4 ms·

Apple has beef about the UI which is deceptively similar on the first few models released by Samsung

slurgfest 14y ago
What was 'deceptive' about it? Was Samsung trying to get people to confuse its phones with iPhones and buy them by mistake? edit: it is a serious question - why does the word 'deceptive' apply? Can this not be another Android vs. Apple thing (I do not own either kind of phone)?
- sbuk 14y ago
  "Was Samsung trying to get people to confuse its phones with iPhones and buy them by mistake?" Yes, that's what Apple are suggesting. FWIW I can offer you some anecdotal evidence. Shortly after the original Galaxy S (GT-I9000) was released, my partner (who was by then using Android) saw the advert for it and said "crikey, that's a bit close to the bone, isn't it?" refering to it's similarity to the iPhone. She said this before any of the brouha-ha had started. Again it's purely anecdotal so take it at face value.
  - Blara 14y ago
    But she didn't say: "Look a new iPhone" so in other words she saw that it was in fact not an iPhone?
    - sbuk 14y ago
      That's not the point. That people need to do a double take to realise the thing wasn't an iPhone is bad enough IMHO. Samsung look to have gone out of their way to actively make the Galaxy S look similar enough to the iPhone that there is confusion. I cannot accept that the near facsimile is through "inspiration" or is coincidental. This document, contrary to what other posters have said, does not resemble a market product analysis. It's an evaluation of what they think they can get away with copying. It's very definately a smoking gun.
      - vidarh 14y ago
        It is the point legally, though. Copying in itself is not illegal. It takes other elements, such as explicitly violating design patents or making a product that is similar enough to confuse consumers before it becomes illegal. And in this case I have a hard time seeing how phones that have "SAMSUNG" plastered all over the top would confuse consumers...
        sbuk 14y ago
        "Copying in itself is not illegal" Yes, it is! That's what all those design patents, copyrights and registered trademarks are all about. It's morally abject too. As a designer, I see no issue with Samsung taking the iPhone, along with other phones, and examining it to see how they can do a better job. I see no issue with them being inspired by Apple. The plagiarism here is blatant though.
- Someone 14y ago
  An argument could be that Samsung was trying to get people to buy their phones as a way to look like an iPhone owner without having to pay more for a real iPhone than you paid for the 'clone'. Another argument could be that, by selling inferior wares that look like Apple's stuff, consumers would start to think that Apple's phones are inferior. For example, you meet your friend and spot him with this black phone. In casual talk, he mentions that it isn't as good as it looks. A month later, you are looking for a new phone, and someone shows you an iPhone. Not having looked closely at your friend's phone, you may be steered away from buying an iPhone. A third argument is that Apple spends a lot of effort and money to make their devices appear hip/cool/attractive. A clone-maker benefits from Apple's work. He does not need to advertise its wares as much as someone who makes original wares would. Neither of these arguments are new; they are also used when people sell e.g. Bolex watches that look like those of that other brand.
  - tomp 14y ago
    I don't see how the first two arguments could apply to this case, where UI is discussed. Products being confused is a result of their (dis)similar external appearance, not their UI.
- biggfoot 14y ago
  I used it only to stress my point :) Anyway, if you compare for e.g. a Galaxy Ace with an iPhone there is quite a lot of similarity in the size. shape, dimensions etc. None of this is to say that Samsung was trying to 'deceive' anyone. What is worth considering is that iPhone was the trendsetter in the market and in a time when every new phone was being compared to iPhone a device which looks so similar is bound to raise questions of such nature.
  - spiralpolitik 14y ago
    Take a HTC Nexus One (2009)/One X (2012). While they are basically rectangles with plastic/glass screens on the front, the shape of the corner are a distinctive shape, the color and materials used are distinctive. While both are "inspired by" the iPhone they is clearly distinct designs. In you look at the S in almost all cases where there was a decision point in the design process, the decision was duplicate what the iPhone did. When you have things like the corner ratios being substantially similar, the edging being substantially similar, even the power adaptor and cord being substantially similar then its well over the line "inspired by" line and into "we copied it" terrain. Hence why one company is being sued for design patents and the other isn't. The sad thing is with the Galaxy s3 Samsung have shown that they can produce a distinctive phone with its own design language. With the s1 it seems that they went out of their way not to do this.
    - biggfoot 14y ago
      IMO new entrants into a market usually take the position of "be as similar to a known brand without being the brand" quite often. It is easier to get early adopters that way.
      - sbuk 14y ago
        Samsung weren't in any way new entrants to the market place and saying "It is easier to get early adopters that way." is basically saying that they plagiarise the market leader in order to confuse consumers.

What was 'deceptive' about it? Was Samsung trying to get people to confuse its phones with iPhones and buy them by mistake? edit: it is a serious question - why does the word 'deceptive' apply? Can this not be another Android vs. Apple thing (I do not own either kind of phone)?

sbuk 14y ago
"Was Samsung trying to get people to confuse its phones with iPhones and buy them by mistake?" Yes, that's what Apple are suggesting. FWIW I can offer you some anecdotal evidence. Shortly after the original Galaxy S (GT-I9000) was released, my partner (who was by then using Android) saw the advert for it and said "crikey, that's a bit close to the bone, isn't it?" refering to it's similarity to the iPhone. She said this before any of the brouha-ha had started. Again it's purely anecdotal so take it at face value.
- Blara 14y ago
  But she didn't say: "Look a new iPhone" so in other words she saw that it was in fact not an iPhone?
  - sbuk 14y ago
    That's not the point. That people need to do a double take to realise the thing wasn't an iPhone is bad enough IMHO. Samsung look to have gone out of their way to actively make the Galaxy S look similar enough to the iPhone that there is confusion. I cannot accept that the near facsimile is through "inspiration" or is coincidental. This document, contrary to what other posters have said, does not resemble a market product analysis. It's an evaluation of what they think they can get away with copying. It's very definately a smoking gun.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      It is the point legally, though. Copying in itself is not illegal. It takes other elements, such as explicitly violating design patents or making a product that is similar enough to confuse consumers before it becomes illegal. And in this case I have a hard time seeing how phones that have "SAMSUNG" plastered all over the top would confuse consumers...
      - sbuk 14y ago
        "Copying in itself is not illegal" Yes, it is! That's what all those design patents, copyrights and registered trademarks are all about. It's morally abject too. As a designer, I see no issue with Samsung taking the iPhone, along with other phones, and examining it to see how they can do a better job. I see no issue with them being inspired by Apple. The plagiarism here is blatant though.
Someone 14y ago
An argument could be that Samsung was trying to get people to buy their phones as a way to look like an iPhone owner without having to pay more for a real iPhone than you paid for the 'clone'. Another argument could be that, by selling inferior wares that look like Apple's stuff, consumers would start to think that Apple's phones are inferior. For example, you meet your friend and spot him with this black phone. In casual talk, he mentions that it isn't as good as it looks. A month later, you are looking for a new phone, and someone shows you an iPhone. Not having looked closely at your friend's phone, you may be steered away from buying an iPhone. A third argument is that Apple spends a lot of effort and money to make their devices appear hip/cool/attractive. A clone-maker benefits from Apple's work. He does not need to advertise its wares as much as someone who makes original wares would. Neither of these arguments are new; they are also used when people sell e.g. Bolex watches that look like those of that other brand.
- tomp 14y ago
  I don't see how the first two arguments could apply to this case, where UI is discussed. Products being confused is a result of their (dis)similar external appearance, not their UI.
biggfoot 14y ago
I used it only to stress my point :) Anyway, if you compare for e.g. a Galaxy Ace with an iPhone there is quite a lot of similarity in the size. shape, dimensions etc. None of this is to say that Samsung was trying to 'deceive' anyone. What is worth considering is that iPhone was the trendsetter in the market and in a time when every new phone was being compared to iPhone a device which looks so similar is bound to raise questions of such nature.
- spiralpolitik 14y ago
  Take a HTC Nexus One (2009)/One X (2012). While they are basically rectangles with plastic/glass screens on the front, the shape of the corner are a distinctive shape, the color and materials used are distinctive. While both are "inspired by" the iPhone they is clearly distinct designs. In you look at the S in almost all cases where there was a decision point in the design process, the decision was duplicate what the iPhone did. When you have things like the corner ratios being substantially similar, the edging being substantially similar, even the power adaptor and cord being substantially similar then its well over the line "inspired by" line and into "we copied it" terrain. Hence why one company is being sued for design patents and the other isn't. The sad thing is with the Galaxy s3 Samsung have shown that they can produce a distinctive phone with its own design language. With the s1 it seems that they went out of their way not to do this.
  - biggfoot 14y ago
    IMO new entrants into a market usually take the position of "be as similar to a known brand without being the brand" quite often. It is easier to get early adopters that way.
    - sbuk 14y ago
      Samsung weren't in any way new entrants to the market place and saying "It is easier to get early adopters that way." is basically saying that they plagiarise the market leader in order to confuse consumers.