declare yourself for something, e.g. "I do not believe Samsung's copying of the iPhone hurt iPhone sales in any way," then I would be glad to discuss your position with you.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Heh, an icon which changes from a phone handset to a silhouette of a man, exactly like Apple's, clearly isn't a copy? How do you even take yourself seriously?

Samsung Before:

Apple:

Samsung After:

What an amazing coincidence.

Given that the head-and-shoulders icon is one of the most common representations of contact lists I've seen (the other being a phone book image), same as handset icons (either speakers down or at an \ angle) is the normal icon for making an outgoing call, or the circle with a short vertical line is the most common for power off/shut down, I really doubt it has anything to do with Apple.

And, to Graham: I just watched a couple of videos to refamiliarize myself with TouchWiz. I'm not seeing similarities that aren't also standard usage pretty much everywhere (eg, I've been using a grid of icons on my desktop for more than 20 years now, since my Amiga days) and which aren't actually Android usages rather than TouchWiz...

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by holymadness

An error compared to what golden standard? Which examination board created the smartphone test and handed out multiple choice tests with right and wrong answers to UI design?

Really? You think a UI designer intended for the pop-up keyboard to obscure a text entry field? Wow. That defies common sense.

The only correct standard recognized by Samsung was Apple. By describing these imitation as error fixes, you implicitly acknowledge that Apple created the standard of what is right and wrong.

No, that is common sense and established standards of design not to have errors. Apple did NOT invent the errorless UI.

Fixing errors, de-cluttering screen space, and improving legibility in this context are just other ways of saying copying Apple. I hear this amusing phrase "common sense" from you and your companion over and over, but have yet to read an explanation of why such common sense features were not implemented by Samsung to begin with.

Carelessness. Not enough time spent or attention paid to details.

Why did Samsung need to compare their bad UI to Apple's good UI to learn common sense? Does common sense work differently in Korea, I wonder?

Again, as previously stated, this type of detailed product comparison goes on in companies worldwide every day. I have no doubt Apple has done things very similar. Common sense goes out the window when you rush too many products to market too quickly without paying enough attention to detail. Something has to give.

They are in fact, just poor design choices. Samsung clearly has (or at least, had) very poor designers.

I wouldn't say that exactly. Are their designers less talented than Apple? Yes. But they are not "very poor." Their products wouldn't have sold so well if their designers were "very poor."

Inferior designers lead to more mistakes in UI design.

Heh, an icon which changes from a phone handset to a picture of a coil- or ring-bound book with the silhouette of a man on it, exactly like Apple's, clearly isn't a copy? How do you even take yourself seriously?

The color is starkly different. The borders are different. No tabs in the Samsung icon. Really, only if one is color blind or severely design-challenged would they think the two contacts icons are exactly alike.

Shrug. At some point I have to recognize that it's not possible to have a discussion with someone who is not willing to admit what's obvious. Ten pages of these sorts of defences could only come from individuals with infinite free time and finite capacity for honesty. What I don't understand—and will never understand—is why you go to such lengths to contort yourselves into such self-evident misrepresentations of reality. What is the source of your fanatical loyalty to Samsung? Did Samsung take care of the family pet the last time you went on vacation? Did Samsung jumpstart your car during a snowstorm? How do (presumably) thinking individuals come to identify so completely with a company? Marketers the world over would like to know.

It's really difficult to have an intelligent discussion with someone who lacks basic common sense, and is highly prone to gross exaggeration, mischaracterization, and unyielding unabated fawning adoration of the company who makes the devices he uses -- to the extent that he thinks Apple invented or has a patent on errorless design!

I currently own no Samsung device -- or any of their electronic products even. I have no dog in this fight -- unlike you. And it shows. Oh, how it shows! So I have more objectivity than you.

This is not just about Samsung and Apple. This is about the current patent wars that are detrimental to both the companies involved and to consumers. But, of course, to the close minded and "religious" fanatics, they can only see it from the Apple perspective. That's sad. But not a surprise at all.

Do what you feel you need to do. But don't just talk. Walk the talk.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Hard as it is to believe, you are the least interesting person in a thread dominated by PatNY and afv011. Tragic, really.

When you are ready to declare yourself for something, e.g. "I do not believe Samsung's copying of the iPhone hurt iPhone sales in any way," then I would be glad to discuss your position with you.

Seems you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion without making personal insults. That says a lot about not only a lack of maturity, but also a lack of strength in your position. Ad hominem attacks are a sign of the weak.

--Pat

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by PatNY

1) Many Apple consumers blindly purchase Apple products without critical and objective analysis and thought.

2) Many Apple consumers are "Sh-----"

Answer me this: Is it then OK to make statement 1 but not statement 2?

Originally Posted by PatNY

Both statements 1 & 2 are expressions of personal views. The latter part of statement 1 is the very definition of the term used in statement 2. So how can statement 1 be OK but not statement 2?

Because the latter part of statement 1 is not the definition of the term used in in statement 2.

The Online Slang Dictionary
sheeple

• A combination of sheep with people. Used to describe a group of followers.
  
• It refers to the mindless masses that go about their lives like drones and don't question anything they hear from the mass media. They fall in line with every popular trend or theory of the time and worship American celebrity with utter devotion.

Objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, subjective means influenced by personal feelings or opinion. Did you mean to say without subjective analysis?

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

If they were physical buttons, of course, but the fact that they are smooth touch buttons means that they appear as decoration, kind of like the logo. Why, if Samsung thought that 3 buttons were necessary didn't they add three identical ones? Why not 3 physical buttons, or 3 touch buttons? I mean honestly, if you were designing a phone, and you thought you needed 3 buttons, would you really choose to make them different? You can construct all sorts of plausible arguments to explain this, but in the context that everything else looks so much like the iPhone, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion that it's a blatant copy.

Why would they have to be the same? They serve different functions.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

They sued 18 months ago, just before the release of the S II.
I would guess that because of the importance of Samsung as a supplier they tried to resolve it quietly first, but that is only a guess.

This has been going on for 18 months? The lawyers must be happy.

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Given that the head-and-shoulders icon is one of the most common representations of contact lists I've seen (the other being a phone book image), same as handset icons (either speakers down or at an \ angle) is the normal icon for making an outgoing call, or the circle with a short vertical line is the most common for power off/shut down, I really doubt it has anything to do with Apple.

I completely agree, but I think that holymadness is commenting on the fact that the iphone was used as comparison. If the person who made the presentation would have made slides with hundreds on phones where a handset on green background are used as call logo and the contact list has the head-and-shoulders icon this wouldn't have been an issue.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by PatNY

While I agree the phone app icon is very similar to that in iOS, I disagree strongly that the contacts icon is "nearly identical" to that in iOS. Maybe only if you're color blind and have no sense of design whatsoever. The two icons look totally different.

At any rate, one phone icon does not a "copy" make in terms of the entire interface. And it doesn't change the fact that the intent of the document was more to correct and improve rather than to "copy."

What i find to be funny, is that every phone i have had, going back to the 80s has had a phone button that had a similarly styled call button. Hand set at pretty much the same angle and the handset is either green, or is white/silver on a green background. Two exceptions being my HTC MyTouch 3g which had a green phone but not angled, and my Motorola F3 that had the green handset be vertical and had an artdeco styling to the handset compared to the standard classic handset.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Because the latter part of statement 1 is not the definition of the term used in in statement 2.

Yes, it is.

But let me ask you the question again in another way:

1) Many Apple users follow trends blindly and mindlessly, not thinking critically on their own.

2) Many Apple users are "Sh-----."

Would statement 1 be OK, but 2 not?

And, no, I meant to say without "objective" analysis.

--Pat

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Hard as it is to believe, you are the least interesting person in a thread dominated by PatNY and afv011. Tragic, really.

When you are ready to declare yourself for something, e.g. "I do not believe Samsung's copying of the iPhone hurt iPhone sales in any way," then I would be glad to discuss your position with you.

Given that your definition of 'interesting' would appear to be refusal to answer direct questions and constant posting of out of context pages from a pretty boring document, I'll happily take that as a compliment. Thanks.

I sincerely doubt you'd happily discuss anything with anybody. You've consistently refused to do so in this thread so far (hint; shrill ad hominem attacks are not what grown ups call discussion).

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

What i find to be funny, is that every phone i have had, going back to the 80s has had a phone button that had a similarly styled call button. Hand set at pretty much the same angle and the handset is either green, or is white/silver on a green background. Two exceptions being my HTC MyTouch 3g which had a green phone but not angled, and my Motorola F3 that had the green handset be vertical and had an artdeco styling to the handset compared to the standard classic handset.

Yes, and that brings up the issue again of just what is common sense and what is patentable. Some would have you believe Apple invented common sense when it comes to design standards.

The patent wars have gotten out of hand. Hopefully the higher courts sort out the issue of design patentability as it relates to technology relatively soon.

--Pat

[poohbear_nc]

Moderator Notice
This posts in this thread have strayed from the OP, and have generated numerous reports to the MobileRead moderating team. We are closing the thread while we review the reports and posts.