6 ms·

The simple fact is that before the iphone, many 'smart' phones were complicated horrible devices (badly designed from a hardware point of view) with very poor U

The simple fact is that before the iphone, many 'smart' phones were complicated horrible devices (badly designed from a hardware point of view) with very poor UI/UX. Then after the iphone they were all like the iphone in some way or another. If you ask any non-technical person out there they will say the same. The iphone set the benchmark. So I can understand why apple feels like folk are just ripping them off at times and riding on their coat tails.

methodin 14y ago
Did not the same thing occur prior where most cellphones had terrible menu based systems? If you shake up an industry with a superior interface, and users get comfortable with it, there is no reasonable argument that continuing with an older standard would be a wise business decision.
- taligent 14y ago
  True. But it's what you do when faced with this predicament that counts. Compare the approach of Samsung versus Microsoft. Samsung pretty clearly took the iPhone and decided to make their own equivalent. It's an approach they've used (with great success) when competing with Sony. Unlucky for them Apple patented their work every step of the way. Microsoft however went back to the drawing board, looked at how users were actually using the iPhone, went through their own product development process and built something unquestionably unique.
  - oemera 14y ago
    This is exactly what I'm trying to say when it comes to the discussing "Samsung had to copy the iPhone cause it is the defacto standard". It is not. Nothing should be a standard. Apple didn't copy Nokia even if Nokia was the defacto standard and the bestelling phone maker. It is not okay to just copy products and earn a fortune with it. I genuinely believe that Apple invested millions of dollars into the UX of the iOS platform and letting people just copy it would be a shame and just the wrong thing. Why can't Samsung just come up with it's own ideas? Why was there no S-Voice before Siri? Why is the Galaxy line pretty much the only Android Smartphone with a home button? Why do Samsung product packages (!!) look nearly the same as Apple? Even if people like Samsung or hate Apple they have to admit that something fishy is going on here.
    - rjzzleep 14y ago
      apples whole business is based on copy and clone, why are we even having this discussion again?
  - kalleboo 14y ago
    And Windows Phone is tanking and Samsung are doing great.
- brk 14y ago
  Sure, you wouldn't want to continue with an older standard at that point, but I don't think that is the argument. If I've seen one consistent thing from Apple product design, it's that they appear to iterate continuously on the hardware and software/UI/IX components until they feel they have reached the absolute best (and before a wrong-tangent thread starts, that doesn't mean it is THE best, just Apple's opinion of best, etc.) Most likely in the course of designing the iPhone/iPad, Apple threw away countless hardware and software designs that would have frankly been great and significant game changers. So I would imagine their view is along the lines of "We know the iPhone isn't the only conceivable marketable smartphone layout." I personally believe that Samsung, or some other smart company, could have come up with an iPhone competitor that would not be so closely compared to and confused with the iPhone. Especially when you consider that the iPhone was groundbreaking in the sense of not having a physical keyboard. That was certainly not perceived as the "perfect" solution at the time, and probably still isn't. There was room for innovative differentiation in how user input was handled (physical keyboard, Palm grafitti-style input, chording keyboard, something new). Instead Samsung (and several other companies) immediately switched to the flat all-glass iPhone design with the same basic rows of squared icons.
  - jsight 14y ago
    > That was certainly not perceived as the "perfect" solution > at the time, and probably still isn't. There was room for > innovative differentiation in how user input was handled > (physical keyboard, Palm grafitti-style input, chording keyboard, something new). I understand why this perception exists, but I do not think that it represents a fair assessment of what happened. The first Android device after the iPhone was the HTC G1, with both a keyboard and a trackball. The first two "high-end" (IMO) Android phones were the Motorola Droid and Nexus One (one had a keyboard, the other had a trackball). There were also some Blackberry-esque designs built in the past couple of years (cf, Motorola Charm, and a couple of others). There have also been variations on hinge design and screen setups (HTC Desire Z hinge, and Kyocera Echo). Samsung themselves have built a couple of high end Android phones with slideout keyboards for both AT&T and Sprint. The fact that they've settled on a slate design has less to do with their attempts at differentiation than it does with providing what the market has been asking for. They've tried building the other phones, they just don't sell to as large of a demographic. I can't imagine anyone today picking Palm graffiti-style input over Swype, for example.
mtgx 14y ago
I think that happens in any industry where the rules of the game change. The competitors then have to adapt after the winning design/product if the consumers want it and they want to stay relevant. Some level of similarity should be permitted because of that, otherwise you would have either very little competition or none at all.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I don't think Apple are arguing about some similarity, I think it's the sheer level of it - the physical design, the icons, the packaging and so on. Windows Phone / Metro show that you can do these things differently, so does BlackBerry OS, so do some Android phones. When you look at the similarities between the iPhone and assorted other smartphones, they're nowhere near all being the same. It's certainly interesting that (to my eyes at least) more recent phones like the S3 look a lot less like the iPhone than the S2 did and has still been massively successful.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    > I don't think Apple are arguing about some similarity, I think it's the sheer level of it - the physical design, the icons, the packaging and so on. I can see how this argument might seem plausible if Apple were only going after Samsung, but they're not. Apple's also going after HTC (going after, among other things, the Nexus One and the HTC Flyer), Motorola (Xoom)and at least a couple of smaller tablet vendors (and it is entirely possible that there are lawsuits and/or other legal actions I've missed). It's worth nothing that that list includes the top 3 Android OEMs in the US. It's also worth noting Apple is likely avoiding suing Sony because Sony has a trove of patents they could counter-attack with. This isn't about copying, no matter how much Apple and their apologists try to pretend that it is. This is about Apple abusing the broken patent system to damage their competition - no more, no less.
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      Yes there are cases all over but the Samsung one is far wider in it's scope - you're not seeing senior execs on both sides pitching up in court anywhere else. I'd suggest that in different cases (and indeed within the same case in some instances) both things are happening - Apple are pissed off at what seems to be outright copying and that Apple are taking advantage of the system. But I'm dubious about any suggestion that it has to be one or the other, these things are rarely that clear cut.
vibrunazo 14y ago
What would be better for the users? Assuming the iPhone was better than what came before. Which action from incumbents would be best for users? a) Do not copy the iPhone. Make old ugly phones. (What blackberry did) Now users are stuck with old ugly phones. b) Make something different, not because it's better, but only for being different's sake. (what windows phone did) Forces users to adapt to something new instead of using what they're already used to. c) Embrace the innovation. Put all that's good about the iPhone in your product. Then iterate through it and improve upon it. (what samsung did) Now users have the best of both worlds, they have the brand new innovation, in a format they're used to. And taking benefit from next iterations improved from it. It's obvious that option C is best for users. Might not be the best for the original innovators. But it's the best for consumers. Sometimes it's easy to forget that intellectual property is first and foremost intended to protect users. Not innovators. Protecting innovators is a means to a greater end. It's the vehicle that we found that would, in theory, lead to greater products for users. But, unfortunately, often there's a conflict of interest between inventors and consumers. As an innovator, it's in my best interest that everyone in the planet must pay their every last time to me if they ever stare at my invention, and are only allowed to improve upon it if I allow it. But as a consumer, it's in my best interest that inventions are shared and improved upon. So I can have the best of both worlds. When there's this conflict of interests. Consumers should always take precedence. Because protecting consumers is the only good argument to back up IP in the first place. If that's not the goal, then IP is meaningless. Protecting inventors for protecting inventor's sake has no value. We do so because we believe that will lead to greater products for users. It's very common to see a confusion between these in these discussions. Even in courts. Every time I hear "apple is being ripped off because they paid so much money into R&D" or "artists are entitled to their music, and not you". It's clear there's a disconnect between what IP should be and what you think it should be. You shouldn't care whether it's protecting the inventor, you should care whether it's protecting the user. Whenever you're in doubt, you should ask yourself if doing something will protect or hurt the user. And in this case. It's obvious that even tho Samsung did copy a lot from Apple, they're also improving a lot on what existed before. What they're doing is not in the best interest of those they're copying from. But it's in the best interest of users. Punishing Samsung hurts consumers. That's what we should be worried about. If samsung loses this, it sets a terrible precedent for our industry. And it would be a great loss for consumers. Regardless of who copied what for which reason.
huggyface 14y ago
Before Android, the iPhone was a horribly complicated device with broken, almost useless notifications, no cloud functionality, and a need to tether off of a master PC to do anything of consequence (updates, initial setup, etc). Every device learns from every other. I used Android above but of course it learned from WebOS among others. Further this notion that the iPhone spurred on a lot of changes that were already happening industry wide is truly infuriating. You've seen the ridiculous "here are smartphones before the iPhone, cherry picked to find those most unlike it, and here are smartphones after the iPhone, cherry picked to find those most like it", acting as if the pivotal event was the introduction of the iPhone, external to the fact that a confluence of hardware improvements made such a form factor possible if not optimal. The GPS industry -- which exploded before the iPhone -- pioneering and accelerated mobile screen technology, mobile touchscreens, mobile CPUs and GPUs (OpenGL ES -- the foundation of graphics on the iPhone -- was built almost purpose suited for mobile GPS devices), etc. The iPhone borrowed from that development, taking the state of screens, touchscreens and GPUs to make a better smartphone. Everytime someone shows one of those "before the iPhone" and "after the iPhone" they scream out their ignorance. That the iPhone took advantage of the progression of technology at the right time doesn't give it ownership of the domain. http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/15/tomtom-go-910-portable-gps-system-reviewed/ http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/15/tomtom-go-910-portable-gp... <- a year before the iPhone.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jpxxx 14y ago
  Horribly complicated? Oh, I'll bite. All hardware discussions aside (and you do make some good points), the central advance of the iPhone was in the design of the software. Everything is an app. Everything. The alarm clock is not a special case, Wifi is not a special case, e-mail is not a special case. All functionality has a 'home'. All functionality is 'owned' somewhere. All settings are handled in one location. There are no scrollbars. No menus. No modes. No windowing. No pointer. No double-tap. The only fixed interface is Volume Up, Volume Down, Home, and Lock. Everything else is mutable, task-specific, and optimized for the space available. This is the supernova idea that changed more than just the smartphone industry. Vast chunks of complexity and spaghetti UI were drained out of the smartphone experience. Everything else shitty about iOS 1 including the hacky update system and the crappy popups was cleaned up and refined in time, none representing a failing of the product's core design. So in no way, shape, or form could the iPhone be described as 'horribly complicated'. Literally no access to the filesystem, no ability to add or remove software, no classical ports, no expandability, no alternate firmwares or carrier modifications, simple setup of "cloud" services, effortless PC sync... it was a masterwork of simplicity for the great bulk of users.

methodin 14y ago

Did not the same thing occur prior where most cellphones had terrible menu based systems? If you shake up an industry with a superior interface, and users get comfortable with it, there is no reasonable argument that continuing with an older standard would be a wise business decision.

taligent 14y ago
True. But it's what you do when faced with this predicament that counts. Compare the approach of Samsung versus Microsoft. Samsung pretty clearly took the iPhone and decided to make their own equivalent. It's an approach they've used (with great success) when competing with Sony. Unlucky for them Apple patented their work every step of the way. Microsoft however went back to the drawing board, looked at how users were actually using the iPhone, went through their own product development process and built something unquestionably unique.
- oemera 14y ago
  This is exactly what I'm trying to say when it comes to the discussing "Samsung had to copy the iPhone cause it is the defacto standard". It is not. Nothing should be a standard. Apple didn't copy Nokia even if Nokia was the defacto standard and the bestelling phone maker. It is not okay to just copy products and earn a fortune with it. I genuinely believe that Apple invested millions of dollars into the UX of the iOS platform and letting people just copy it would be a shame and just the wrong thing. Why can't Samsung just come up with it's own ideas? Why was there no S-Voice before Siri? Why is the Galaxy line pretty much the only Android Smartphone with a home button? Why do Samsung product packages (!!) look nearly the same as Apple? Even if people like Samsung or hate Apple they have to admit that something fishy is going on here.
  - rjzzleep 14y ago
    apples whole business is based on copy and clone, why are we even having this discussion again?
- kalleboo 14y ago
  And Windows Phone is tanking and Samsung are doing great.
brk 14y ago
Sure, you wouldn't want to continue with an older standard at that point, but I don't think that is the argument. If I've seen one consistent thing from Apple product design, it's that they appear to iterate continuously on the hardware and software/UI/IX components until they feel they have reached the absolute best (and before a wrong-tangent thread starts, that doesn't mean it is THE best, just Apple's opinion of best, etc.) Most likely in the course of designing the iPhone/iPad, Apple threw away countless hardware and software designs that would have frankly been great and significant game changers. So I would imagine their view is along the lines of "We know the iPhone isn't the only conceivable marketable smartphone layout." I personally believe that Samsung, or some other smart company, could have come up with an iPhone competitor that would not be so closely compared to and confused with the iPhone. Especially when you consider that the iPhone was groundbreaking in the sense of not having a physical keyboard. That was certainly not perceived as the "perfect" solution at the time, and probably still isn't. There was room for innovative differentiation in how user input was handled (physical keyboard, Palm grafitti-style input, chording keyboard, something new). Instead Samsung (and several other companies) immediately switched to the flat all-glass iPhone design with the same basic rows of squared icons.
- jsight 14y ago
  > That was certainly not perceived as the "perfect" solution > at the time, and probably still isn't. There was room for > innovative differentiation in how user input was handled > (physical keyboard, Palm grafitti-style input, chording keyboard, something new). I understand why this perception exists, but I do not think that it represents a fair assessment of what happened. The first Android device after the iPhone was the HTC G1, with both a keyboard and a trackball. The first two "high-end" (IMO) Android phones were the Motorola Droid and Nexus One (one had a keyboard, the other had a trackball). There were also some Blackberry-esque designs built in the past couple of years (cf, Motorola Charm, and a couple of others). There have also been variations on hinge design and screen setups (HTC Desire Z hinge, and Kyocera Echo). Samsung themselves have built a couple of high end Android phones with slideout keyboards for both AT&T and Sprint. The fact that they've settled on a slate design has less to do with their attempts at differentiation than it does with providing what the market has been asking for. They've tried building the other phones, they just don't sell to as large of a demographic. I can't imagine anyone today picking Palm graffiti-style input over Swype, for example.

mtgx 14y ago

I think that happens in any industry where the rules of the game change. The competitors then have to adapt after the winning design/product if the consumers want it and they want to stay relevant. Some level of similarity should be permitted because of that, otherwise you would have either very little competition or none at all.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
I don't think Apple are arguing about some similarity, I think it's the sheer level of it - the physical design, the icons, the packaging and so on. Windows Phone / Metro show that you can do these things differently, so does BlackBerry OS, so do some Android phones. When you look at the similarities between the iPhone and assorted other smartphones, they're nowhere near all being the same. It's certainly interesting that (to my eyes at least) more recent phones like the S3 look a lot less like the iPhone than the S2 did and has still been massively successful.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  > I don't think Apple are arguing about some similarity, I think it's the sheer level of it - the physical design, the icons, the packaging and so on. I can see how this argument might seem plausible if Apple were only going after Samsung, but they're not. Apple's also going after HTC (going after, among other things, the Nexus One and the HTC Flyer), Motorola (Xoom)and at least a couple of smaller tablet vendors (and it is entirely possible that there are lawsuits and/or other legal actions I've missed). It's worth nothing that that list includes the top 3 Android OEMs in the US. It's also worth noting Apple is likely avoiding suing Sony because Sony has a trove of patents they could counter-attack with. This isn't about copying, no matter how much Apple and their apologists try to pretend that it is. This is about Apple abusing the broken patent system to damage their competition - no more, no less.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    Yes there are cases all over but the Samsung one is far wider in it's scope - you're not seeing senior execs on both sides pitching up in court anywhere else. I'd suggest that in different cases (and indeed within the same case in some instances) both things are happening - Apple are pissed off at what seems to be outright copying and that Apple are taking advantage of the system. But I'm dubious about any suggestion that it has to be one or the other, these things are rarely that clear cut.

vibrunazo 14y ago

What would be better for the users? Assuming the iPhone was better than what came before. Which action from incumbents would be best for users? a) Do not copy the iPhone. Make old ugly phones. (What blackberry did) Now users are stuck with old ugly phones. b) Make something different, not because it's better, but only for being different's sake. (what windows phone did) Forces users to adapt to something new instead of using what they're already used to. c) Embrace the innovation. Put all that's good about the iPhone in your product. Then iterate through it and improve upon it. (what samsung did) Now users have the best of both worlds, they have the brand new innovation, in a format they're used to. And taking benefit from next iterations improved from it. It's obvious that option C is best for users. Might not be the best for the original innovators. But it's the best for consumers. Sometimes it's easy to forget that intellectual property is first and foremost intended to protect users. Not innovators. Protecting innovators is a means to a greater end. It's the vehicle that we found that would, in theory, lead to greater products for users. But, unfortunately, often there's a conflict of interest between inventors and consumers. As an innovator, it's in my best interest that everyone in the planet must pay their every last time to me if they ever stare at my invention, and are only allowed to improve upon it if I allow it. But as a consumer, it's in my best interest that inventions are shared and improved upon. So I can have the best of both worlds. When there's this conflict of interests. Consumers should always take precedence. Because protecting consumers is the only good argument to back up IP in the first place. If that's not the goal, then IP is meaningless. Protecting inventors for protecting inventor's sake has no value. We do so because we believe that will lead to greater products for users. It's very common to see a confusion between these in these discussions. Even in courts. Every time I hear "apple is being ripped off because they paid so much money into R&D" or "artists are entitled to their music, and not you". It's clear there's a disconnect between what IP should be and what you think it should be. You shouldn't care whether it's protecting the inventor, you should care whether it's protecting the user. Whenever you're in doubt, you should ask yourself if doing something will protect or hurt the user. And in this case. It's obvious that even tho Samsung did copy a lot from Apple, they're also improving a lot on what existed before. What they're doing is not in the best interest of those they're copying from. But it's in the best interest of users. Punishing Samsung hurts consumers. That's what we should be worried about. If samsung loses this, it sets a terrible precedent for our industry. And it would be a great loss for consumers. Regardless of who copied what for which reason.

huggyface 14y ago

Before Android, the iPhone was a horribly complicated device with broken, almost useless notifications, no cloud functionality, and a need to tether off of a master PC to do anything of consequence (updates, initial setup, etc). Every device learns from every other. I used Android above but of course it learned from WebOS among others. Further this notion that the iPhone spurred on a lot of changes that were already happening industry wide is truly infuriating. You've seen the ridiculous "here are smartphones before the iPhone, cherry picked to find those most unlike it, and here are smartphones after the iPhone, cherry picked to find those most like it", acting as if the pivotal event was the introduction of the iPhone, external to the fact that a confluence of hardware improvements made such a form factor possible if not optimal. The GPS industry -- which exploded before the iPhone -- pioneering and accelerated mobile screen technology, mobile touchscreens, mobile CPUs and GPUs (OpenGL ES -- the foundation of graphics on the iPhone -- was built almost purpose suited for mobile GPS devices), etc. The iPhone borrowed from that development, taking the state of screens, touchscreens and GPUs to make a better smartphone. Everytime someone shows one of those "before the iPhone" and "after the iPhone" they scream out their ignorance. That the iPhone took advantage of the progression of technology at the right time doesn't give it ownership of the domain. http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/15/tomtom-go-910-portable-gps-system-reviewed/ http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/15/tomtom-go-910-portable-gp... <- a year before the iPhone.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jpxxx 14y ago
Horribly complicated? Oh, I'll bite. All hardware discussions aside (and you do make some good points), the central advance of the iPhone was in the design of the software. Everything is an app. Everything. The alarm clock is not a special case, Wifi is not a special case, e-mail is not a special case. All functionality has a 'home'. All functionality is 'owned' somewhere. All settings are handled in one location. There are no scrollbars. No menus. No modes. No windowing. No pointer. No double-tap. The only fixed interface is Volume Up, Volume Down, Home, and Lock. Everything else is mutable, task-specific, and optimized for the space available. This is the supernova idea that changed more than just the smartphone industry. Vast chunks of complexity and spaghetti UI were drained out of the smartphone experience. Everything else shitty about iOS 1 including the hacky update system and the crappy popups was cleaned up and refined in time, none representing a failing of the product's core design. So in no way, shape, or form could the iPhone be described as 'horribly complicated'. Literally no access to the filesystem, no ability to add or remove software, no classical ports, no expandability, no alternate firmwares or carrier modifications, simple setup of "cloud" services, effortless PC sync... it was a masterwork of simplicity for the great bulk of users.