3 ms·

Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do. Many people just want an iPhone,

by jakobe 14y ago

Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do. Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. That's what trade dress protection should prevent.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. Sorry, but that just sounds like the delusions of an Apple fanboy. If your theory had any truth to it, Android sales would've plummeted a year ago, when the iPhone 3GS became free on contract. But instead, the Samsung Galaxy S3, which has been selling for $200 (the same price as the latest iPhone) has had phenomenal sales.
mistercow 14y ago
>Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do. I'm not talking about technical differences. You can look at phone, or the box, and instantly recognize which one is an Apple product. >Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products? >That's what trade dress protection should prevent. That is simply incorrect. Trade dress protection is to prevent customers from mistaking one product (and/or manufacturer) for another. If a customer understands that product X is not product Y, but believes that the two products are functionally equivalent, then that has nothing to do with trade dress protection.
- salgernon 14y ago
  >>Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. >On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products? I'm sure there's something more authoritative: http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pushing-android-over-outdated-iphone/ http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu... I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing. (Random video of this) http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112 http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112 Its obviously in the interest of a manufacturer to create some confusion over the branding in order to produce more sales.
  - dpark 14y ago
    > I'm sure there's something more authoritative: > http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pushing-android-over-outdated-iphone/ http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu... That's not a question of trade dress. Verizon sales representatives are well within their rights legally to push Android over iOS (contractually, maybe not, but that's a separate issue). Saying "X is better than an iPhone" is entirely different from saying "X is an iPhone". And actually, neither case is relevant to trade dress, which is about customer confusion due to product appearance, not customer confusion due to salespeople. > I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing. You'll note that the knockoff was branded as an iPhone. No one disputes that counterfeit devices are designed to confuse. That's why they're call counterfeit devices and not competing devices.
bane 14y ago
It's a real shame that this theory is proposed over and over again. It simultaneously puts the iPhone buying public down as ill-informed shopping sheep and elevates those that go in intending to buy an Android phone from the get-go. I personally think better of most people. They buy phones for a variety of reasons, trickery by nefarious phone store salesmen, taking advantage of poor victimized and gullible iPhone buyers is probably very low on the list.
ajross 14y ago
This argument only makes sense if you're trying to say that all Android phones violate the iPhone trade dress. Since they clearly don't, and the effect you posit exists (which I don't argue), you're simply wrong by construction, no?

by jakobe 14y ago

w1ntermute 14y ago

> Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. Sorry, but that just sounds like the delusions of an Apple fanboy. If your theory had any truth to it, Android sales would've plummeted a year ago, when the iPhone 3GS became free on contract. But instead, the Samsung Galaxy S3, which has been selling for $200 (the same price as the latest iPhone) has had phenomenal sales.

mistercow 14y ago

>Only very few of the people who buy smartphones know as much about the technical differences between iOS and Android as we do. I'm not talking about technical differences. You can look at phone, or the box, and instantly recognize which one is an Apple product. >Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products? >That's what trade dress protection should prevent. That is simply incorrect. Trade dress protection is to prevent customers from mistaking one product (and/or manufacturer) for another. If a customer understands that product X is not product Y, but believes that the two products are functionally equivalent, then that has nothing to do with trade dress protection.

salgernon 14y ago
>>Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper. >On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products? I'm sure there's something more authoritative: http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pushing-android-over-outdated-iphone/ http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu... I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing. (Random video of this) http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112 http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112 Its obviously in the interest of a manufacturer to create some confusion over the branding in order to produce more sales.
- dpark 14y ago
  > I'm sure there's something more authoritative: > http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pushing-android-over-outdated-iphone/ http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu... That's not a question of trade dress. Verizon sales representatives are well within their rights legally to push Android over iOS (contractually, maybe not, but that's a separate issue). Saying "X is better than an iPhone" is entirely different from saying "X is an iPhone". And actually, neither case is relevant to trade dress, which is about customer confusion due to product appearance, not customer confusion due to salespeople. > I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing. You'll note that the knockoff was branded as an iPhone. No one disputes that counterfeit devices are designed to confuse. That's why they're call counterfeit devices and not competing devices.

bane 14y ago

It's a real shame that this theory is proposed over and over again. It simultaneously puts the iPhone buying public down as ill-informed shopping sheep and elevates those that go in intending to buy an Android phone from the get-go. I personally think better of most people. They buy phones for a variety of reasons, trickery by nefarious phone store salesmen, taking advantage of poor victimized and gullible iPhone buyers is probably very low on the list.

ajross 14y ago

This argument only makes sense if you're trying to say that all Android phones violate the iPhone trade dress. Since they clearly don't, and the effect you posit exists (which I don't argue), you're simply wrong by construction, no?