A bit of Karma..... [Apple must run Did not Copy Ads in Britain]

[Lynx-lynx]

June, this year in Australia - the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had this to say after beating Apple in the Federal Court of Australia: (transcript from an ABC radio broadcast)


TANYA NOLAN: Technology giant Apple has been punished for misleading consumers about the powers of one of its most popular products.

The Federal Court this morning ruled that Apple pay $2.25 million for falsely claiming that the new iPad is compatible with Australia's 4G network.

Apple admitted to misleading consumers as soon as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought the case to court, and the company offered consumers refunds.

While the fine is unlikely to take much of a bite out of the company, ACCC chairman, Rod Sims, says he's happy with the result.

Mr Sims is speaking to Simon Lauder.

ROD SIMS: Look, we are pleased with it on behalf of Australian consumers. We think it sends a serious message about the importance of clear advertising to Australian consumers. We think it is yet another example, particularly in the telecommunications sector, where consumers need clear messages so that they are not confused and they understand what they are exactly paying for and the judge made that very clear in his judgement.

..................... SIMON LAUDER: Are you also pleased with the comments that the judge made?

ROD SIMS: Look, we are. I think it is important, he pointed out that global uniformity by Apple was given a higher priority than the need to ensure compliance with Australian law. So basically what he was saying is that, and this is, I'm quoting him, those who design global campaigns and those in Australia who adopt them, need to be attuned to the understandings and perceptions of Australian consumers.

What he is saying is we don't want multinational companies designing worldwide campaigns, no thought given to how they go across in Australia. In Australia, they are actually misleading. They weren't in the US, they were in Australia because what is 4G in the US, that standard doesn't apply in Australia and so customers were confused.

I think it is a very important message as we move to more multinational companies, multinational products, it is important that those companies know they have got to keep an eye on the local conditions and so that is particularly why we were pleased with the judgement and the judge’s comments.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...2/s3530224.htm



Way uncool Apple .......

[OakdaleMike]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Funny, looks like many friends' Android smartphones except for having app icons only with no larger widget icons... guess it'd take me around three minutes max to have similar screen by deleting three widgets from homescreen and adding half a dozen apps... it's also not very far from my Galaxy II S straight out of the box...

Again, I apologize for over-analyzing what was meant to be a joke, but...

When I look at my screen, nearly all the icons lack those background boxes -- they are not squares in a grid, but rather individual distinct shapes related to function. For example, the clock icon is round. They are also much more widely-spaced than that picture. There's probably some way to adjust icon spacing --Android is very configurable -- but I don't know how. Even with Android, I don't think there is a way to place each icon in a square background.

And if you take away the widgets, you might as well run iOS! No sane Android user would have a widgetless home screen!

And who in the world has a plain black background on their Android phone?

Anyway, again with apologies, that picture is extremely contrived to mislead the public and the judiciary into thinking that Google copied Apple. I don't think you can deny that.

[plib]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...and we already knew that their phones didn't look alike

I think the one on the left looks really cool!

(But if a judge agrees I'll have to hang my head in embarrassment at my uncoolness)

[HansTWN]

It is quite foolish for Samsung to replace the standard Android home screen full of useful widgets with something as useless as a few rows of icons.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is quite foolish for Samsung to replace the standard Android home screen full of useful widgets with something as useless as a few rows of icons.

My Galaxy Player's home screen has two rows of folders; and so do the next two screens.

I don't use widgets; I'm a folder monkey.

[pauli]

Joy of Tech already wrote the appropriate apology for Apple:
Apple Apology


PS Don't change my karma... I like it just the way it is

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by OakdaleMike

And if you take away the widgets, you might as well run iOS! No sane Android user would have a widgetless home screen!

And who in the world has a plain black background on their Android phone?

Nothing but stark bare icons and folders.
Utilitarian.

No widgets, nothing sucking up battery, bandwidth or processor. Nothing to suck up my brainwaves and report my activies to the aliens (plus my tinfoil beanie helps too... )



BTW, the backgrounds I use are not plain black but they are simple and uncluttered. I don't do live wallpapers either.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

BTW, the backgrounds I use are not plain black but they are simple and uncluttered. I don't do live wallpapers either.

I have a tablet, not a smartphone, and I have a dark gray background. What I usually see is my browser, so I don't care about the background.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is quite foolish for Samsung to replace the standard Android home screen full of useful widgets with something as useless as a few rows of icons.

That's not the home screen, it's the app drawer. Unlike iOS, Android has a desktop (several actually) where you can place apps shortcuts, widgets, direct dial and so on, plus an app drawer that is similar to the only thing you have on iOS.

[OakdaleMike]

Originally Posted by afv011

That's not the home screen, it's the app drawer. Unlike iOS, Android has a desktop (several actually) where you can place apps shortcuts, widgets, direct dial and so on, plus an app drawer that is similar to the only thing you have on iOS.

Ahh, you're right! That's where you see a closely-spaced grid of icons on a black background in Android -- not on the home screen, as with iOS. So the only thing contrived in the Android photo is the square backgrounds on each icon. I suspect that if you search a while, you can relatively easily come up with a set of apps whose icons are all square, even though that's not the norm.

OK, so the joke ***is*** funny, after all. Samsung/Google clearly did copy Apple and we (or at least I) were just too stupid to realize it. Of course they botched the job because they foolishly buried their home screen in the app drawer.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by plib

I suspect it might have more to do with Apple's apparent contempt for the ruling of his court. If they don't post the ad then they probably are in line for a contempt of court ruling.

I'm not sure what "apparent contempt" you're talking about; the order about the "did-not-copy" language is part of the original ruling handed down a week ago. I'm interested about why the court ordered it in the first place.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I'm interested about why the court ordered it in the first place.

It is no different to what an Australian Court ordered Apple to undertake when bought to trial for lying to customers regarding the iPad3's 4G connectivity to Australian mobile phone networks.

A public admission that Apple had overstepped the mark. In the case of above, that was also the violation of consumer protection law.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by sabredog

It is no different to what an Australian Court ordered Apple to undertake when bought to trial for lying to customers regarding the iPad3's 4G connectivity to Australian mobile phone networks.

A public admission that Apple had overstepped the mark. In the case of above, that was also the violation of consumer protection law.

No, it's quite different.

In the Australian case, Apple was brought to trial for making misleading statements to consumers. The result was that they had to correct the misleading statements they had made.

In the UK case, Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement. Apple lost and was required to notify consumers of this fact. The suit wasn't about misleading statements at all.

It's *unusual* for a corporation who sues another corporation and loses to have to put a notice on their website informing consumers that they were wrong. When Apple lost a similar case in the NL, they weren't required to notify consumers of their loss; when Apple won a similar case in Germany, Samsung wasn't required to notify people that they had been found liable.

AFAIK, this isn't typical for cases in the UK. I don't think think it's wrong at all, but it is different, and I'm curious about *why* this particular remedy was ordered in this particular case. There has to be more to it than Company X brought a suit and lost.

[OakdaleMike]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

...
I don't think think it's wrong at all, but it is different, and I'm curious about *why* this particular remedy was ordered in this particular case. There has to be more to it than Company X brought a suit and lost.

I found this at itnews.com.au. It's just a journalist's opinion, but it might be right:

"The order from Birrs, who earlier this month ruled Samsung's tablets were unlikely to be confused with iPads because they were not as cool, was seen as a way of restoring the balance for the Korean company, whose victory against Apple was hollowed out by his choice of words."

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No, it's quite different.

In the Australian case, Apple was brought to trial for making misleading statements to consumers. The result was that they had to correct the misleading statements they had made.

In the UK case, Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement. Apple lost and was required to notify consumers of this fact. The suit wasn't about misleading statements at all.

It's *unusual* for a corporation who sues another corporation and loses to have to put a notice on their website informing consumers that they were wrong. When Apple lost a similar case in the NL, they weren't required to notify consumers of their loss; when Apple won a similar case in Germany, Samsung wasn't required to notify people that they had been found liable.

AFAIK, this isn't typical for cases in the UK. I don't think think it's wrong at all, but it is different, and I'm curious about *why* this particular remedy was ordered in this particular case. There has to be more to it than Company X brought a suit and lost.

Add Australia to the list of countries where Samsung beat Apple re sale of Galaxy tablet:

Federal Court of Australia, 30 November 2011
Conclusion
(205) 'The Court will grant leave to Samsung to appeal from the orders made by the primary judge on 14 October 2011. The appeal will be allowed. The injunctions which her Honour granted will be discharged. Samsung will be permitted to launch the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia provided it keeps accounts of all transactions involving that device in Australia or originating from Australia. Samsung should have its costs of its Application for Leave to Appeal and the Appeal.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-3...appeal/3704158