Also, there was no reason to copy Prada (it wasn't a successful product), but plenty of reason to copy the iPhone. Lastly, Apple has their own design team which is both extremely capable (considered the best in the world) and would take too much pride in their work to copy others.
Looking at the Prada's WIkipedia entry, it looks like the Prada won a fair share of design awards, and has a bit of recognition for this fact. It also got decent reviews at the time.
The phone itself got poor reviews. The design was what people liked.
Awards
International Forum Design—Product Design Award for 2007 [1] Red dot design award—LG Prada Wins "Best of the Best" red dot Design Award, 2007 [2][3] Fashion phone of the year—Mobile Choice (2007) [4] Best fashion phone—What Mobile Awards (2007) [5] Gold for best looking phone—CNET Asia Readers' Choice Award (2007/08)
I'm sorry, Apple isn't special. Apple is no better than anyone else.
Both of those statements are demonstrably false.
Most companies who produce a product has large design teams, and most of these teams are good at what they do as well. As a person who doesn't care one way or another about Apple (I have an old Mac Mini, and has a couple laptops, I also have Windows and Linux machines, and like them all equally for their suited purposes); their design isn't really that special. They have squeezed their fair share of exceedingly ugly products. A large part of Apple's design is, and I'm going to be modded down for this, fashion and not good design. There is a difference.
The Prada phone was a fashion phone. Very few Apple products are fashion products. They have a top-notch design team that consistently win award after award. These are design awards, not fashion awards.
Apple is not a fashion company. This is so obvious, it shouldn't even have to be stated.
As for Prada's influence on the iPhone, there couldn't have been any, there was no time for Apple to have redesigned the iPhone.
By that same reasoning, the Samsung F700 (which looks a lot like an iPhone) could not have been copied from Apple. So that means that Samsung came up the design themselves, and did not copy Apple. So the Galaxy is just an extension of Samsung's design.
You make no sense. The iPhone can't have been a copy of the Prada phone because Apple was clearly working on it for years, and the design isn't similar. There was nothing similar to the iPhone, not even LG's Prada phone, before the iPhone.
I don't know how many times I can say is, but IT'S NOT ABOUT BEING A FLAT, ROUNDED RECTANGLE OF GLASS.
Even if Samsung was working on a touch panel phone before the iPhone came out, it wasn't until the iPhone's unveiling that Samsung showed their phone that had not only a generic resemblance to the iPhone, but had a lot of little, unnecessary similarities to the iPhone. It's these things that have Apple upset. It's not because it's a slab. It's not because it's a rounded rectangle. It's because Samsung's rounded rectangle slab is too similarly styled like Apple's rounded rectangle slab. There are plenty of other styles possible for Samsung to have come up with. It's only fair to expect Samsung come up with their own design.
The Prada phone did not inspire the iPhone, the iPhone did inspire Samsung.
Proof?
The demand for proof is nonsensical, but I can provide evidence. Just look at the phones Samsung introduced before and after the iPhone. As for Prada's influence on the iPhone, there couldn't have been any, there was no time for Apple to have redesigned the iPhone. Also, there was no reason to copy Prada (it wasn't a successful product), but plenty of reason to copy the iPhone. Lastly, Apple has their own design team which is both extremely capable (considered the best in the world) and would take too much pride in their work to copy others.
To me, the Samsung looks like any other tablet.
And this really is the problem. You can't recognize something you don't understand. You keep acting as though this is all about either making something in the same category (it's not) or that it's about vagueries like being a rounded rectangle (it's not that, either). Samsung's phones look like the iPhone's fat, awkward cousin. The Prada phone is a slab, but in its own style.
Why not say the samsung copied the prada? Why not say the iphone copied the blackberries in shape, and functionality? If the F700 did not copy the iphone, then how could later version of samsung phones being copying the iphone? Maybe samsung is simply copying their own earlier designs?
The F700 was a lie that you fandroids conveniently accepted without giving it a second thought because it makes you feel better.
But more to the point, don't kid yourself. Apple's argument isn't simply that the phone is a rounded rectangle.
But that is in Apple's argument. Oh yeah, and the device also has flat surface, as opposed to being shaped like a bubble, or something.
No it's not. Don't you realize that you immediately contradicted your first sentence with the second one? It's about more than just the shape.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Maybe. But the Android is a threat to Apple's market share, don't kid yourself about that.
So? Who said it wasn't? Do you think Apple is claiming there can't be other phones or something? Their suit makes the point that Samsung should come up with their own style, and not copy Apple.
Apple isn't suing Google, or Android in general, they are suing one Android handset and tablet maker for making their handsets and tablets too similar to how Apple's look. In their suit they make the point very clearly that Samsung should come up with its own design. There's no reason to copy Apple so closely.
Why because it's rectangular with rounded edges? This is junk lawsuit, you know it, and I know it. Apple is suing Samsung because it's easier than suing Google, and suing Samsung may set a precedent.
No, It's not about simply being a rounded rectangle. Read the summaries about the lawsuit. They make this abundantly clear. This has nothing to do with Android in general. It has nothing to do with stopping Samsung from making their own phones. In fact, it's Apple specifically demanding that Samsung do indeed make their own phones, and not so closely copy Apple's phones.
This isn't a "baby stabbing" scenario.
It certainly is. Apple does not want Android phones, or tablets, to get market share.
Of course they don't, but this lawsuit has nothing to do with stopping Android from being available on the market. Nowhere in it does it ask, demand, or imply Android not be available. It only demands that Samsung come up with something not so closely resembling Apple's products.
"Baby stabbing" would be if Apple was trying to ge
The Prada phone obviously did not influence the iPhone. The mere idea is sillly. On the other hand, Android was very clearly inspired by iOS and the iPhone. Have you seen what Android was like even just months before the iPhone was introduced? It was a Blackberry clone. Only after the iPhone came out did it find something better to copy.
Or, maybe "rectangle with rounded corners" is just so obvious an idea that nobody can be said to have invented it? Speaking of blackberries, what sort of shape did they have? And for that matter, didn't blackberries have a lot of features that appeared in iPhones?
We aren't talking about features. This suit has nothing to do with features or functions. It's about the look and feel of how those features and functions are presented. Apple isn't telling Samsung their devices can't be rounded rectangles.
In every single one of those cases, they were the first to create a product that people actually bought.
Yep, and good for Apple. Just goes to show: just because a basic idea was copied, does not mean there is no innovation. So if that concept is true for Apple, why not for Apple competitors?
You seem to strong double standard, and bias for Apple. If Apple copies somebody, it is completely okay. But, the other way around is strong grounds for Apple to sue. If Apple can sue Samsung, then shouldn't LG be able to sue Apple? Should blackberry be able to sue apple for the basic shape, and function, of a smart phone?
You can't seem to grasp the difference between copying of something and a category of something. Samsung isn't being sued for making something in the same category as Apple. The mere notion is ridiculous. They are being sued because their version of the device in that category too closely resembles the design of Apple's version.
If someone makes a song, you aren't copying them if you make a song as well. But you *are* copying them if your song closely resembles their song. You should make your own song. Samsung isn't being sued for making smartphones or tablets. They aren't even being sued because they are rounded rectangles.
Apple is doing so much better than its competition, this article is delusional. Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them? They can come up with their own unique designs. This lawsuit fits perfectly with this idea. No need to project some sort of desperation scenario
Don't kid yourself. Apple did not create the idea of a device that is rectangular with rounded corners in shape. The idea is not unique or innovative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
The Prada phone did not inspire the iPhone, the iPhone did inspire Samsung.
But more to the point, don't kid yourself. Apple's argument isn't simply that the phone is a rounded rectangle.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Don't kid yourself, Android is a huge threat to Apple. Android is growing like wildfire. Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out. Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - MS has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
Apple isn't suing Google, or Android in general, they are suing one Android handset and tablet maker for making their handsets and tablets too similar to how Apple's look. In their suit they make the point very clearly that Samsung should come up with its own design. There's no reason to copy Apple so closely.
This isn't a "baby stabbing" scenario. All Samsung has to do is come up with something not so clearly a copy of Apple. That's all. They won't have to pay Apple, they won't have to stop making Android phones or tablets, they can come up with the very best Android devices they want. All they are being asked to do is not copy Apple's design.
"Baby stabbing" would be if Apple was trying to get Samsung to stop making Android devices altogether. But Apple is only telling Samsung to come up with their own baby.
Certainly the ideas of rectangular device with rounded corners came out before the iPhone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Apple does an amazing job of taking ideas from others, and improving those ideas, and doing a great marketing job. But practically ever big idea from Apple, did not originate from Apple.
The Prada phone obviously did not influence the iPhone. The mere idea is sillly. On the other hand, Android was very clearly inspired by iOS and the iPhone. Have you seen what Android was like even just months before the iPhone was introduced? It was a Blackberry clone. Only after the iPhone came out did it find something better to copy.
Apple did not invent: - the PC - the GUI - the mp3 player - the online music store - the smart phone - the tablet computer - or much of anything else.
In every single one of those cases, they were the first to create a product that people actually bought.
So isn't Apple just as much of a "copycat" as anybody?
In each and every one of the cases you listed, Apple broke new ground and created something like had never existed before. Only then did others look at what Apple had done and began to copy them. It's not "copying" just because you make a product that someone else may have already thought of, but it is copying when your version is a copy of someone else's design. In every one of the examples you listed, any products that existed before Apple's where notably clunkier and had extremely low consumer appeal, and the products that followed Apple's successful introductions all somehow ended up looking more like what Apple had created than what had come before.
Apple is doing so much better than its competition, this article is delusional. Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them? They can come up with their own unique designs. This lawsuit fits perfectly with this idea. No need to project some sort of desperation scenario.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share (iOS maintains a significant lead over Android, and always has, although on Slashdot ignorance is bliss, so I fully expect some replies from people ignorantly claiming this isn't true), and Apple's market share is increasing, and their revenues are increasing, and their profits are increasing. They are the most financially successful cell phone maker on the planet. They do not fear Google's business model. Why would they when their own is working so well? Not just working well, but working significantly better than that of anyone else?
This article is just the same old uninformed nonsense you expect from people who don't understand that the reason people make money is to buy things. Just because something is free (or "less than free") does not mean people will want it, nor does it mean that people won't pay more for something else. Store shelves wouldn't contain name brands if people always chose the cheapest option.
iOS far outsells Android, yet clearly Apple's business model is doomed? Brilliant!
Carrying a keyboard around with you in addition to a tablet doesn't make much sense. Take a $500-$800 tablet and add a $99 accessory that now has less functionality, is more cumbersome, and is considerably more expensive than a $400 notebook. How does that make sense?
An iPad that a person will actually bring with them and use is infinitely more functional than a $400 notebook that they will leave behind, run out of power, or leave shut on their desk or in their bag.
Specifically for note taking, the apps for the iPad are more capable then you'll find in standard Windows or Mac software. Audio recording with annotation, stylus input, etc.
And an iPad, even with a keyboard case, is not more cumbersome than a notebook. It's not even more cumbersome than a netbook. But I really don't think many people would opt for the keyboard, just use the one that's built in.
Here's how a sane person interprets his statements:
A sane person interprets his comments as: "The iPhone will fail, Windows Mobile will dominate it", and that's not what happened. He's wrong. His reasoning doesn't count for shit when his conclusion is wrong.
There's no way around it, he was wrong, wrong, wrong. The only thing you are potentially right about is that his reasoning may have been sound. That doesn't make him right. He made a prediction and it didn't come true. That's called being wrong, by sane people and a large portion of the insane.
It's $29, and works with any camera. That's not expensive, nor is it hobbled to any but a small niche of geeks.
A USB SD card reader that reads SD/SDHC cards costs a dollar. Of course if you wanted to go with a brand name such as Sandisk for your reader that would set you back a whopping three dollars.
What a load of shit. You can also buy iPad SD adaptors from other companies if you want, but your comparison is irrational. The adaptors you are linking to don't have a dock connector, they don't include two adaptors, and they don't connect to an iPad. Also, you are not comparing the price of buying them in a store, which is usually about $20, you're comparing the cheapest price you can find straight off the docks (or even straight out of the factories in China). Few people buy their parts this way.
All of this, of course, ignores the original question of whether or not $29 is "expensive". It's not.
So Apple's dongle enjoys a mere 10 times more expensive that an equivalent reader that plugs into a USB port. And yes it is hobbled since SD cards work in a variety of roles, and in a variety of applications not just for pictures and not just in blessed apps e.g. transferring files like documents, videos & music between devices.
I'll just quote what I originally wrote, since you clearly didn't read it the first time through;
"nor is it hobbled to any but a small niche of geeks"
Congratulations on being in the small percentage of people for whom the port is "hobbled". Ironically, the micro SD slot in the Xoom is even more hobbled, but I'm sure you'll let that one slide.
There is no point trying to defend this practice, it's deliberately done to fleece and limit users, no other reason.
Neither, actually. It's not done to "limit users". By definition, it adds capabilities to the user. How ignorantly Orwellian of you. And $29 for two adaptors that let you connect a camera to your iPad is not "fleecing". If you think it is, buy one from someone else. Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy one of theirs.
Considering 95% of all tablets in the wild (meaning the iPad) have no SD Card, having a card reader in a tablet is still somewhat of a novelty. How Apple gets away with that kind of thing I'll never know.
It's an add-on for those that want one.
It's an expensive, hobbled add-on.
It's $29, and works with any camera. That's not expensive, nor is it hobbled to any but a small niche of geeks.
The fact that he was wrong is what made his prediction invalid.
Every invalid prediction is based on faulty assumptions, faulty facts, or faulty logic. It doesn't matter which of the three you get wrong, you're still wrong.
If Android missteps the manufacturers switch to Windows or something else. If Apple missteps then what?
What's Windows Phone have to do with comparing Android with iOS? Are you sure you want to switch the argument to the hardware side? Because if you do, you do realize the iPhone is the top selling smartphone model.
And by misstep I mean something along the lines of OS6 through OS8. Years of putting out the most disastrously bad operating system that it would have driving Apple out of business if Microsoft didn't invest $150M in them in 97.
Apple had billions of dollars in cash when MS invested $150M. The investment wasn't about helping Apple, it was a settlement to end their ongoing legal dispute. System 6 and System 7, then Mac OS 7 through Mac OS 9, were great systems, they just weren't modern. None of them were a "misstep".
Android tablet/netbook hybrid gets thumbs up from Android blog...
In other news, AppleInsider likes some Apple products.
The real question is whether the market will give the EeePad (and you guys thought "iPad" is was a dumb name?) a thumbs up. I wouldn't get my hopes up. They may very well sell a few thousand, though, making it one of the top Android tablets, so there's that.
Considering 95% of all tablets in the wild (meaning the iPad) have no SD Card, having a card reader in a tablet is still somewhat of a novelty. How Apple gets away with that kind of thing I'll never know.
Profits are important obviously but even if certain Android handset manufacturers perish there are others who will fill the void. Apple is all or nothing iPhone. If there is a misstep with iOS it's all they have. And considering the missteps Apple made in the 90s there is nothing saying it can't happen again - especially after Jobs leaves.
How is that any different with Android? How is it more likely that Apple will "misstep with iOS" than Google will "misstep with Android"?
And, you're right that "there is nothing saying it can't happen", but there is no reason to expect it. What sort of "misstep" do you have in mind, other than as a nebulous and undefined "ooh, scary!" idea without any substance behind it?
Because by going by OS, you HAVE to include, iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad.
No, you don't. Just like you don't HAVE to include HP's printers that run Android, or the MP3 players that run Android, or the e-readers that run Android, or the Sony TVs that run Android.
No, it's not "just like" that at all. They are not running anything recognizable as Android, even if that's what they are running under the hood. Your argument would make more sense if someone was claiming that the AppleTV should be counted towards iOS. But no one has claimed that, because like your argument, it would be nonsensical.
The point isn't about selling apps. This article isn't even about apps sales. We are talking about Smartphones and whatever you want to call iPods they aren't Smartphones. And I am pretty sure that most people buy an iPod to listen to music. I don't have a statistic but I would guess it's a pretty safe bet.
And most people buy phones to make calls and text. Calling the iPod touch simply an MP3 player is absolutely nonsensical.
There's no single model of Windows laptop that's outselling the MacBook. So I guess Windows is a dismal failure in the market, right?
How did you get that from what he wrote? He never said Android was a failure. If Android had the 80% market dominance that Windows has, I don't think there'd be any doubt that it was successful. But it doesn't. iOS far outsells Android.
Because it's contrived. "Hey, everybody, look at this one (and only one) combination of numbers! It makes Android look better than iOS, even though by any other measure, Android is doing worse than iOS."
When you buy a phone, there are five considerations: carrier, ongoing costs, upfront cost, hardware features, OS. Roughly in that order. Very few people go out of their way to buy Android phones. When AT&T was the sole carrier of the iPhone, hoards of people switched to AT&T for no reason than to buy the iPhone. Few people switched carriers for Android when it was carrier-limited.
Android's success in the mobile market doesn't really say much at all about the OS itself. On things like portable media devices and tablets, the OS choice becomes much more important. For a year now, we've been hearing about how Android tablets will do to the iPad what Android phones have done to the iPhone. That's based on the delusion that people actually, specifically, want the Android platform itself.
He was right based on the state of things at that time. That prediction was based on the ridiculously high price of the iPhone, before they lowered it a few hundred dollars.
All you stated was that he had a reason to think he was right, and that reason turned out to be wrong. How is that any different from being wrong, which he clearly was?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, there was no reason to copy Prada (it wasn't a successful product), but plenty of reason to copy the iPhone. Lastly, Apple has their own design team which is both extremely capable (considered the best in the world) and would take too much pride in their work to copy others.
Looking at the Prada's WIkipedia entry, it looks like the Prada won a fair share of design awards, and has a bit of recognition for this fact. It also got decent reviews at the time.
The phone itself got poor reviews. The design was what people liked.
Awards
International Forum Design—Product Design Award for 2007 [1]
Red dot design award—LG Prada Wins "Best of the Best" red dot Design Award, 2007 [2][3]
Fashion phone of the year—Mobile Choice (2007) [4]
Best fashion phone—What Mobile Awards (2007) [5]
Gold for best looking phone—CNET Asia Readers' Choice Award (2007/08)
I'm sorry, Apple isn't special. Apple is no better than anyone else.
Both of those statements are demonstrably false.
Most companies who produce a product has large design teams, and most of these teams are good at what they do as well. As a person who doesn't care one way or another about Apple (I have an old Mac Mini, and has a couple laptops, I also have Windows and Linux machines, and like them all equally for their suited purposes); their design isn't really that special. They have squeezed their fair share of exceedingly ugly products. A large part of Apple's design is, and I'm going to be modded down for this, fashion and not good design. There is a difference.
The Prada phone was a fashion phone. Very few Apple products are fashion products. They have a top-notch design team that consistently win award after award. These are design awards, not fashion awards.
Apple is not a fashion company. This is so obvious, it shouldn't even have to be stated.
As for Prada's influence on the iPhone, there couldn't have been any, there was no time for Apple to have redesigned the iPhone.
By that same reasoning, the Samsung F700 (which looks a lot like an iPhone) could not have been copied from Apple. So that means that Samsung came up the design themselves, and did not copy Apple. So the Galaxy is just an extension of Samsung's design.
You make no sense. The iPhone can't have been a copy of the Prada phone because Apple was clearly working on it for years, and the design isn't similar. There was nothing similar to the iPhone, not even LG's Prada phone, before the iPhone.
I don't know how many times I can say is, but IT'S NOT ABOUT BEING A FLAT, ROUNDED RECTANGLE OF GLASS.
Even if Samsung was working on a touch panel phone before the iPhone came out, it wasn't until the iPhone's unveiling that Samsung showed their phone that had not only a generic resemblance to the iPhone, but had a lot of little, unnecessary similarities to the iPhone. It's these things that have Apple upset. It's not because it's a slab. It's not because it's a rounded rectangle. It's because Samsung's rounded rectangle slab is too similarly styled like Apple's rounded rectangle slab. There are plenty of other styles possible for Samsung to have come up with. It's only fair to expect Samsung come up with their own design.
The Prada phone did not inspire the iPhone, the iPhone did inspire Samsung.
Proof?
The demand for proof is nonsensical, but I can provide evidence. Just look at the phones Samsung introduced before and after the iPhone. As for Prada's influence on the iPhone, there couldn't have been any, there was no time for Apple to have redesigned the iPhone. Also, there was no reason to copy Prada (it wasn't a successful product), but plenty of reason to copy the iPhone. Lastly, Apple has their own design team which is both extremely capable (considered the best in the world) and would take too much pride in their work to copy others.
To me, the Samsung looks like any other tablet.
And this really is the problem. You can't recognize something you don't understand. You keep acting as though this is all about either making something in the same category (it's not) or that it's about vagueries like being a rounded rectangle (it's not that, either). Samsung's phones look like the iPhone's fat, awkward cousin. The Prada phone is a slab, but in its own style.
Why not say the samsung copied the prada? Why not say the iphone copied the blackberries in shape, and functionality? If the F700 did not copy the iphone, then how could later version of samsung phones being copying the iphone? Maybe samsung is simply copying their own earlier designs?
The F700 was a lie that you fandroids conveniently accepted without giving it a second thought because it makes you feel better.
But more to the point, don't kid yourself. Apple's argument isn't simply that the phone is a rounded rectangle.
But that is in Apple's argument. Oh yeah, and the device also has flat surface, as opposed to being shaped like a bubble, or something.
No it's not. Don't you realize that you immediately contradicted your first sentence with the second one? It's about more than just the shape.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Maybe. But the Android is a threat to Apple's market share, don't kid yourself about that.
So? Who said it wasn't? Do you think Apple is claiming there can't be other phones or something? Their suit makes the point that Samsung should come up with their own style, and not copy Apple.
Apple isn't suing Google, or Android in general, they are suing one Android handset and tablet maker for making their handsets and tablets too similar to how Apple's look. In their suit they make the point very clearly that Samsung should come up with its own design. There's no reason to copy Apple so closely.
Why because it's rectangular with rounded edges? This is junk lawsuit, you know it, and I know it. Apple is suing Samsung because it's easier than suing Google, and suing Samsung may set a precedent.
No, It's not about simply being a rounded rectangle. Read the summaries about the lawsuit. They make this abundantly clear. This has nothing to do with Android in general. It has nothing to do with stopping Samsung from making their own phones. In fact, it's Apple specifically demanding that Samsung do indeed make their own phones, and not so closely copy Apple's phones.
This isn't a "baby stabbing" scenario.
It certainly is. Apple does not want Android phones, or tablets, to get market share.
Of course they don't, but this lawsuit has nothing to do with stopping Android from being available on the market. Nowhere in it does it ask, demand, or imply Android not be available. It only demands that Samsung come up with something not so closely resembling Apple's products.
"Baby stabbing" would be if Apple was trying to ge
The Prada phone obviously did not influence the iPhone. The mere idea is sillly. On the other hand, Android was very clearly inspired by iOS and the iPhone. Have you seen what Android was like even just months before the iPhone was introduced? It was a Blackberry clone. Only after the iPhone came out did it find something better to copy.
Or, maybe "rectangle with rounded corners" is just so obvious an idea that nobody can be said to have invented it? Speaking of blackberries, what sort of shape did they have? And for that matter, didn't blackberries have a lot of features that appeared in iPhones?
We aren't talking about features. This suit has nothing to do with features or functions. It's about the look and feel of how those features and functions are presented. Apple isn't telling Samsung their devices can't be rounded rectangles.
In every single one of those cases, they were the first to create a product that people actually bought.
Yep, and good for Apple. Just goes to show: just because a basic idea was copied, does not mean there is no innovation. So if that concept is true for Apple, why not for Apple competitors?
You seem to strong double standard, and bias for Apple. If Apple copies somebody, it is completely okay. But, the other way around is strong grounds for Apple to sue. If Apple can sue Samsung, then shouldn't LG be able to sue Apple? Should blackberry be able to sue apple for the basic shape, and function, of a smart phone?
You can't seem to grasp the difference between copying of something and a category of something. Samsung isn't being sued for making something in the same category as Apple. The mere notion is ridiculous. They are being sued because their version of the device in that category too closely resembles the design of Apple's version.
If someone makes a song, you aren't copying them if you make a song as well. But you *are* copying them if your song closely resembles their song. You should make your own song. Samsung isn't being sued for making smartphones or tablets. They aren't even being sued because they are rounded rectangles.
Apple is doing so much better than its competition, this article is delusional. Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them? They can come up with their own unique designs. This lawsuit fits perfectly with this idea. No need to project some sort of desperation scenario
Don't kid yourself. Apple did not create the idea of a device that is rectangular with rounded corners in shape. The idea is not unique or innovative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
The Prada phone did not inspire the iPhone, the iPhone did inspire Samsung.
But more to the point, don't kid yourself. Apple's argument isn't simply that the phone is a rounded rectangle.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Don't kid yourself, Android is a huge threat to Apple. Android is growing like wildfire. Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out. Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - MS has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
Apple isn't suing Google, or Android in general, they are suing one Android handset and tablet maker for making their handsets and tablets too similar to how Apple's look. In their suit they make the point very clearly that Samsung should come up with its own design. There's no reason to copy Apple so closely.
This isn't a "baby stabbing" scenario. All Samsung has to do is come up with something not so clearly a copy of Apple. That's all. They won't have to pay Apple, they won't have to stop making Android phones or tablets, they can come up with the very best Android devices they want. All they are being asked to do is not copy Apple's design.
"Baby stabbing" would be if Apple was trying to get Samsung to stop making Android devices altogether. But Apple is only telling Samsung to come up with their own baby.
Certainly the ideas of rectangular device with rounded corners came out before the iPhone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Apple does an amazing job of taking ideas from others, and improving those ideas, and doing a great marketing job. But practically ever big idea from Apple, did not originate from Apple.
The Prada phone obviously did not influence the iPhone. The mere idea is sillly. On the other hand, Android was very clearly inspired by iOS and the iPhone. Have you seen what Android was like even just months before the iPhone was introduced? It was a Blackberry clone. Only after the iPhone came out did it find something better to copy.
Apple did not invent:
- the PC
- the GUI
- the mp3 player
- the online music store
- the smart phone
- the tablet computer
- or much of anything else.
In every single one of those cases, they were the first to create a product that people actually bought.
So isn't Apple just as much of a "copycat" as anybody?
In each and every one of the cases you listed, Apple broke new ground and created something like had never existed before. Only then did others look at what Apple had done and began to copy them. It's not "copying" just because you make a product that someone else may have already thought of, but it is copying when your version is a copy of someone else's design. In every one of the examples you listed, any products that existed before Apple's where notably clunkier and had extremely low consumer appeal, and the products that followed Apple's successful introductions all somehow ended up looking more like what Apple had created than what had come before.
So, who's the copycat?
Apple is doing so much better than its competition, this article is delusional. Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them? They can come up with their own unique designs. This lawsuit fits perfectly with this idea. No need to project some sort of desperation scenario.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share (iOS maintains a significant lead over Android, and always has, although on Slashdot ignorance is bliss, so I fully expect some replies from people ignorantly claiming this isn't true), and Apple's market share is increasing, and their revenues are increasing, and their profits are increasing. They are the most financially successful cell phone maker on the planet. They do not fear Google's business model. Why would they when their own is working so well? Not just working well, but working significantly better than that of anyone else?
This article is just the same old uninformed nonsense you expect from people who don't understand that the reason people make money is to buy things. Just because something is free (or "less than free") does not mean people will want it, nor does it mean that people won't pay more for something else. Store shelves wouldn't contain name brands if people always chose the cheapest option.
iOS far outsells Android, yet clearly Apple's business model is doomed? Brilliant!
His prediction did not happen. That's called being wrong.
Sorry, my mistake. The Etch-A-Sketch is probably more useful.
You left out the Etch-a-Sketch, which is roughly in the same class as the tablets listed.
Carrying a keyboard around with you in addition to a tablet doesn't make much sense. Take a $500-$800 tablet and add a $99 accessory that now has less functionality, is more cumbersome, and is considerably more expensive than a $400 notebook. How does that make sense?
An iPad that a person will actually bring with them and use is infinitely more functional than a $400 notebook that they will leave behind, run out of power, or leave shut on their desk or in their bag.
Specifically for note taking, the apps for the iPad are more capable then you'll find in standard Windows or Mac software. Audio recording with annotation, stylus input, etc.
And an iPad, even with a keyboard case, is not more cumbersome than a notebook. It's not even more cumbersome than a netbook. But I really don't think many people would opt for the keyboard, just use the one that's built in.
Here's how a sane person interprets his statements:
A sane person interprets his comments as: "The iPhone will fail, Windows Mobile will dominate it", and that's not what happened. He's wrong. His reasoning doesn't count for shit when his conclusion is wrong.
There's no way around it, he was wrong, wrong, wrong. The only thing you are potentially right about is that his reasoning may have been sound. That doesn't make him right. He made a prediction and it didn't come true. That's called being wrong, by sane people and a large portion of the insane.
It's $29, and works with any camera. That's not expensive, nor is it hobbled to any but a small niche of geeks.
A USB SD card reader that reads SD/SDHC cards costs a dollar. Of course if you wanted to go with a brand name such as Sandisk for your reader that would set you back a whopping three dollars.
What a load of shit. You can also buy iPad SD adaptors from other companies if you want, but your comparison is irrational. The adaptors you are linking to don't have a dock connector, they don't include two adaptors, and they don't connect to an iPad. Also, you are not comparing the price of buying them in a store, which is usually about $20, you're comparing the cheapest price you can find straight off the docks (or even straight out of the factories in China). Few people buy their parts this way.
All of this, of course, ignores the original question of whether or not $29 is "expensive". It's not.
So Apple's dongle enjoys a mere 10 times more expensive that an equivalent reader that plugs into a USB port. And yes it is hobbled since SD cards work in a variety of roles, and in a variety of applications not just for pictures and not just in blessed apps e.g. transferring files like documents, videos & music between devices.
I'll just quote what I originally wrote, since you clearly didn't read it the first time through;
"nor is it hobbled to any but a small niche of geeks"
Congratulations on being in the small percentage of people for whom the port is "hobbled". Ironically, the micro SD slot in the Xoom is even more hobbled, but I'm sure you'll let that one slide.
There is no point trying to defend this practice, it's deliberately done to fleece and limit users, no other reason.
Neither, actually. It's not done to "limit users". By definition, it adds capabilities to the user. How ignorantly Orwellian of you. And $29 for two adaptors that let you connect a camera to your iPad is not "fleecing". If you think it is, buy one from someone else. Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy one of theirs.
Considering 95% of all tablets in the wild (meaning the iPad) have no SD Card, having a card reader in a tablet is still somewhat of a novelty. How Apple gets away with that kind of thing I'll never know.
It's an add-on for those that want one.
It's an expensive, hobbled add-on.
It's $29, and works with any camera. That's not expensive, nor is it hobbled to any but a small niche of geeks.
The fact that he was wrong is what made his prediction invalid.
Every invalid prediction is based on faulty assumptions, faulty facts, or faulty logic. It doesn't matter which of the three you get wrong, you're still wrong.
If Android missteps the manufacturers switch to Windows or something else. If Apple missteps then what?
What's Windows Phone have to do with comparing Android with iOS? Are you sure you want to switch the argument to the hardware side? Because if you do, you do realize the iPhone is the top selling smartphone model.
And by misstep I mean something along the lines of OS6 through OS8. Years of putting out the most disastrously bad operating system that it would have driving Apple out of business if Microsoft didn't invest $150M in them in 97.
Apple had billions of dollars in cash when MS invested $150M. The investment wasn't about helping Apple, it was a settlement to end their ongoing legal dispute. System 6 and System 7, then Mac OS 7 through Mac OS 9, were great systems, they just weren't modern. None of them were a "misstep".
The installed base for iOS is over what, 60 million units?
Over 200 million units by the time Summer starts.
Android tablet/netbook hybrid gets thumbs up from Android blog...
In other news, AppleInsider likes some Apple products.
The real question is whether the market will give the EeePad (and you guys thought "iPad" is was a dumb name?) a thumbs up. I wouldn't get my hopes up. They may very well sell a few thousand, though, making it one of the top Android tablets, so there's that.
Considering 95% of all tablets in the wild (meaning the iPad) have no SD Card, having a card reader in a tablet is still somewhat of a novelty. How Apple gets away with that kind of thing I'll never know.
It's an add-on for those that want one.
Profits are important obviously but even if certain Android handset manufacturers perish there are others who will fill the void. Apple is all or nothing iPhone. If there is a misstep with iOS it's all they have. And considering the missteps Apple made in the 90s there is nothing saying it can't happen again - especially after Jobs leaves.
How is that any different with Android? How is it more likely that Apple will "misstep with iOS" than Google will "misstep with Android"?
And, you're right that "there is nothing saying it can't happen", but there is no reason to expect it. What sort of "misstep" do you have in mind, other than as a nebulous and undefined "ooh, scary!" idea without any substance behind it?
Because by going by OS, you HAVE to include, iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad.
No, you don't. Just like you don't HAVE to include HP's printers that run Android, or the MP3 players that run Android, or the e-readers that run Android, or the Sony TVs that run Android.
No, it's not "just like" that at all. They are not running anything recognizable as Android, even if that's what they are running under the hood. Your argument would make more sense if someone was claiming that the AppleTV should be counted towards iOS. But no one has claimed that, because like your argument, it would be nonsensical.
The point isn't about selling apps. This article isn't even about apps sales. We are talking about Smartphones and whatever you want to call iPods they aren't Smartphones. And I am pretty sure that most people buy an iPod to listen to music. I don't have a statistic but I would guess it's a pretty safe bet.
And most people buy phones to make calls and text. Calling the iPod touch simply an MP3 player is absolutely nonsensical.
There's no single model of Windows laptop that's outselling the MacBook. So I guess Windows is a dismal failure in the market, right?
How did you get that from what he wrote? He never said Android was a failure. If Android had the 80% market dominance that Windows has, I don't think there'd be any doubt that it was successful. But it doesn't. iOS far outsells Android.
Why can't I go by OS and platform?
Because it's contrived. "Hey, everybody, look at this one (and only one) combination of numbers! It makes Android look better than iOS, even though by any other measure, Android is doing worse than iOS."
When you buy a phone, there are five considerations: carrier, ongoing costs, upfront cost, hardware features, OS. Roughly in that order. Very few people go out of their way to buy Android phones. When AT&T was the sole carrier of the iPhone, hoards of people switched to AT&T for no reason than to buy the iPhone. Few people switched carriers for Android when it was carrier-limited.
Android's success in the mobile market doesn't really say much at all about the OS itself. On things like portable media devices and tablets, the OS choice becomes much more important. For a year now, we've been hearing about how Android tablets will do to the iPad what Android phones have done to the iPhone. That's based on the delusion that people actually, specifically, want the Android platform itself.
He was right based on the state of things at that time. That prediction was based on the ridiculously high price of the iPhone, before they lowered it a few hundred dollars.
All you stated was that he had a reason to think he was right, and that reason turned out to be wrong. How is that any different from being wrong, which he clearly was?