7 ms·

Ridiculous. Other than the bezel color, bezel shape, metallic logo, logo positioning, aspect ratio, foot design, choice of materials, choice of finishing, keybo

by jpxxx 14y ago

Ridiculous. Other than the bezel color, bezel shape, metallic logo, logo positioning, aspect ratio, foot design, choice of materials, choice of finishing, keyboard design, key coloring, key layout, keyboard LED, keyboard footing, trackpad design, trackpad footing, keyboard battery chamber, and trackpad battery chamber, this is a totally unique design.

bjustin 14y ago
You make it sound like HP copied someone here. HP's designs just follow the natural evolution of computers.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Things like choice of materials and finishing aren't "the natural evolution of computers". There are deliberate design decisions to the brushed aluminum design, decisions that HP didn't even bother to make for themselves. This product from HP is shameful.
  - 4ad 14y ago
    So if Apple uses brushed aluminium design, and brushed aluminium is better, nobody else should use it?
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      Faster is "better" than slower. Easier is "better" than harder. Cheaper is "better" than more expensive. These are pretty obvious and well understood. I can't really see brushed aluminum as "better" finish choice than satin nickel, semi-opaque plastic, oil-rubbed bronze, polished marble, cherry burlwood, or rich Corinthian leather. Other companies should feel free to use it, but they must understand that they will suffer the withering wrath of my derisive scorn if they are going to be so unabashedly derivative in their design choices.
    - adolph 14y ago
      I don't think HP is using brushed aluminum.
      - 4ad 14y ago
        It was an example my parent post referred to.
- doktrin 14y ago
  I strongly disagree. These are aesthetic design choices, and are not fundamental to the evolution of personal computers. HP clearly copied the design of the iMac. Note : copying does not necessarily == morally reprehensible. However, facts are facts.
  - nutjob123 14y ago
    I think he was joking and making an allusion to a commonly voiced opinion in favor of Samsung from the Apple trial.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      At this point it's becoming extremely hard to tell.
      - jamesaguilar 14y ago
        For anyone who doesn't already know about it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
  - smokeyj 14y ago
    Can someone explain why copying is bad? Do people really believe that a marketplace is so fragile, that unless an omnipotent actor interferes with trade, consumers will become victims to "copying"? Or that the poor consumer won't be able to distinguish between the box that says "HP" and the twice as expensive box that reads "Apple"?
    - batista 14y ago
      >Can someone explain why copying is bad? Because it limits choices. Instead of 2 different options for your all-in-one desktop you have 1 multiplied by 2.
- siglesias 14y ago
  Isn't it funny people's habit of confusing evolution for design when it suits them?
- philwelch 14y ago
  There's one computer that looks like the Apple iMac. Well, there was until HP came along and there was two.
Nrsolis 14y ago
From the horse's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
- jpxxx 14y ago
  Irrelevant and misapplied. This tape was from an era where foundational ideas in personal and graphical computing were being hashed out. Concepts like pointers, modality, bitmapping, state representation, humane I/O, task management, and basement-level software plumbing were being worked out. Basically: how do you turn massive industrial installations into a comprehensible and affordable machine that can fit in a home? Those decisions, insights, and the attitudes that evolved early personal computing have flipping zip-all to do with trade dress in the early 21st century.
- nirvana 14y ago
  It is kinda astounding how often people use this quote and seem to think it means the opposite of what it means. Steve Jobs is saying it is easy to copy. But if you're great, you steal the fundamental idea and do something totally new with it. Apple didn't just copy the phones already on the market, they stole the idea of a cellphone and did something fundamentally different. So different that we had 6 months of people saying it was going to be a failure, Ballmer going on the record saying there's no way they'd sell any significant numbers, and the RIM engineers telling upper management that the iPhone couldn't possibly work the way apple said! Thats "stealing" -- doing something for which there is nothing comparable on the market, in Steve Jobs view. Copying is when you look at a successful product and mimic it down to the millimeter.
  - podperson 14y ago
    The distinction (I believe the original quote is Picasso, and the difference is that the great steal while others borrow) is that once you've STOLEN an idea your version is so much better than what you took the whole thing becomes YOURS. Borrowing an idea means that your version ends up simply looking like a lame attempt to copy the older idea, and people prefer the older idea. So while there were GUIs before the Mac, once Apple had stolen their ideas and transformed them the stuff that had come before simply looked like crap. Similarly previous attempts, including by Apple, to create tablet devices look like crap beside the iPad.
thezilch 14y ago
Or not... for example: http://images.apple.com/imac/images/overview_allinone.png http://images.apple.com/imac/images/overview_allinone.png [0] versus http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/09/hp-spectre-one-left-side-profile-accessories.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/09/hp-spe... [1] Not limited by, but your key(board) comparison completely skips over reality. [0] http://www.apple.com/imac/ http://www.apple.com/imac/ [1] http://www.engadget.com/photos/hp-spectre-one/ http://www.engadget.com/photos/hp-spectre-one/
- artursapek 14y ago
  That profile shot of the Spectre is a bummer. They made it so ugly. So top-heavy. I feel bad for the industrial designers who had to work on this small-minded disaster, they must hate their jobs.
powertower 14y ago
> Other than the bezel color, bezel shape, metallic logo, logo positioning... We can't have an HP logo in a circle because Apple has an apple that resembles a circle!? We can't center an HP logo because Apple centers their logo!? We can't have a metallic logo because Apple does that!? We can't have a rectangular screen because Apple has one just in that shape!? We can't have a silvery finish because apple has one! We can't have a qwerty keyboard because Apple has one! And so on. Are you joking? These are all done 100 times over. In combination with each other. The only resemblance I see are standard design choices being implemented. Like a monitor on a stand.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  Oh, come on. If you make the same choices as your competitor for nearly every item, that's copying. These "standard design choices" hadn't ever been common in other products. Were all designers suddenly enlightened at some point on what computers should look like? (oh, wait! they were, by Apple)
  - powertower 14y ago
    Really? Having a centered logo is part of a trade dress? Is it supposed to be 2 inches to the right for everyone else? And when you place that centerd logo on a thin form factor display/pc, that becomes a violation? Or is it when you make the keyboard silvery in color? Or is it when you make the frame as thin as possible given the technology and manufacturing capabilities you have at the time? That's like saying Ford violates Toyota's "trade dress" when they combine 4 tires on a car, with an engine somewhere inside, and paint the body red. And the vehicle weighs less that 2000 lbs. 4 or 5 standard design choices in combination with one another is not a "trade dress" when those choices are generic and have been done a million times before.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      No, that's like saying that Ford would violate Audi's trade dress if they combine slim headlights flush with the body, a large front grill in trapezoid shape with the logo on top, and two air intakes at the bottom edges. It would. That's all design is: a combination of functional and aesthetic choices, that lead to a particular look. Silver wasn't very popular until not long ago. Black was the default, and still is for many manufacturers. It is also currently possible to make the frame even thinner, or non-existent. The choice to make it that thick (and black) shows that it's not about technical limits or 'evolution'. You can absolutely make a computer that doesn't look like an iMac; in fact everybody has been doing it for years.
mayanksinghal 14y ago
BezelColor + BezelShape: the shape is similar but without the lower white area. Metallic Logo: Nope. Appears to be a back-lit logo which is white in color [1] Logo Positioning: Is similar but not the same. Apple's logo is not in the black frame region. They both are centered though, I give you that. Aspect Ratio: iMac seems to be 8:5. This is 16:9 Foot Design: http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/10/hp-imac/ http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/10/hp-imac/ Check the last image. Choice of Material/Choice Of Finishing: Someone pointed out on the thread that HP is using plastic and not brushed aluminum. Keyboard Design: There aren't many side shots of the smaller keyboard from Apple but [2] looks different from Spectre One. Key Coloring: White on White vs White on Aluminium Grey. Key Layout: Is Also different. Have a look. Keyboard LED: Cannot deduct from image, so I will give you that. Trackpad Design: Yes similar from top Trackpad Footing: Check the side shots, they are different keyboard battery chamber and trackpad battery chamber: Sorry cannot see from the shots. [1] http://www.engadget.com/photos/hp-spectre-one/ http://www.engadget.com/photos/hp-spectre-one/ [2] http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/electronics/detail-page/imac-aug08-keyboard-400.jpg http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/electronics/detail-page... Edit: iMac has 16:9 screens as well. So adding that here.
- jpxxx 14y ago
  That's an honest effort but not enough. Throw the Apple Thunderbolt Display and the correct Apple Wireless Keyboard into the comparison and points 1, 3, 4, and 7 evaporate. You're standing on a single extra key, a logo that might be backlit instead of foil, a different trackpad/keyboard foot arc, and the fact that they used plastic designed to mimic a specific metal with a specific finish. It's not enough for most observers, and HP is right to take some lumps over this.

by jpxxx 14y ago

bjustin 14y ago

You make it sound like HP copied someone here. HP's designs just follow the natural evolution of computers.

MartinCron 14y ago
Things like choice of materials and finishing aren't "the natural evolution of computers". There are deliberate design decisions to the brushed aluminum design, decisions that HP didn't even bother to make for themselves. This product from HP is shameful.
- 4ad 14y ago
  So if Apple uses brushed aluminium design, and brushed aluminium is better, nobody else should use it?
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    Faster is "better" than slower. Easier is "better" than harder. Cheaper is "better" than more expensive. These are pretty obvious and well understood. I can't really see brushed aluminum as "better" finish choice than satin nickel, semi-opaque plastic, oil-rubbed bronze, polished marble, cherry burlwood, or rich Corinthian leather. Other companies should feel free to use it, but they must understand that they will suffer the withering wrath of my derisive scorn if they are going to be so unabashedly derivative in their design choices.
  - adolph 14y ago
    I don't think HP is using brushed aluminum.
    - 4ad 14y ago
      It was an example my parent post referred to.
doktrin 14y ago
I strongly disagree. These are aesthetic design choices, and are not fundamental to the evolution of personal computers. HP clearly copied the design of the iMac. Note : copying does not necessarily == morally reprehensible. However, facts are facts.
- nutjob123 14y ago
  I think he was joking and making an allusion to a commonly voiced opinion in favor of Samsung from the Apple trial.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    At this point it's becoming extremely hard to tell.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      For anyone who doesn't already know about it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law
- ghshephard 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
- smokeyj 14y ago
  Can someone explain why copying is bad? Do people really believe that a marketplace is so fragile, that unless an omnipotent actor interferes with trade, consumers will become victims to "copying"? Or that the poor consumer won't be able to distinguish between the box that says "HP" and the twice as expensive box that reads "Apple"?
  - batista 14y ago
    >Can someone explain why copying is bad? Because it limits choices. Instead of 2 different options for your all-in-one desktop you have 1 multiplied by 2.
siglesias 14y ago
Isn't it funny people's habit of confusing evolution for design when it suits them?
philwelch 14y ago
There's one computer that looks like the Apple iMac. Well, there was until HP came along and there was two.

Nrsolis 14y ago

From the horse's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

jpxxx 14y ago
Irrelevant and misapplied. This tape was from an era where foundational ideas in personal and graphical computing were being hashed out. Concepts like pointers, modality, bitmapping, state representation, humane I/O, task management, and basement-level software plumbing were being worked out. Basically: how do you turn massive industrial installations into a comprehensible and affordable machine that can fit in a home? Those decisions, insights, and the attitudes that evolved early personal computing have flipping zip-all to do with trade dress in the early 21st century.
nirvana 14y ago
It is kinda astounding how often people use this quote and seem to think it means the opposite of what it means. Steve Jobs is saying it is easy to copy. But if you're great, you steal the fundamental idea and do something totally new with it. Apple didn't just copy the phones already on the market, they stole the idea of a cellphone and did something fundamentally different. So different that we had 6 months of people saying it was going to be a failure, Ballmer going on the record saying there's no way they'd sell any significant numbers, and the RIM engineers telling upper management that the iPhone couldn't possibly work the way apple said! Thats "stealing" -- doing something for which there is nothing comparable on the market, in Steve Jobs view. Copying is when you look at a successful product and mimic it down to the millimeter.
- podperson 14y ago
  The distinction (I believe the original quote is Picasso, and the difference is that the great steal while others borrow) is that once you've STOLEN an idea your version is so much better than what you took the whole thing becomes YOURS. Borrowing an idea means that your version ends up simply looking like a lame attempt to copy the older idea, and people prefer the older idea. So while there were GUIs before the Mac, once Apple had stolen their ideas and transformed them the stuff that had come before simply looked like crap. Similarly previous attempts, including by Apple, to create tablet devices look like crap beside the iPad.

thezilch 14y ago

Or not... for example: http://images.apple.com/imac/images/overview_allinone.png http://images.apple.com/imac/images/overview_allinone.png [0] versus http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/09/hp-spectre-one-left-side-profile-accessories.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/09/hp-spe... [1] Not limited by, but your key(board) comparison completely skips over reality. [0] http://www.apple.com/imac/ http://www.apple.com/imac/ [1] http://www.engadget.com/photos/hp-spectre-one/ http://www.engadget.com/photos/hp-spectre-one/

artursapek 14y ago
That profile shot of the Spectre is a bummer. They made it so ugly. So top-heavy. I feel bad for the industrial designers who had to work on this small-minded disaster, they must hate their jobs.

powertower 14y ago

> Other than the bezel color, bezel shape, metallic logo, logo positioning... We can't have an HP logo in a circle because Apple has an apple that resembles a circle!? We can't center an HP logo because Apple centers their logo!? We can't have a metallic logo because Apple does that!? We can't have a rectangular screen because Apple has one just in that shape!? We can't have a silvery finish because apple has one! We can't have a qwerty keyboard because Apple has one! And so on. Are you joking? These are all done 100 times over. In combination with each other. The only resemblance I see are standard design choices being implemented. Like a monitor on a stand.

ricardobeat 14y ago
Oh, come on. If you make the same choices as your competitor for nearly every item, that's copying. These "standard design choices" hadn't ever been common in other products. Were all designers suddenly enlightened at some point on what computers should look like? (oh, wait! they were, by Apple)
- powertower 14y ago
  Really? Having a centered logo is part of a trade dress? Is it supposed to be 2 inches to the right for everyone else? And when you place that centerd logo on a thin form factor display/pc, that becomes a violation? Or is it when you make the keyboard silvery in color? Or is it when you make the frame as thin as possible given the technology and manufacturing capabilities you have at the time? That's like saying Ford violates Toyota's "trade dress" when they combine 4 tires on a car, with an engine somewhere inside, and paint the body red. And the vehicle weighs less that 2000 lbs. 4 or 5 standard design choices in combination with one another is not a "trade dress" when those choices are generic and have been done a million times before.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    No, that's like saying that Ford would violate Audi's trade dress if they combine slim headlights flush with the body, a large front grill in trapezoid shape with the logo on top, and two air intakes at the bottom edges. It would. That's all design is: a combination of functional and aesthetic choices, that lead to a particular look. Silver wasn't very popular until not long ago. Black was the default, and still is for many manufacturers. It is also currently possible to make the frame even thinner, or non-existent. The choice to make it that thick (and black) shows that it's not about technical limits or 'evolution'. You can absolutely make a computer that doesn't look like an iMac; in fact everybody has been doing it for years.

mayanksinghal 14y ago

BezelColor + BezelShape: the shape is similar but without the lower white area. Metallic Logo: Nope. Appears to be a back-lit logo which is white in color [1] Logo Positioning: Is similar but not the same. Apple's logo is not in the black frame region. They both are centered though, I give you that. Aspect Ratio: iMac seems to be 8:5. This is 16:9 Foot Design: http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/10/hp-imac/ http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/10/hp-imac/ Check the last image. Choice of Material/Choice Of Finishing: Someone pointed out on the thread that HP is using plastic and not brushed aluminum. Keyboard Design: There aren't many side shots of the smaller keyboard from Apple but [2] looks different from Spectre One. Key Coloring: White on White vs White on Aluminium Grey. Key Layout: Is Also different. Have a look. Keyboard LED: Cannot deduct from image, so I will give you that. Trackpad Design: Yes similar from top Trackpad Footing: Check the side shots, they are different keyboard battery chamber and trackpad battery chamber: Sorry cannot see from the shots. [1] http://www.engadget.com/photos/hp-spectre-one/ http://www.engadget.com/photos/hp-spectre-one/ [2] http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/electronics/detail-page/imac-aug08-keyboard-400.jpg http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/electronics/detail-page... Edit: iMac has 16:9 screens as well. So adding that here.

jpxxx 14y ago
That's an honest effort but not enough. Throw the Apple Thunderbolt Display and the correct Apple Wireless Keyboard into the comparison and points 1, 3, 4, and 7 evaporate. You're standing on a single extra key, a logo that might be backlit instead of foil, a different trackpad/keyboard foot arc, and the fact that they used plastic designed to mimic a specific metal with a specific finish. It's not enough for most observers, and HP is right to take some lumps over this.