4 ms·

There's only so much variation you can have once you've decided that most of the surface area of a phone is going to be taken up by a touch-sensitive screen.

Groxx 16y ago
I'm sure people claimed that prior to iOS's success as well.
Bud 16y ago
Yeah, exactly: Samsung was FORCED into using the exact same number of icons, arranged in the same 5 rows of 4 icons, in the exact same shape. Also forced into a 4-icon shaded bar at the bottom with the 4 key icons in said bar, and forced into using a near-identical "phone" icon in the exact same place, because after all, a light-green phone icon with a diagonally-slanted depiction of a phone handset was the only possible way to go. Samsung was also clearly forced into using the exact same means of depicting multiple screens of icons. Come on. Samsung clearly didn't even TRY to distinguish their product, here. This is about as obvious as it gets.
- uvdiv 16y ago
  The 5x4 layout seems pretty unremarkable -- should each phone manufacturer have to trademark their own layout (n,m), for nonzero integers n,m? Will small players be forced to adopt button grids like 21x1 if they can't license actually-usable arrangements? I don't think it's reasonable that a simple silhouette of a phone, used as an icon to represent a phone, is trademarkable. The color is more interesting, until you look at wikipedia and see that mobile phones were using almost the exact same iconography -- phone silhouette over light green background -- at least as far back as 1989: Nokia Mobira Cityman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia#First_mobile_phones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia#First_mobile_phones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nokia_150_and_nokia_1100.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nokia_150_and_nokia_1100.j... The only difference is that the icon has been rotated and now has a shorter aspect ratio. Also the silhouette is now white instead of black.
  - cube13 16y ago
    >I don't think it's reasonable that a simple silhouette of a phone, used as an icon to represent a phone, is trademarkable. Trademarks are an interesting case, though. You can trademark common ideas, especially if you're the first one to get the trademark for that specific use. They're extremely focused in that they can only be used in a specific way. MS' trademarks on Windows and Word, for example, only apply to operating systems and word processors.
- cma 16y ago
  Most of your points would apply if you substituted Samsung with Apple and Apple with Palm.
  - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
    You probably meant it the other way around: Palm's Pilot (1996) borrowed heavily from Apple's Newton MessagePad (1993). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_MessagePad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_MessagePad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_1000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_1000
    - cma 16y ago
      According to Jobs, anything created while he wasn't there is not canon.
      - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
        Definitely funny, but Steve Jobs ≠ Apple, even though Wall St hasn't realized it yet.
        Bud 16y ago
        Wrong on both counts. Steve Jobs IS Apple, as evidenced by the rather impressive performance of Apple since he returned as CEO, and Wall St. HAS realized it, and Wall St. is right. Or do you think someone else is chiefly responsible? Jobs built a great team, and of course he didn't do it all himself, but he sure makes one hell of a great figurehead. :)
Perceval 16y ago
Windows Phone 7 looks pretty substantially different from iOS. Unlike most of the rapid followers of the iPhone, it looks like Microsoft really tried to rethink a mobile interface. It looks different and fresh, even if it's not the best mobile operating system out there. Samsung's design isn't just derivative, it's more or less a straight copy. Microsoft illustrates that there's no necessity built into the medium that requires an iOS-like interface. Apple may forever be chasing "look and feel" violations in vain, but I think they have a point when they say that Samsung's interface is basically just a rip off.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  > I think they have a point when they say that Samsung's interface is basically just a rip off. A grid of icons isn't exactly new. Palm did it before Apple. Windows 3.11 before Palm.
  - tvon 16y ago
    There seem to be more similarities than just a grid of icons.
  - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
    "A grid of icons isn't exactly new. Palm did it before Apple. Windows 3.11 before Palm." Apple's Newton OS came three years before Palm's Pilot. Apple's Mac System came 8 years before Windows 3.11. They all used grids of icons, it's part of the desktop metaphor. If that were the only thing Samsung copied, I doubt they would be getting sued now.
- chc 16y ago
  Correction: It's Google's interface. Apple is suing all of Google's hardware partners, but the software Apple is complaining about is Google's. It isn't in the All Things D article, but TechCrunch's coverage includes the important fact that the suit includes the Nexus S, which is stock Android: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/18/apple-sues-samsung-claims-its-android-devices-are-copycats/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/18/apple-sues-samsung-claims-i...
MichaelGG 16y ago
Where does the coloured background for the Android icons come from? On my Nexus One, all the icons are transparent, but on my Samsung devices the icons have colored backgrounds. It seems as if this is another thing Samsung did to make it more like the iPhone. Can anyone confirm this? (Messaging, browser, and the keyboard shading also seem to reflect much more iPhone than stock Android.)
willifred 16y ago
Jason Fried has a great piece on this idea: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/575-but-theres-only-so-many-ways-to-do-something-right http://37signals.com/svn/posts/575-but-theres-only-so-many-w...

Groxx 16y ago

I'm sure people claimed that prior to iOS's success as well.

Bud 16y ago

Yeah, exactly: Samsung was FORCED into using the exact same number of icons, arranged in the same 5 rows of 4 icons, in the exact same shape. Also forced into a 4-icon shaded bar at the bottom with the 4 key icons in said bar, and forced into using a near-identical "phone" icon in the exact same place, because after all, a light-green phone icon with a diagonally-slanted depiction of a phone handset was the only possible way to go. Samsung was also clearly forced into using the exact same means of depicting multiple screens of icons. Come on. Samsung clearly didn't even TRY to distinguish their product, here. This is about as obvious as it gets.

uvdiv 16y ago
The 5x4 layout seems pretty unremarkable -- should each phone manufacturer have to trademark their own layout (n,m), for nonzero integers n,m? Will small players be forced to adopt button grids like 21x1 if they can't license actually-usable arrangements? I don't think it's reasonable that a simple silhouette of a phone, used as an icon to represent a phone, is trademarkable. The color is more interesting, until you look at wikipedia and see that mobile phones were using almost the exact same iconography -- phone silhouette over light green background -- at least as far back as 1989: Nokia Mobira Cityman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia#First_mobile_phones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia#First_mobile_phones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nokia_150_and_nokia_1100.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nokia_150_and_nokia_1100.j... The only difference is that the icon has been rotated and now has a shorter aspect ratio. Also the silhouette is now white instead of black.
- cube13 16y ago
  >I don't think it's reasonable that a simple silhouette of a phone, used as an icon to represent a phone, is trademarkable. Trademarks are an interesting case, though. You can trademark common ideas, especially if you're the first one to get the trademark for that specific use. They're extremely focused in that they can only be used in a specific way. MS' trademarks on Windows and Word, for example, only apply to operating systems and word processors.
cma 16y ago
Most of your points would apply if you substituted Samsung with Apple and Apple with Palm.
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  You probably meant it the other way around: Palm's Pilot (1996) borrowed heavily from Apple's Newton MessagePad (1993). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_MessagePad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_MessagePad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_1000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_1000
  - cma 16y ago
    According to Jobs, anything created while he wasn't there is not canon.
    - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
      Definitely funny, but Steve Jobs ≠ Apple, even though Wall St hasn't realized it yet.
      - Bud 16y ago
        Wrong on both counts. Steve Jobs IS Apple, as evidenced by the rather impressive performance of Apple since he returned as CEO, and Wall St. HAS realized it, and Wall St. is right. Or do you think someone else is chiefly responsible? Jobs built a great team, and of course he didn't do it all himself, but he sure makes one hell of a great figurehead. :)

Perceval 16y ago

Windows Phone 7 looks pretty substantially different from iOS. Unlike most of the rapid followers of the iPhone, it looks like Microsoft really tried to rethink a mobile interface. It looks different and fresh, even if it's not the best mobile operating system out there. Samsung's design isn't just derivative, it's more or less a straight copy. Microsoft illustrates that there's no necessity built into the medium that requires an iOS-like interface. Apple may forever be chasing "look and feel" violations in vain, but I think they have a point when they say that Samsung's interface is basically just a rip off.

mcantelon 16y ago
> I think they have a point when they say that Samsung's interface is basically just a rip off. A grid of icons isn't exactly new. Palm did it before Apple. Windows 3.11 before Palm.
- tvon 16y ago
  There seem to be more similarities than just a grid of icons.
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  "A grid of icons isn't exactly new. Palm did it before Apple. Windows 3.11 before Palm." Apple's Newton OS came three years before Palm's Pilot. Apple's Mac System came 8 years before Windows 3.11. They all used grids of icons, it's part of the desktop metaphor. If that were the only thing Samsung copied, I doubt they would be getting sued now.
chc 16y ago
Correction: It's Google's interface. Apple is suing all of Google's hardware partners, but the software Apple is complaining about is Google's. It isn't in the All Things D article, but TechCrunch's coverage includes the important fact that the suit includes the Nexus S, which is stock Android: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/18/apple-sues-samsung-claims-its-android-devices-are-copycats/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/18/apple-sues-samsung-claims-i...

MichaelGG 16y ago

Where does the coloured background for the Android icons come from? On my Nexus One, all the icons are transparent, but on my Samsung devices the icons have colored backgrounds. It seems as if this is another thing Samsung did to make it more like the iPhone. Can anyone confirm this? (Messaging, browser, and the keyboard shading also seem to reflect much more iPhone than stock Android.)

willifred 16y ago

Jason Fried has a great piece on this idea: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/575-but-theres-only-so-many-ways-to-do-something-right http://37signals.com/svn/posts/575-but-theres-only-so-many-w...