Slashdot Mirror
Samsung's Comparison of Galaxy S To iPhone
david.emery writes "In a document from the ongoing Samsung/Apple trial, provided in both English translation and Korean original, Samsung engineers provided a detailed comparison of user interface features in their phone against the iPhone. In almost all cases, the recommendation was to adopt the iPhone's approach. Among other observations, this shows how much work goes into defining the Apple iPhone user experience."
Ars has an article on the evidence offered by Apple so far.
The comparison of phones/tablets available prior to the iPhone/iPad and those that came out after both were unveiled show that Samsung is definitely in the wrong as far as design styles go.
Whether this should be something someone can patent is another argument that I'm not going to get into here.
It's only normal to look at someone else's product and say "hey, that's a good idea, let's implement that too!". Question is, were there PATENTS that covered this and that and was there a patent infringement in such cases? Moving a "Loading..." text from top right to middle of the screen doesn't, for example, look like "patent infringement", and if it IS a patent covering that, well then my personal opinion is that patents have really gone too far.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
The issue comes up when Apple (or any other Microsoft) uses their monopoly in one area to leverage their position in another (think "shutting off the air supply to Netscape").
I don't think that will happen. There are plenty of implementations that apple doesn't think infringe. The phone market isn't like the PC market was at all. The numbers are open to interpretation, but apple isn't the number one phone manufacturer and the don't have number one market share. A monopoly isn't a hazard for apple
Watch those corners
Ford suing Chevrolet on copying it's design for an automobile, submitting emails/notes from Chevrolet engineers who are analyzing/comparing their new car with Ford's:
1. It has four wheels w/ rubber tires.
2. There is a driver's station with locking mechanism, steering wheel, gear shift, brake pedal, and accelerator.
3. There are seats for the driver and passengers.
4. There are 2 to 4 doors for driver and passenger entrance/egress.
5. There is some bulk storage area (trunk, etc).
6. There are at least 2 headlights, tail lights, and turn indicators.
.
.
.
So, obviously, Chevy "stole" Ford's design!
Fair amount of it here
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-samsungs-step-by-step-guide-for-how-to-copy-an-iphone-2012-8?op=1
Watch those corners
Two problems with what you've said:
1) A monopoly on smartphones is not a monopoly at all, since dumbphones still account for the majority of the market. Companies have tried to sue Apple in the past for having a monopoly on the Mac market and using it to their advantage, but they've always been dismissed since Macs are merely a part of the larger PC market, and a rather small part at that.
2) Having a monopoly is not necessarily a problem. It's when a monopoly acts in an anti-competitive manner that there are problems.
I know it may be taboo to throw a competitor's device into the fray (and possibly opening up yourself to litigation from them), but seeing as how the LG Prada (LG KE850) had already won a design award months before the extremely similar looking iPhone had even been announced I would imagine that Samsung would jump at the opportunity to show prior art for some of Apple's "design patents" just to get them eliminated.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
The internal combustion engine is a perfect example. The internal combustion engine COULD NOT have been patented. The diesel engine was. One particular way of making an internal combustion engine. But with the patent for a diesel engine, a skilled craftsman had all he needed to make a fully functional diesel engine.
The reason there are so many different types of engine is that they were designed to avoid having to license a patent. This worked very well. It created innovation AND if you wanted to produce an existing engine in your own factory you just paid a relatively low fee.
But Apple wants to patent ideas. No a blue print but a concept. Not even the concept of an internal combustion engine but the concept of an engine. And the patents they submit provide nothing that a skilled craftsman can use to build a device. At most, they can give an engineer an problem to solve where the problem is "how do I actually build the product the patent theorizes".
That is not how patents are supposed to work. The idea for an engine is after all far older then actual engines but all the engineers who made engines would have to pay for the license to use the idea of some long dead guy if Apple had its way.
Go look through Apples patents, every single one of them. I bet less then a single percent contains the plans with which a skilled craftsman in the field can build a working product without having to design something himself.
Imagine if Apple was in medicine, they would patent a cure for cancer. The patent has nothing in it but "It would make us a lot of money if we could cure cancer, now someone else actually invent it and pay us".
Not how it is supposed to go. If you really did discover a cure for cancer, you deserve a patent and people would happily pay you for it. But NOT just for the idea that curing cancer would be nice.
Sadly the amoral Americans have decided the patent office needs to turn a profit and you don't turn a profit by turning customers away. So the patent office and grants every payment and the taxpayers pay for courtsystem to try to sort it all out.
Conclusion: Americans are a problem.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I read through it. There are some "let's copy the iPhone" things, but so much of it clearly shows that Samsung just didn't care about the software. Decisions that, even in a vacuum, make no sense. Here are some that I can remember:
There are quite a few places in the document that boil down to "The iPhone does this neat little visual trick, we need a neat little visual trick". There are a couple of places (I can't remember them off the top of my head) where it looks like they actually removed something useful to be more iPhone like. Without some of the slides, it would have read like a "what the hell were you thinking" memo.
It's going to be a tough thing for Samsung to argue against.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
If 30% for "hosting, distribution and all finances" is such a great deal, surely they would have nothing to fear by allowing competing services to perform these difficult and expensive tasks. I mean, very few companies on the planet have yet mastered the intricate technological challenges of inexpensively hosting downloads.
30% (plus $100/yr, don't forget) is an insane amount for the minuscule amount of "service" Apple provides.
It really is an absolute steal at 30%, given that the bulk of the software pricing on the app store and on the iTunes music and movie stores are low value amounts.
30% cut to handle payment services for your customers, including card processing and verification, refunds, fees to banks and credit card companies, gift cards, customer service, helpdesk etc? Yes please.
That alone is worth the 30% cut; the hosting and distribution is just a free bonus.
I assume that the 30% that Google charges on their store is also "insane"? Or is that perfectly fine because it's not Apple?
A government grant of monopoly. Then they expire, and the monopoly is over. If the government does not like such monopolies, then it should stop issuing patents.
The government doesn't mind monopolies and in some cases monopolies are actually useful. Patents are granted because a *temporary* monopoly is a lesser evil than the Free Rider problem. Some monopolies are hard to avoid (utilities) and some are regulated. The problem is when monopolies start to abuse their power in ways that hurt consumers or the economy in general. Standard Oil was broken up because having a single unregulated company in controlling the nation's energy supply was demonstrably dangerous. You can argue that patents are too long or issued for frivolous "inventions" but they exist for a very good reason. Monopolies as such aren't the problem - unchecked monopolies sometimes are and that is when the government worries about them.
Oh, but you are not forced to sell exclusively though Google play.
It is exactly the same amount as Google charges for apps in the Play store.
Unlike iOS devices, Android devices have alternatives to the Play Store. Google charges 0% for applications distributed through "unknown sources" such as Amazon Appstore, SlideME, Soc.io, or the developer's own web site. The key difference is that the user doesn't need to exploit a security vulnerability in the operating system to install third-party app stores on Android devices.
30% cut to handle payment services for your customers, including card processing and verification, refunds, fees to banks and credit card companies, gift cards, customer service, helpdesk etc? Yes please. That alone is worth the 30% cut
On the contrary, 30% for payment processing is a huge markup - contrast with PayPal's Merchant Fees. As a developer, which would you rather pay?
It is a steal, if you're comparing it to traditional brick-and-mortar distribution.
Except we're not. Comparing it to most other digital distribution stores (mainly MP3s and games), this 30% app-store cut is *huge*.
Everything you list that they (and by "they" I mean all app stores) do is completely automated. Yes, that stuff would be a huge pain in the ass for an individual to handle it themselves, but once it's been automated it's not a substantial amount of work for *anybody*. And besides that, if you're using (for instance) Google Checkout to sell stuff, they take a 10% cut, and it pays for all the stuff you mentioned. E-bay takes a small cut on sales. But for app store purchases, where you're just hosting (maybe) a few MB? 30%. For micropayment/in-app-purchase type things that is essentially shifting a few dozen bits around? 30%.
There's no reason it should be so high. For $1 purchases, yes, it might need to be around 30% just to recoup the transaction fees. But for sales of anything over $1, there should be better rates. And the fact that every app store is currently 30% reeks of collusion to me -- if this were really a free market, there should be some competition.
Personally, I don't like the thought of 30% of all profits from the entire software industry being funneled into a few major players -- and Apple and Amazon are the worst, with not only 30% cuts but also yearly fees. How is, say, a 10-year-old interested in programming supposed to be able to afford the fees just to be able to tinker with their phone and give their stuff to a few of their friends? Beg mom and dad for the money and then go through the rigamarole of signing up for a developer account? I guess fuck 'em; we want kids buying shit, not learning how to make their own.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
What if the iPhone really is that innovative in the smartphone arena that only Apple can provide smartphones? Then they have a monopoly, and the DoJ tends to get upset with monopolies that appear to be unreasonably restraining consumer choice raising prices, or both.
Just ask Microsoft. They, arguably, have never recovered from the antitrust suit. Does Apple want to go down that path?
Apple didn't invent the smartphone, and I doubt they claim to. There were plenty of smartphones before the iphone - Nokia had e.g. N95 (and other N-series) and their Communicator, Blackberry had many phones, Sony Ericsson had their P900 series, HTC had Windows mobile phones. They behaved in different ways, and had many interesting styles. So obviously, there are many other ways than iPhone and iPhone OS to look and behave.
Samsung just put an awful lot of work into looking and behaving the same. Where the legal limit for copying goes I don't know, but Samsung wasn't exactly trying a brand new design they had been working on and polishing for the last five years... it seems as if they even copied marketing materials. And even today, there are many different ways. E.g. the Nokia Lumia 900 - it is a full screen touch mobile, but has its own design and user interface. I certainly wouldn't buy one - Microsoft has already said that they are obsolete - but they have put (different) thoughts into design and behaviour.
For a $0.99 game or app, Apple's 30% is cheaper than PayPal's 2.9% + 30, and also covers hosting and distribution and a little bit of advertising. For a $10 app, Apple's deal starts to look a lot less attractive...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes, Google has explicitly opened themselves up to competitive pressures by allowing externally sourced purchases & downloads. And they STILL charge 30%.
Amazon, too.
That means they either need to charge that just to break even or make a reasonable profit (and this is Amazon, Apple, and Google we're talking about - I think they probably have some pretty good tools for managing server farms), or they're confident nobody else is going to be able to do it significantly cheaper.
My money's on the second one - hosting a data center, providing good uptime, fast payment processing & downloads, worldwide distribution, and a storefront... that all gets expensive. They probably COULD do it a bit cheaper, but why lower your revenues when there's no competitive pressure to do so?
Not if you use their micropayments plan. Their fee is 5 cents + 5%, which works out to be 10 cents for a $0.99 app, way less than what Apple or Google charges.
Just because it's not a direct moneymaker doesn't mean it's not an indirect moneymaker. People use iPhones because of the variety of apps and perception of higher quality. If you take away one of these, Android will surge past them.