20 ms·

The Samsung Galaxy S III: The First Smartphone Designed Entirely By Lawyers

330 points by barredo 14y ago

taitems 14y ago
This screenshot seems to disagree, at least on the software front: http://twitpic.com/9gurwj http://twitpic.com/9gurwj
Xuzz 14y ago
The community design is an "and", not an "or". The Galaxy Tab model which had issues with this in Germany, if you look at it, has all, not just one, of those characteristics. The "Apple thinks it owns the rectangle" meme is nice, but untrue. Nilay Patel, in the Verge article linked by Android Community: Now, some of these are a little ridiculous when taken individually — is Apple going to sue every digital photo frame maker that puts equal size black borders around the screen as well? — but in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. (Edit: is this wrong? If not, why downvote?)
- eddington 14y ago
  You're correct, but the article makes exactly the same point as you. There's no reason to correct it.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  but in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. How can consumers be confused about what they're buying? Even if their software appears similar, one device has a large Apple logo on the back and is sold almost entirely through a different retail chain.
  - oskarth 14y ago
    You'd be surprised what consumers can mistake a product for. In many people's eyes, iPhone == smartphone. It'd be a relatively simple mistake to make if you are a elderly non-techie.
    - zobzu 14y ago
      Then they should read what's written on the box because its pretty damn clear. I mean going by that kind of thinking, one can mistake vodka and water. In fact its probably a LOT easier to mistake vodka and water than an iPhone 4 and a Galaxy S2. Vodka, water, same color. iPhone, Galaxy S.. not even the same color. Just a vaguely similar shape. Heh.
      - sbuk 14y ago
        That's the whole point! The S and the SII weren't 'vaguely similar' to the iPhone, they were almost identical.
        zobzu 14y ago
        That's very much incorrect. The SII doesn't remotely look than an iPhone 4, except both are squared... different COLOR, different SIZE, different BUTTONS...
        sbuk 14y ago
        Both are offered in black and white. Although the SII was bigger the aesthetic is practically identical. You can say that you disagree, but to suggest my statement is very much incorrect is off the mark.
    - CookWithMe 14y ago
      So, if they ended up buying an android phone, does that really count as a mistake? After all, they didnt really want an iPhone, they wanted a smartphone, and that is what they got.
  - taligent 14y ago
    Because when you are a retail store you are only looking at the front of a device not the back. In some stores they actually have the tablets fixed to the table. Also outside of the US (and pretty sure in the US as well) the same retail chains will sell all types of tablets including iPads.
  - macrael 14y ago
    For what it's worth, the "different retail chain" isn't as different as you might think. Apple only sells 15% of all iPhones in the US directly. Most of them are bought through cell providers and Best Buy. http://allthingsd.com/20120323/best-buy-is-selling-nearly-as-many-iphones-as-apple-itself/ http://allthingsd.com/20120323/best-buy-is-selling-nearly-as...
- Tobu 14y ago
  Protecting customers from misrepresentation – unknowingly being sold something that does not match the logo stamped on it: fine; protecting a megacorp from its competitors selling something with similar design, but a different brand name: customers lose.
  - Xuzz 14y ago
    That's a reasonable opinion, but it's not how that type of intellectual property works. Again, Nilay Patel (a lawyer, fwiw) at The Verge: Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. [...] Apple's claim is that the iPhone's box and design scream "Apple" to consumers just as strongly as the word "iPhone."
    - Tobu 14y ago
      This kind of legal weapon is just emerging, and it's a product of circumstance — patent offices have rubberstamped hundreds of Apple's bevelled rectangles, and Apple recently found a court that would act on it and delay sales. It's a bit early to say lawyers have it all figured out, and that we should shut up and listen to them. Consequences matter, the intent and spirit of the law matter — lobbying, laws, case law, patents and injunctions are decided by humans — which is why it's important to counteract the claim you quote, that this is about protecting customers from being confused about what they're buying.
      - Retric 14y ago
        If by 'new' you mean 1946 then sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act
        Tobu 14y ago
        That's trademarks, which so far have been more faithful to their stated goal of preventing consumer confusion, rather than creating new kinds of private property. For example, I don't need Apple's permission to use the trademarked word Apple, as long as I'm referring to the firm, or as long as I'm not using it in the context of electronics or music.
- greggman 14y ago
  because the JooJoo was announced BEFORE THE iPad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo That combination of features is not unique.
  - Xuzz 14y ago
    Many of the features listed apply, but certainly not all of them. Again, it is an "and" relationship: Apple claims ownership on all of those features combined. Here's a JooJoo's home screen: http://www9.pcmag.com/media/images/224043-joojoo-home-screen.jpg http://www9.pcmag.com/media/images/224043-joojoo-home-screen... The JooJoo does not include three of these items: the "square icons" on the home screen, the dock of, again, "square icons", and the "metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface". Thus, this doesn't apply (at all) to the JooJoo. On the other hand, the original Galaxy S phone did seem to apply to each one on the list: http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19ap... — metallic border, check; rounded square icons, check; dock of round squares, check; rounded rectangle shape, check; equal sides of black borders, check; dominated by screen, check.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - sasidharm 14y ago
      Anyone who truly believes Samsung wasn't just ripping off Apple's product (hardware/software) need only look at the Phone App's icon here http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19ap... (Link from the parent).
- wavephorm 14y ago
  The average human being is a complete imbecile. When they see any rectangular device that can make sounds and records sounds, they truly believe it is an iPhone. They're all like "whoa is that the new Iphone?". Really, regular people are complete idiots.
  - diminish 14y ago
    Calling people imbecile is not much correct when it comes to behavior towards branded objects, remember your early teenage times. In this case people mostly care for a brand, and I believe, the logo is what matters the most, not resemblance. Mobile devices are closer to the realm of fashion mainly because when you are outside, when you hold it, and when you put it on a table you want people to see the logo. Au contraire, desktops are usually at home or workplace or even hidden beneath your table, and they are less of a fashion object. A good example for mobile devices would be the jeans, bags, sun glasses etc. Where resemblance to fashionable brand matters however the logo or tag matters the most. All that said, I am fine with my Rasberry PI and Linux.
  - philf 14y ago
    Calling them imbecile is a bit drastic but I've also seen ordinary people call any kind of smartphone an iPhone because they have no clue about this stuff. Same for MP3 players, which they call iPods. May be like calling any kind of vacuum cleaner a hoover.
  - epo 14y ago
    Unlike you, who is prone to hysterical generalisations. Perhaps you ought to step outside and meet some other human beings rather than just looking at them on computer screens.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  >in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. I don't believe design patents hinge on whether the consumer would be confused; that's for trademarks. Design patents are for protecting the aesthetic idea, just like regular patents are for protecting a technological idea.
  - ghancock 14y ago
    The article talks about both trade dress and design patents. That said a court's decision about design patents can involve whether a consumer would be confused. There's a short article that talks about the legal rules for design patent infringement at http://www.designpatentschool.com/assets/Oake_SEPT11%20V2.pdf http://www.designpatentschool.com/assets/Oake_SEPT11%20V2.pd....
    - jessriedel 14y ago
      Very interesting. What's the legal theory behind this? Shouldn't trademark infringement protect against consumer confusion?
heliodor 14y ago
I'd have to disagree about it being an ugly design. What was ugly was the hack of putting squares around every icon, when those icons were designed to live on their own, not in a square. That's what was ugly. I'm happy to see the squares gone and the design conform to the standard Android design guidelines. The dock of icons going away is also good. If I'm looking in the applications list it's because I'm looking for something that wasn't on the home screens, so why show me part of the home screen? Makes no sense. I'm neutral on the lack of four-way symmetry and I'd have to agree that the avoidance of black is sad, though light-colored phones look great too (as Apple itself shows).
- mahyarm 14y ago
  Insisting on four way symmetry is like insisting the status bar and a tab bar are the same height.
- usaar333 14y ago
  Agreed. Heck a lot of the design decisions are just regular Android (no square outline, dock disappears when drawer opens, etc)
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  I would actually kind of like a nice charcoal grey for my phone.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- lloeki 14y ago
  Indeed, and actually, I like it (and I'm not one prone to like Android handset design). Especially in that shot with the three generations side by side. The first two mimic an iPhone 3G and an iPhone 4, and it shows, while the SIII really stands on its own (that's coming from someone who downright LOVES the iPhone 4 design). I wish they would have let go the metal on the side and went for a bit straighter lines on the long sides to make it feel more balanced, but really, it's fine.
tikhonj 14y ago
Maybe it was designed by lawyers, but looking at the pictures, I actually like the shape and general look of the hardware. The software doesn't look as nice, especially the app menu with garish blue background, but the beauty of Android is that I can make it look however I like. So it may have been designed by lawyers, but it isn't the worse off for it.
- jonhohle 14y ago
  I kind of agree. While I wouldn't purchase this particular phone, seeing how they were forced into certain non-Apple design decisions is refreshing.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I completely agree. In fact, I like it much more than the previous versions that were trying way too hard to look like an iPhone. If I want to buy an iPhone, I will choose to buy one. Whether Samsung was trying to confuse customers or not (I wasn't there, so I can't say), I think they will be better off forging their own style (even if they are being forced to).
  - stordoff 14y ago
    Deliberate or not, their previous designs were basically carbon copies of the iPhone (My Galaxy Ace currently has an iPhone case on it...). The small changes made here at least make the phone different, and personally I think it looks better for it.
maytc 14y ago
Why is it even possible to patent design which gives zero functionality in the first place...
- Xlythe 14y ago
  It's more of a trademark, isn't it? Like how you wouldn't want your company's logo plastered over a competitor's product, you don't want your competitor to copy its design and sell it right beside yours. It's a lesser evil, but by how much? It feels like they're just trying to confuse consumers. I think the Apple vs Samsung case is silly (Both companies are releasing high quality products, it's not like the consumer is buying a junk knockoff) but there's validity in trademarking design.
Rudism 14y ago
When I started reading the article, I was expecting to scroll down and see photos of some kind of rhombus-shaped, barbed, Frankenstein monstrosity. I was sorely disappointed. It seems like the author is defining non-ugliness as "looks like an iPhone." There's nothing so offensive about this phone's appearance that deserves the animosity expressed in the article.
- vectorpush 14y ago
  I don't believe the author truly considers the design ugly. The animosity in the article really appears to be pointed towards Apple. The ugly design comments seem to me like a bulwark against those who might claim the author is an Apple hater for criticizing Apple's exclusive rights to symmetrical black rectangles.
moe 14y ago
Honestly. The hardware is fine. The problem with android is still the software and only the software. I'll take my handset in pink polka dots if it can finally scroll smoothly everywhere and not constantly annoy me with bugs in almost every single basic feature. Instead they keep on shoving out bigger screens, faster CPU's every year - and the only UX issue ever being addressed is the camera finally snapping pics in reasonable time.
- RobAtticus 14y ago
  Have you used an Android phone with 4.0 (hardware acceleration)? At least on my tablet with 3.1 (which also has opt-in hardware acceleration), the UI moves very smoothly.
- blinkingled 14y ago
  Performance / UI fluidity issues - that hasn't been true since long time now, especially so since ICS. Only hardcore apple enthusiasts and the ignorant keep repeating that (and Windows viruses) ;)
  - gcb 14y ago
    Which are still low numbers. My nexus one with animations disabled is sluggish. Mainly dragging maps is embarrassing. on the other hand, the 3gs of the time is also laggy. And it's not even on ios4
    - blinkingled 14y ago
      My wife's Nexus One doesn't seem to lag with default animation settings - running CM7. Both 3GS and N1 are arguably old devices in mobile times!
      - zobzu 14y ago
        And the 3GS also lags a little from time to time anyway (probably less than a nexus one, but still)
      - 14y ago
georgemcbay 14y ago
tbh, I actually like the new design better than the old one. Given this side-by-side http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/not-rounded-icons_thumb.jpg http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/not-... I would choose the design on the right in a heartbeat. The only problem I have with the right-side phone is the busy/light wallpaper makes the icons and text a bit hard to read, but give that phone a black wallpaper like the one on the left has (and this is an easy user-tunable parameter) and problem solved.
- nextparadigms 14y ago
  That's the Galaxy S, not Galaxy S2. http://gadgetmania.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Samsung-Galaxy-S-vs-Galaxy-S2-is-it-worth-upgrading.jpg http://gadgetmania.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Samsung-Ga... I still find their design way too iterative. Galaxy S, Nexus S, Galaxy S2, Galaxy Nexus, and now Galaxy S3 - they aren't that different from one another, and they should be. I was disappointed the Nexus S was a rehash of the Galaxy S in hardware, and again I was disappointed the Galaxy Nexus seemed like an iteration of Galaxy S2. I really hope Google doesn't let Samsung design their Nexus phone next time.
  - zmmmmm 14y ago
    > Galaxy Nexus seemed like an iteration of Galaxy S2 Really? To me the Galaxy Nexus has one of the most distinctive designs on the market - it's pure black, unmarked front with subtle curves on every surface are quite unusual.
- huggyface 14y ago
  The only problem I have with the right-side phone is the busy/light wallpaper makes the icons and text a bit hard to read, but give that phone a black wallpaper like the one on the left has (and this is an easy user-tunable parameter) and problem solved. For some reason every picture of a Galaxy S (I | II | III) phone always shows the app drawer open. That is a surface that most users seldom interact with.
nextparadigms 14y ago
Being able to patent something like "the top shouldn't be equal to the bottom, and only we can do that" is ridiculous. The patent system is a mess.
- taligent 14y ago
  That's why you can't patent something just like that. If you aren't going to actually learn and understand design patents then of course you are going to think it is ridiculous.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    You seem to be rather short and dismissive of individuals' comments on patents, design patents and their context in this and the Oracle v Google case. For those of us that don't understand, an explanation would go a lot further than snark.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Think of how you would feel in a thread if someone started ranting about PowerPC and Apple machines even though they use Intel CPU's now. That's where the snark comes from when people start ranting about patents in a story that has nothing to do with patents. tl;dr version: Apple didn't patent rectangles. They're claiming the combination of the various features of the iPhone (rectangular shape, even black border, rounded corners, rounded rectangle icons, etc) as trade dress. Trade dress protection isn't a patent, it's part of trademark. It's based on the idea that you can recognize say a product by its look not just the logo on the box. I personally think trade dress protection tends to be too broad, but it's a whole different set of issues from patents.
wtvanhest 14y ago
Even Apple's lawyers design great phones! (I'm an android owner but couldn't resist)
joering2 14y ago
wow, kudos to Samsung design team -- they had really think this one through to comply with all the rules AND come up with a good looking product. Whats really is interesting here is that I read somewhere that each single iPhone is made of up to 60% Samsung components, solutions, patents, etc. How come then APPL is so bold with all those lawsuits? I know its a lot of money, but at some point Samsung could simply say "no more" and stop selling its technology to Apple, making it at least hard for them to keep up with the world demand.
- taligent 14y ago
  It's because business isn't a kindergarden playground. You don't just say "no more" to your biggest customer who is prepaying billions of dollars which you can then use to invest in new technologies. The same technologies which you can use across your product lines not just smartphones.
  - joering2 14y ago
    I know all this but with Samsung having such a strong position on the market, isnt it a time to "kill" the competition? And Apple being so cocky they just help Samsung to make up their mind. I mean, yeah its not a kindergarten they dont have to provide Apple with their components. I would think Apple may want to be "nicer" to them not to get cut off from parts to build their products. Last thing they need right now, is money. They need to keep products flowing into the market.
    - ameasure 14y ago
      Apple isn't getting 50-70% profit margins on its iphones without market power.
- saturn 14y ago
  > at some point Samsung could simply say "no more" I don't think it really works like that. Apple doesn't show up at the Samsung Shop every day and ask to buy the next day's components for their factory. They have long term contracts, a year or more in advance, often including huge co-investments in the factory toolings which will be involved in manufacturing them. Of course I don't know the details but I doubt Apple or the courts would look too kindly on Samsung suddenly declining to fulfil their multi-billion-dollar, multi-year supply contracts because they wanted to help their own competing products. Samsung is very much wearing "golden handcuffs" in this situation.
vilya 14y ago
This article has more tracking cookies embedded than any other site I've ever seen - by a factor of 2, at least. Consider yourself warned.
- Bxstraz 14y ago
  warned of ads. got it.
dakrisht 14y ago
It's one of the ugliest phone's I've ever seen. Terrible engineering. Sure, the guts are great, but aesthetically it looks awful. Also can't believe that Apple has a patent on a damn square. Unbelievable.
- untog 14y ago
  I have to agree. The larger issue I have is with the cheap, awful plastic Samsung keeps using for it's phones. I just got an HTC One S and I have to say, the build quality is fantastic. It seems like HTC are turning a new leaf with their "One" devices.
- joejohnson 14y ago
  Apple doesn't have a patent on the square. Or the rectangle. Did you not read the article? Infringing phones were phones with all of those listed characteristics; not just one or a few of those characteristics. The "Apple owns the rectangle" myth is just that: a myth perpetuated by those who fail to understand IP litigation.
  - zobzu 14y ago
    It's pretty clear they'd sue again if it was rectangular tho. Because the other characteristics are similar anyway and can't really be made in an extremely different way. I'm pretty much certain Samsung is aware that most people prefer the SGS2 (intl') form factor over the roundish one. That being said for a rounded one I would have wished they made it nicer. The HTC one is nicer for example.
ameasure 14y ago
Patent law is nice when it ensures that innovators are compensated for their work, but Apple has clearly been compensated. Perhaps it could benefit from an addendum -- not enforceable when you're already making a ton of money off your innovation.
- mbreese 14y ago
  Why would anyone do the work to innovate if they can't make a ton of money with patent protection? Who's to say what a "ton" of money is? How much did it the initial work cost? Worrying about compensation isn't a good metric for patent validity.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >Why would anyone do the work to innovate.. This is a very weak defense of the patent system. Innovation happened before patents existed, and would continue to exist without them.
    - mbreese 14y ago
      Patents have been around for centuries and they exist to provide incentive for people to advance society. Sure innovation might continue without them, but likely at a much slower rate. I'm not a fan of the current state of the patent system, but patents do have their place.
      - slowpoke 14y ago
        False. Innovation would speed up by magnitudes because we'd finally be able to do incremental development off each other's discoveries. It would foster a society where exchange of information would be a given, instead of suing each other over what amounts to a piece of paper. Oh, and if you'd take a look at the history of patents, then you'd realize that since their inception, they have done all but progressed innovation. One of the most famous examples would be the steam engine, which - "thanks" to Watt's patent on it - remained basically unimproved for three decades, despite the existence of obvious solutions (which also were patented, by other people). After the patent expired, innovation on the steam engine surged, and its efficiency improved by factors of 10 over the following years.
phmagic 14y ago
The article hints at a trend which isn't really happening: Apple's patents are hindering innovation in the Android space. My terrible experience with Android stems from the lack of coordination between software and hardware.
thought_alarm 14y ago
And yet, the white glass face still manages to evoke the iPhone 4, which is exactly what the carriers are looking for. It should be another blockbuster quarter for Samsung. The carriers love Samsung, but they'll eventually turn. It always happens, it's just a matter of when. There are only so many $5 billion quarters that a manufacturer can earn before the manufacturer gets too cocky and the carriers pull the plug. But it's fun to watch. Keep an eye on the devices on display at your local carrier stores and take note of which manufacturers are featured more prominently. When the Samsung devices start to disappear, you'll know exactly what's happening.
flotblot 14y ago
It looks good to me. If it were designed by lawyers, unless they were designers, I think it would look like crap. The corners are still rounded and I think the other changes aren't that bad.
waiwai933 14y ago
I wonder what type of innovation would we see if only lawyers who were deathly scared of patent suits designed phones? After all, I think this isn't terrible, and I like it as a fresh take after seeing all the iPhone look-alikes. Of course, my cynical side says that we'd either get no phones at all or they'd be oddly shaped polygons that hurt you whenever you try to use it. But still, maybe having attorneys in the room would encourage more creativity...
its_so_on 14y ago
Hey, this is a very entertaining story! I'd love to blog about this too, but what would really help is a photoshop of a "samsung" phone fitting the article's description while actually being ugly, so I don't look like an idiot when I do. At a minimum it shouldn't look better than the previous samsung models next to it. Thanks for any help!
nimbleNima 14y ago
Considering the fact that the GSI and GSII were allegedly unoriginal, to what extent did Samsung actually sell its soul, if it didn't bother cultivating it to begin with?
jsz0 14y ago
Interesting theory but I'm not convinced the nuances of the Samsung/Apple case support it. I'm also not sold that Apple has had enough success with the legal actions against Samsung to spur such a major hardware design change especially when Samsung is simultaneously announcing a Siri clone that uses a highly derivative UI. You would have to believe Samsung is a total mess to accept they forgot to tell the software guys about the change in strategy. Just don't buy it. I think the changes have a lot more to do with Samsung making a shift towards acting like the big player they are. Samsung is the Android market at this point. It's less about Apple and more about HTC, Sony, Google/Motorola, etc. I think you can see this in the significant software changes they introduced and the larger display. They are making a play to basically own the Android market. It is an effort to design a device that stands out instead of blending in. I think Samsung wants people to understand at a glance this device is not just another generic handset. It's Samsung Android -- not Google Android. So physically it has to have at least a slightly unconventional look as well. That being said I think they failed terribly by adopting this sort of tacky early 00s ascetic. It's the uncanny valley of retro design. We're not far enough removed from early 00s to want a device that reminds us of that era yet. Weird textured plastic, overuse of the blue/purple tint, etc. Once glance at it and somehow I'm reminded of the first popular wave of sub-1MP camera phones in the United States. The other issue is the size of the device. The Galaxy S was still within the realm of the mainstream. Not too small, not too big. They are walking away from a big portion of the market by skipping both the small and medium sized market. They now have big and they have huge with the Note. Larger devices are a nice option but the mainstream option has to be a bit more reasonable. For a significant number of people this device is just going to be physically uncomfortable to use I suspect.
- miahi 14y ago
  With legal actions, Apple managed to delay the sale of some of Samsung's devices in Europe for months, immediately after release. Given the rapid releases we see these days, that means a lot of money lost. For the size, take a look at the Samsung Galaxy family. You have a lot of products for any size and taste. Yes, not all of them are full-featured, but you have to take into account battery size.
  - 14y ago
j_col 14y ago
All I think about when I look at that phone is that it is yet another bland slab phone running Android. That form factor is really holding back handset design in my opinion, and I had high hopes that Samsung was going to do something really innovative with this device when they released that teaser video about how they were going to stand out from the crowd, but sadly not with this. Whatever about the input from the legal department into the design, to me all this phone does in confirm that Samsung is very conservative when it comes to design (and before anyone jumps on my back about specs, I'm strictly talking about form here, not function).
- gbog 14y ago
  > Samsung is very conservative when it comes to design You might not have heard of the galaxy note then, or tell me your own definition of conservative.
  - j_col 14y ago
    What, you mean their re-invention of the PDA?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
epo 14y ago
And all the fandroid hostility is precisely because this ugly device doesn't look like an iPhone. Smartphones were mostly ugly before Apple came into the market, now Apple have set the aesthetic standard and all the wannabes can do is copy it. Now the fandroids wet their panties bacause the plagiarists are sued for plagiarism. EDIT erroneous reference to microphone icon removed
- radley 14y ago
  You mean the microphone icon that's been Voice Search for a year before Apple's Siri came out? http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2010/08/just-speak-it-introducing-voice-actions.html http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2010/08/just-speak-it-intro...
raghavsethi 14y ago
Really interesting viewpoint.
dkrich 14y ago
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've read in a while. So because the phone has some differences to an Apple trademark (which may or may not hold up in court) it is safe to assume that Samsung's designers intentionally designed around the iPhone because the iPhone's design is just so badass? Now certainly there had to be consideration of existing patents and trademarks. I can assure the author that Apple's designers and lawyers make the exact same considerations in their designs. I like the iPhone design. It's okay. I like this phone's design better, and I'm going to be buying one when it goes on the market in June. I was about to buy another iPhone, but decided to hold off for this one because I like the design better. I'm not saying the iPhone is poorly designed. It's just not the optimal design for me. I like a larger screen and a slimmer profile. I prefer blue to black. You see, there are many, many worthy smartphone designs out there.
joeycfan 14y ago
This is down to Jobs, actually. He died just in time to cement his legend. If he'd lived, he'd have gone down in history as a zero-sum grasping capitalistic jerk.

330 points by barredo 14y ago

This screenshot seems to disagree, at least on the software front: http://twitpic.com/9gurwj http://twitpic.com/9gurwj

Xuzz 14y ago

The community design is an "and", not an "or". The Galaxy Tab model which had issues with this in Germany, if you look at it, has all, not just one, of those characteristics. The "Apple thinks it owns the rectangle" meme is nice, but untrue. Nilay Patel, in the Verge article linked by Android Community: Now, some of these are a little ridiculous when taken individually — is Apple going to sue every digital photo frame maker that puts equal size black borders around the screen as well? — but in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. (Edit: is this wrong? If not, why downvote?)

eddington 14y ago
You're correct, but the article makes exactly the same point as you. There's no reason to correct it.
stephengillie 14y ago
but in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. How can consumers be confused about what they're buying? Even if their software appears similar, one device has a large Apple logo on the back and is sold almost entirely through a different retail chain.
- oskarth 14y ago
  You'd be surprised what consumers can mistake a product for. In many people's eyes, iPhone == smartphone. It'd be a relatively simple mistake to make if you are a elderly non-techie.
  - zobzu 14y ago
    Then they should read what's written on the box because its pretty damn clear. I mean going by that kind of thinking, one can mistake vodka and water. In fact its probably a LOT easier to mistake vodka and water than an iPhone 4 and a Galaxy S2. Vodka, water, same color. iPhone, Galaxy S.. not even the same color. Just a vaguely similar shape. Heh.
    - sbuk 14y ago
      That's the whole point! The S and the SII weren't 'vaguely similar' to the iPhone, they were almost identical.
      - zobzu 14y ago
        That's very much incorrect. The SII doesn't remotely look than an iPhone 4, except both are squared... different COLOR, different SIZE, different BUTTONS...
        sbuk 14y ago
        Both are offered in black and white. Although the SII was bigger the aesthetic is practically identical. You can say that you disagree, but to suggest my statement is very much incorrect is off the mark.
  - CookWithMe 14y ago
    So, if they ended up buying an android phone, does that really count as a mistake? After all, they didnt really want an iPhone, they wanted a smartphone, and that is what they got.
- taligent 14y ago
  Because when you are a retail store you are only looking at the front of a device not the back. In some stores they actually have the tablets fixed to the table. Also outside of the US (and pretty sure in the US as well) the same retail chains will sell all types of tablets including iPads.
- macrael 14y ago
  For what it's worth, the "different retail chain" isn't as different as you might think. Apple only sells 15% of all iPhones in the US directly. Most of them are bought through cell providers and Best Buy. http://allthingsd.com/20120323/best-buy-is-selling-nearly-as-many-iphones-as-apple-itself/ http://allthingsd.com/20120323/best-buy-is-selling-nearly-as...
Tobu 14y ago
Protecting customers from misrepresentation – unknowingly being sold something that does not match the logo stamped on it: fine; protecting a megacorp from its competitors selling something with similar design, but a different brand name: customers lose.
- Xuzz 14y ago
  That's a reasonable opinion, but it's not how that type of intellectual property works. Again, Nilay Patel (a lawyer, fwiw) at The Verge: Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. [...] Apple's claim is that the iPhone's box and design scream "Apple" to consumers just as strongly as the word "iPhone."
  - Tobu 14y ago
    This kind of legal weapon is just emerging, and it's a product of circumstance — patent offices have rubberstamped hundreds of Apple's bevelled rectangles, and Apple recently found a court that would act on it and delay sales. It's a bit early to say lawyers have it all figured out, and that we should shut up and listen to them. Consequences matter, the intent and spirit of the law matter — lobbying, laws, case law, patents and injunctions are decided by humans — which is why it's important to counteract the claim you quote, that this is about protecting customers from being confused about what they're buying.
    - Retric 14y ago
      If by 'new' you mean 1946 then sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act
      - Tobu 14y ago
        That's trademarks, which so far have been more faithful to their stated goal of preventing consumer confusion, rather than creating new kinds of private property. For example, I don't need Apple's permission to use the trademarked word Apple, as long as I'm referring to the firm, or as long as I'm not using it in the context of electronics or music.
greggman 14y ago
because the JooJoo was announced BEFORE THE iPad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo That combination of features is not unique.
- Xuzz 14y ago
  Many of the features listed apply, but certainly not all of them. Again, it is an "and" relationship: Apple claims ownership on all of those features combined. Here's a JooJoo's home screen: http://www9.pcmag.com/media/images/224043-joojoo-home-screen.jpg http://www9.pcmag.com/media/images/224043-joojoo-home-screen... The JooJoo does not include three of these items: the "square icons" on the home screen, the dock of, again, "square icons", and the "metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface". Thus, this doesn't apply (at all) to the JooJoo. On the other hand, the original Galaxy S phone did seem to apply to each one on the list: http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19ap... — metallic border, check; rounded square icons, check; dock of round squares, check; rounded rectangle shape, check; equal sides of black borders, check; dominated by screen, check.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - sasidharm 14y ago
    Anyone who truly believes Samsung wasn't just ripping off Apple's product (hardware/software) need only look at the Phone App's icon here http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19ap... (Link from the parent).
wavephorm 14y ago
The average human being is a complete imbecile. When they see any rectangular device that can make sounds and records sounds, they truly believe it is an iPhone. They're all like "whoa is that the new Iphone?". Really, regular people are complete idiots.
- diminish 14y ago
  Calling people imbecile is not much correct when it comes to behavior towards branded objects, remember your early teenage times. In this case people mostly care for a brand, and I believe, the logo is what matters the most, not resemblance. Mobile devices are closer to the realm of fashion mainly because when you are outside, when you hold it, and when you put it on a table you want people to see the logo. Au contraire, desktops are usually at home or workplace or even hidden beneath your table, and they are less of a fashion object. A good example for mobile devices would be the jeans, bags, sun glasses etc. Where resemblance to fashionable brand matters however the logo or tag matters the most. All that said, I am fine with my Rasberry PI and Linux.
- philf 14y ago
  Calling them imbecile is a bit drastic but I've also seen ordinary people call any kind of smartphone an iPhone because they have no clue about this stuff. Same for MP3 players, which they call iPods. May be like calling any kind of vacuum cleaner a hoover.
- epo 14y ago
  Unlike you, who is prone to hysterical generalisations. Perhaps you ought to step outside and meet some other human beings rather than just looking at them on computer screens.
jessriedel 14y ago
>in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. I don't believe design patents hinge on whether the consumer would be confused; that's for trademarks. Design patents are for protecting the aesthetic idea, just like regular patents are for protecting a technological idea.
- ghancock 14y ago
  The article talks about both trade dress and design patents. That said a court's decision about design patents can involve whether a consumer would be confused. There's a short article that talks about the legal rules for design patent infringement at http://www.designpatentschool.com/assets/Oake_SEPT11%20V2.pdf http://www.designpatentschool.com/assets/Oake_SEPT11%20V2.pd....
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    Very interesting. What's the legal theory behind this? Shouldn't trademark infringement protect against consumer confusion?

heliodor 14y ago

I'd have to disagree about it being an ugly design. What was ugly was the hack of putting squares around every icon, when those icons were designed to live on their own, not in a square. That's what was ugly. I'm happy to see the squares gone and the design conform to the standard Android design guidelines. The dock of icons going away is also good. If I'm looking in the applications list it's because I'm looking for something that wasn't on the home screens, so why show me part of the home screen? Makes no sense. I'm neutral on the lack of four-way symmetry and I'd have to agree that the avoidance of black is sad, though light-colored phones look great too (as Apple itself shows).

mahyarm 14y ago
Insisting on four way symmetry is like insisting the status bar and a tab bar are the same height.
usaar333 14y ago
Agreed. Heck a lot of the design decisions are just regular Android (no square outline, dock disappears when drawer opens, etc)
andrewflnr 14y ago
I would actually kind of like a nice charcoal grey for my phone.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
lloeki 14y ago
Indeed, and actually, I like it (and I'm not one prone to like Android handset design). Especially in that shot with the three generations side by side. The first two mimic an iPhone 3G and an iPhone 4, and it shows, while the SIII really stands on its own (that's coming from someone who downright LOVES the iPhone 4 design). I wish they would have let go the metal on the side and went for a bit straighter lines on the long sides to make it feel more balanced, but really, it's fine.

tikhonj 14y ago

Maybe it was designed by lawyers, but looking at the pictures, I actually like the shape and general look of the hardware. The software doesn't look as nice, especially the app menu with garish blue background, but the beauty of Android is that I can make it look however I like. So it may have been designed by lawyers, but it isn't the worse off for it.

jonhohle 14y ago
I kind of agree. While I wouldn't purchase this particular phone, seeing how they were forced into certain non-Apple design decisions is refreshing.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I completely agree. In fact, I like it much more than the previous versions that were trying way too hard to look like an iPhone. If I want to buy an iPhone, I will choose to buy one. Whether Samsung was trying to confuse customers or not (I wasn't there, so I can't say), I think they will be better off forging their own style (even if they are being forced to).
- stordoff 14y ago
  Deliberate or not, their previous designs were basically carbon copies of the iPhone (My Galaxy Ace currently has an iPhone case on it...). The small changes made here at least make the phone different, and personally I think it looks better for it.

maytc 14y ago

Why is it even possible to patent design which gives zero functionality in the first place...

Xlythe 14y ago
It's more of a trademark, isn't it? Like how you wouldn't want your company's logo plastered over a competitor's product, you don't want your competitor to copy its design and sell it right beside yours. It's a lesser evil, but by how much? It feels like they're just trying to confuse consumers. I think the Apple vs Samsung case is silly (Both companies are releasing high quality products, it's not like the consumer is buying a junk knockoff) but there's validity in trademarking design.

Rudism 14y ago

When I started reading the article, I was expecting to scroll down and see photos of some kind of rhombus-shaped, barbed, Frankenstein monstrosity. I was sorely disappointed. It seems like the author is defining non-ugliness as "looks like an iPhone." There's nothing so offensive about this phone's appearance that deserves the animosity expressed in the article.

vectorpush 14y ago
I don't believe the author truly considers the design ugly. The animosity in the article really appears to be pointed towards Apple. The ugly design comments seem to me like a bulwark against those who might claim the author is an Apple hater for criticizing Apple's exclusive rights to symmetrical black rectangles.

moe 14y ago

Honestly. The hardware is fine. The problem with android is still the software and only the software. I'll take my handset in pink polka dots if it can finally scroll smoothly everywhere and not constantly annoy me with bugs in almost every single basic feature. Instead they keep on shoving out bigger screens, faster CPU's every year - and the only UX issue ever being addressed is the camera finally snapping pics in reasonable time.

RobAtticus 14y ago
Have you used an Android phone with 4.0 (hardware acceleration)? At least on my tablet with 3.1 (which also has opt-in hardware acceleration), the UI moves very smoothly.
blinkingled 14y ago
Performance / UI fluidity issues - that hasn't been true since long time now, especially so since ICS. Only hardcore apple enthusiasts and the ignorant keep repeating that (and Windows viruses) ;)
- gcb 14y ago
  Which are still low numbers. My nexus one with animations disabled is sluggish. Mainly dragging maps is embarrassing. on the other hand, the 3gs of the time is also laggy. And it's not even on ios4
  - blinkingled 14y ago
    My wife's Nexus One doesn't seem to lag with default animation settings - running CM7. Both 3GS and N1 are arguably old devices in mobile times!
    - zobzu 14y ago
      And the 3GS also lags a little from time to time anyway (probably less than a nexus one, but still)
    - 14y ago

georgemcbay 14y ago

tbh, I actually like the new design better than the old one. Given this side-by-side http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/not-rounded-icons_thumb.jpg http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/not-... I would choose the design on the right in a heartbeat. The only problem I have with the right-side phone is the busy/light wallpaper makes the icons and text a bit hard to read, but give that phone a black wallpaper like the one on the left has (and this is an easy user-tunable parameter) and problem solved.

nextparadigms 14y ago
That's the Galaxy S, not Galaxy S2. http://gadgetmania.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Samsung-Galaxy-S-vs-Galaxy-S2-is-it-worth-upgrading.jpg http://gadgetmania.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Samsung-Ga... I still find their design way too iterative. Galaxy S, Nexus S, Galaxy S2, Galaxy Nexus, and now Galaxy S3 - they aren't that different from one another, and they should be. I was disappointed the Nexus S was a rehash of the Galaxy S in hardware, and again I was disappointed the Galaxy Nexus seemed like an iteration of Galaxy S2. I really hope Google doesn't let Samsung design their Nexus phone next time.
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  > Galaxy Nexus seemed like an iteration of Galaxy S2 Really? To me the Galaxy Nexus has one of the most distinctive designs on the market - it's pure black, unmarked front with subtle curves on every surface are quite unusual.
huggyface 14y ago
The only problem I have with the right-side phone is the busy/light wallpaper makes the icons and text a bit hard to read, but give that phone a black wallpaper like the one on the left has (and this is an easy user-tunable parameter) and problem solved. For some reason every picture of a Galaxy S (I | II | III) phone always shows the app drawer open. That is a surface that most users seldom interact with.

nextparadigms 14y ago

Being able to patent something like "the top shouldn't be equal to the bottom, and only we can do that" is ridiculous. The patent system is a mess.

taligent 14y ago
That's why you can't patent something just like that. If you aren't going to actually learn and understand design patents then of course you are going to think it is ridiculous.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  You seem to be rather short and dismissive of individuals' comments on patents, design patents and their context in this and the Oracle v Google case. For those of us that don't understand, an explanation would go a lot further than snark.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Think of how you would feel in a thread if someone started ranting about PowerPC and Apple machines even though they use Intel CPU's now. That's where the snark comes from when people start ranting about patents in a story that has nothing to do with patents. tl;dr version: Apple didn't patent rectangles. They're claiming the combination of the various features of the iPhone (rectangular shape, even black border, rounded corners, rounded rectangle icons, etc) as trade dress. Trade dress protection isn't a patent, it's part of trademark. It's based on the idea that you can recognize say a product by its look not just the logo on the box. I personally think trade dress protection tends to be too broad, but it's a whole different set of issues from patents.

wtvanhest 14y ago

Even Apple's lawyers design great phones! (I'm an android owner but couldn't resist)

joering2 14y ago

wow, kudos to Samsung design team -- they had really think this one through to comply with all the rules AND come up with a good looking product. Whats really is interesting here is that I read somewhere that each single iPhone is made of up to 60% Samsung components, solutions, patents, etc. How come then APPL is so bold with all those lawsuits? I know its a lot of money, but at some point Samsung could simply say "no more" and stop selling its technology to Apple, making it at least hard for them to keep up with the world demand.

taligent 14y ago
It's because business isn't a kindergarden playground. You don't just say "no more" to your biggest customer who is prepaying billions of dollars which you can then use to invest in new technologies. The same technologies which you can use across your product lines not just smartphones.
- joering2 14y ago
  I know all this but with Samsung having such a strong position on the market, isnt it a time to "kill" the competition? And Apple being so cocky they just help Samsung to make up their mind. I mean, yeah its not a kindergarten they dont have to provide Apple with their components. I would think Apple may want to be "nicer" to them not to get cut off from parts to build their products. Last thing they need right now, is money. They need to keep products flowing into the market.
  - ameasure 14y ago
    Apple isn't getting 50-70% profit margins on its iphones without market power.
saturn 14y ago
> at some point Samsung could simply say "no more" I don't think it really works like that. Apple doesn't show up at the Samsung Shop every day and ask to buy the next day's components for their factory. They have long term contracts, a year or more in advance, often including huge co-investments in the factory toolings which will be involved in manufacturing them. Of course I don't know the details but I doubt Apple or the courts would look too kindly on Samsung suddenly declining to fulfil their multi-billion-dollar, multi-year supply contracts because they wanted to help their own competing products. Samsung is very much wearing "golden handcuffs" in this situation.

vilya 14y ago

This article has more tracking cookies embedded than any other site I've ever seen - by a factor of 2, at least. Consider yourself warned.

Bxstraz 14y ago
warned of ads. got it.

dakrisht 14y ago

It's one of the ugliest phone's I've ever seen. Terrible engineering. Sure, the guts are great, but aesthetically it looks awful. Also can't believe that Apple has a patent on a damn square. Unbelievable.

untog 14y ago
I have to agree. The larger issue I have is with the cheap, awful plastic Samsung keeps using for it's phones. I just got an HTC One S and I have to say, the build quality is fantastic. It seems like HTC are turning a new leaf with their "One" devices.
joejohnson 14y ago
Apple doesn't have a patent on the square. Or the rectangle. Did you not read the article? Infringing phones were phones with all of those listed characteristics; not just one or a few of those characteristics. The "Apple owns the rectangle" myth is just that: a myth perpetuated by those who fail to understand IP litigation.
- zobzu 14y ago
  It's pretty clear they'd sue again if it was rectangular tho. Because the other characteristics are similar anyway and can't really be made in an extremely different way. I'm pretty much certain Samsung is aware that most people prefer the SGS2 (intl') form factor over the roundish one. That being said for a rounded one I would have wished they made it nicer. The HTC one is nicer for example.

ameasure 14y ago

Patent law is nice when it ensures that innovators are compensated for their work, but Apple has clearly been compensated. Perhaps it could benefit from an addendum -- not enforceable when you're already making a ton of money off your innovation.

mbreese 14y ago
Why would anyone do the work to innovate if they can't make a ton of money with patent protection? Who's to say what a "ton" of money is? How much did it the initial work cost? Worrying about compensation isn't a good metric for patent validity.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >Why would anyone do the work to innovate.. This is a very weak defense of the patent system. Innovation happened before patents existed, and would continue to exist without them.
  - mbreese 14y ago
    Patents have been around for centuries and they exist to provide incentive for people to advance society. Sure innovation might continue without them, but likely at a much slower rate. I'm not a fan of the current state of the patent system, but patents do have their place.
    - slowpoke 14y ago
      False. Innovation would speed up by magnitudes because we'd finally be able to do incremental development off each other's discoveries. It would foster a society where exchange of information would be a given, instead of suing each other over what amounts to a piece of paper. Oh, and if you'd take a look at the history of patents, then you'd realize that since their inception, they have done all but progressed innovation. One of the most famous examples would be the steam engine, which - "thanks" to Watt's patent on it - remained basically unimproved for three decades, despite the existence of obvious solutions (which also were patented, by other people). After the patent expired, innovation on the steam engine surged, and its efficiency improved by factors of 10 over the following years.

phmagic 14y ago

The article hints at a trend which isn't really happening: Apple's patents are hindering innovation in the Android space. My terrible experience with Android stems from the lack of coordination between software and hardware.

thought_alarm 14y ago

And yet, the white glass face still manages to evoke the iPhone 4, which is exactly what the carriers are looking for. It should be another blockbuster quarter for Samsung. The carriers love Samsung, but they'll eventually turn. It always happens, it's just a matter of when. There are only so many $5 billion quarters that a manufacturer can earn before the manufacturer gets too cocky and the carriers pull the plug. But it's fun to watch. Keep an eye on the devices on display at your local carrier stores and take note of which manufacturers are featured more prominently. When the Samsung devices start to disappear, you'll know exactly what's happening.

flotblot 14y ago

It looks good to me. If it were designed by lawyers, unless they were designers, I think it would look like crap. The corners are still rounded and I think the other changes aren't that bad.

waiwai933 14y ago

I wonder what type of innovation would we see if only lawyers who were deathly scared of patent suits designed phones? After all, I think this isn't terrible, and I like it as a fresh take after seeing all the iPhone look-alikes. Of course, my cynical side says that we'd either get no phones at all or they'd be oddly shaped polygons that hurt you whenever you try to use it. But still, maybe having attorneys in the room would encourage more creativity...

its_so_on 14y ago

Hey, this is a very entertaining story! I'd love to blog about this too, but what would really help is a photoshop of a "samsung" phone fitting the article's description while actually being ugly, so I don't look like an idiot when I do. At a minimum it shouldn't look better than the previous samsung models next to it. Thanks for any help!

nimbleNima 14y ago

Considering the fact that the GSI and GSII were allegedly unoriginal, to what extent did Samsung actually sell its soul, if it didn't bother cultivating it to begin with?

jsz0 14y ago

Interesting theory but I'm not convinced the nuances of the Samsung/Apple case support it. I'm also not sold that Apple has had enough success with the legal actions against Samsung to spur such a major hardware design change especially when Samsung is simultaneously announcing a Siri clone that uses a highly derivative UI. You would have to believe Samsung is a total mess to accept they forgot to tell the software guys about the change in strategy. Just don't buy it. I think the changes have a lot more to do with Samsung making a shift towards acting like the big player they are. Samsung is the Android market at this point. It's less about Apple and more about HTC, Sony, Google/Motorola, etc. I think you can see this in the significant software changes they introduced and the larger display. They are making a play to basically own the Android market. It is an effort to design a device that stands out instead of blending in. I think Samsung wants people to understand at a glance this device is not just another generic handset. It's Samsung Android -- not Google Android. So physically it has to have at least a slightly unconventional look as well. That being said I think they failed terribly by adopting this sort of tacky early 00s ascetic. It's the uncanny valley of retro design. We're not far enough removed from early 00s to want a device that reminds us of that era yet. Weird textured plastic, overuse of the blue/purple tint, etc. Once glance at it and somehow I'm reminded of the first popular wave of sub-1MP camera phones in the United States. The other issue is the size of the device. The Galaxy S was still within the realm of the mainstream. Not too small, not too big. They are walking away from a big portion of the market by skipping both the small and medium sized market. They now have big and they have huge with the Note. Larger devices are a nice option but the mainstream option has to be a bit more reasonable. For a significant number of people this device is just going to be physically uncomfortable to use I suspect.

miahi 14y ago
With legal actions, Apple managed to delay the sale of some of Samsung's devices in Europe for months, immediately after release. Given the rapid releases we see these days, that means a lot of money lost. For the size, take a look at the Samsung Galaxy family. You have a lot of products for any size and taste. Yes, not all of them are full-featured, but you have to take into account battery size.
- 14y ago

j_col 14y ago

All I think about when I look at that phone is that it is yet another bland slab phone running Android. That form factor is really holding back handset design in my opinion, and I had high hopes that Samsung was going to do something really innovative with this device when they released that teaser video about how they were going to stand out from the crowd, but sadly not with this. Whatever about the input from the legal department into the design, to me all this phone does in confirm that Samsung is very conservative when it comes to design (and before anyone jumps on my back about specs, I'm strictly talking about form here, not function).

gbog 14y ago
> Samsung is very conservative when it comes to design You might not have heard of the galaxy note then, or tell me your own definition of conservative.
- j_col 14y ago
  What, you mean their re-invention of the PDA?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

epo 14y ago

And all the fandroid hostility is precisely because this ugly device doesn't look like an iPhone. Smartphones were mostly ugly before Apple came into the market, now Apple have set the aesthetic standard and all the wannabes can do is copy it. Now the fandroids wet their panties bacause the plagiarists are sued for plagiarism. EDIT erroneous reference to microphone icon removed

radley 14y ago
You mean the microphone icon that's been Voice Search for a year before Apple's Siri came out? http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2010/08/just-speak-it-introducing-voice-actions.html http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2010/08/just-speak-it-intro...

raghavsethi 14y ago

Really interesting viewpoint.

dkrich 14y ago

This has to be one of the dumbest things I've read in a while. So because the phone has some differences to an Apple trademark (which may or may not hold up in court) it is safe to assume that Samsung's designers intentionally designed around the iPhone because the iPhone's design is just so badass? Now certainly there had to be consideration of existing patents and trademarks. I can assure the author that Apple's designers and lawyers make the exact same considerations in their designs. I like the iPhone design. It's okay. I like this phone's design better, and I'm going to be buying one when it goes on the market in June. I was about to buy another iPhone, but decided to hold off for this one because I like the design better. I'm not saying the iPhone is poorly designed. It's just not the optimal design for me. I like a larger screen and a slimmer profile. I prefer blue to black. You see, there are many, many worthy smartphone designs out there.

joeycfan 14y ago

This is down to Jobs, actually. He died just in time to cement his legend. If he'd lived, he'd have gone down in history as a zero-sum grasping capitalistic jerk.