View Single Post
Old 08-14-2011, 02:41 PM   #64
Thierry.C
Connoisseur
Thierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura aboutThierry.C has a spectacular aura about
 
Thierry.C's Avatar
 
Posts: 52
Karma: 4096
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Lausanne (CH)
Device: none yet
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Gumby View Post
By putting out a tablet where the size & aspect ratio, exterior buttons/controls, and included OS UI are as different as is practical for a touchscreen tablet?
Not exactly. What I have had in mind since Samsung annouced the revision of their tablet is that they focused to much —in my opinion— in making the tablet thinner than the iPad. That implied removing some ports, reducing the camera's quality, etc.
Besides, if you look at the other "contenders", they rather well managed to produce tablets, whose strengths are different, and "attack" the iPad where it's weak: outputs (USB, SD-card, keyboard, digitizer (a few), camera's quality, ...).
Samsung chose to attract consumers by being similar, whereas some others tried to distinguish themselves (a bit more).
That said, the court should not prevent Samsung from being in the market for that particular reason, except if there are clear evidence that Samsung wants to "confuse" the consumer by using the same "trade dress" as Apple does (which I cannot adjudicate).
Thierry.C is offline   Reply With Quote