# [RP] Samsung’s New Entry-Level Galaxy Ace Plus Copies iPhone 3G Design Almost Entirely



## _Chimera

I think this phone is an obvious "Sue me, I dare you".


----------



## lordikon

Physical similarities, is that all?

Seriously, the shape, and color are similar, and both have a single button at the bottom. Is that really worth a lawsuit?


----------



## paulerxx

Samsung just flipped off Apple.


----------



## Licht

Samsung deserves what Samsung is about to get.


----------



## IcedEarth

Samsung's lawyers couldn't even tell the difference between a Galaxy Tab and an iPad in court. They don't stand a chance at identifying this one.


----------



## Usario

That's flat-out stupid.

Samsung is going to lose this one.


----------



## Hobybobag

Personally I've never bought a phone because of it's shape >_>


----------



## jjsoviet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> Samsung's lawyers couldn't even tell the difference between a Galaxy Tab and an iPad in court. They don't stand a chance at identifying this one.


I could tell from the home button and the camera placement.


----------



## IcedEarth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jjsoviet*
> 
> I could tell from the home button and the camera placement.


You're tech savvy.

A lot of people on this site seem to forget that.

A lot of you seem to think that iOS is too dumbed down and simplistic, which for the most part this is true. You do however have to remember that you are in the 95th percentile in regards to actually being a technology hobbyist.

Common folk couldn't tell you the difference between OSX and Windows, never mind something as subtle as a rectangular button versus a circular button. To the masses, this is pretty much an iPhone and I'll be damned if they would be able to tell them apart without getting up close and personal. Even Touchwiz imitates iOS with its sliding app drawer.

The differences between the two are way too subtle, Apple are winning this one without a shadow of a doubt and rightly so too.


----------



## Celeras

Because it only has one physical button? Newsflash: the iPhone wasn't the first device to do this, and it won't be the last. Just by glancing you can tell the Samsung device is thinner, wider, and has different hardware placement. Give me a break.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jjsoviet*
> 
> I could tell from the home button and the camera placement.


and the search feature in the start menu in Windows Vista and 7 isn't a rip off of Spotlight on OS X because it's in the lower left corner instead of the upper right


----------



## Celeras

P.S. It looks more like the original Galaxy Ace than it does the iPhone.


----------



## jjsoviet

P.P.S. the Galaxy Ace is based on its much older feature phone cousin, the Samsung Star:


----------



## ForumViewer

I don't know what's more appalling, the name or the design.


----------



## MaxFTW

Samsung has there trollface equipped


----------



## Arkuatic

I hope you all realize that in the current state of technology there are going to be similarities in case designs, especially in tablets. No one is going to make a product without curves in a shallow world. Throw down the best parts and provide two completely separate teams and they will create a product with a similar design.


----------



## psycow

*Galaxy Ace*
Height: 112.4 mm
Width: 59.9 mm
Depth: 11.5 mm
Weight: 113 grams

*iPhone 3GS*
Height: 115.5 mm
Width: 62.1 mm
Depth: 12.3 mm
Weight: 135 grams

Oh Yeah totally the same phone... Im soooooo looking forward to Apple entering the TV market,
so Samsung, Philips/LG and Sony can sue them into the ground for making a square tv.... and then offcause all the fanbois defending Apple...


----------



## ForumViewer

How can you guys continue to defend a company that so blatantly, so obviously, even shamefully rips off another company's design? Hiding behind the argument that all designs are going to be similar is a straw argument. If Apple were to start copying someone else's design like this, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. If its such an obvious design, Samsung would've come out with it first. But they didn't. At this point it's clear that Samsung is doing nothing but riding on Apple's coattails, trying to create a product that looks virtually identical to the iPhone. If it's not the phone, it's the box comes in, it's the cable that you use to charge it, etc. etc. There is nothing unique about any of Samsung's designs.


----------



## 179232

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dranx*
> 
> P.P.P.S. the Samsung Star is based on its much older feature phone cousin, the Brick:


----------



## psycow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> If Apple were to start copying someone else's design like this, you guys would be screaming bloody murder.


But Apple IS doing that, thats the whole point, they keep borrowing from everyone before them,
then patenting it, and calling it "THEIRE" magic formula(see the Ipad).


----------



## Dranx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> How can you guys continue to defend a company that so blatantly, so obviously, even shamefully rips off another company's design? Hiding behind the argument that all designs are going to be similar is a straw argument. If Apple were to start copying someone else's design like this, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. If its such an obvious design, Samsung would've come out with it first. But they didn't. At this point it's clear that Samsung is doing nothing but riding on Apple's coattails, trying to create a product that looks virtually identical to the iPhone. If it's not the phone, it's the box comes in, it's the cable that you use to charge it, etc. etc. There is nothing unique about any of Samsung's designs.


Right because
This


looks virtually identical to


----------



## MARK-20

Who cares? My house looks similar to my nextdoor neighbours but Im not going to sue them over it


----------



## ForumViewer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *psycow*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> If Apple were to start copying someone else's design like this, you guys would be screaming bloody murder.
> 
> 
> 
> But Apple IS doing that, thats the whole point, they keep borrowing from everyone before them,
> then patenting it, and calling it "THEIRE" magic formula(see the Ipad).
Click to expand...

What did the iPad rip off?


----------



## Stealth Pyros

http://www.buzzom.com/2010/01/is-apple-ipad-a-copy-of-chinese-device-p88/


----------



## Higgins

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> What did the iPad rip off?


He's saying there were many tablets on the market before the iPad was launched. Apple acts as if it invented the tablet when it released the iPad.


----------



## redsunx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_Chimera*
> 
> I think this phone is an obvious "Sue me, I dare you".


Yep, it's like Coyote and Road runner this time.


----------



## geoxile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> Samsung's lawyers couldn't even tell the difference between a Galaxy Tab and an iPad in court. They don't stand a chance at identifying this one.


Way to misinform. It was only one lawyer who couldn't. Another lawyer correctly identified it pretty quickly according to just about every article of the story. For that matter I probably couldn't tell apart most tablets from 10ft, though my vision is pretty bad.

On topic: Companies and consumers need to get over these fugly designs. So many of the phones and tablets out today are completely generic and uninspired as the one before it. I mean damn, take a look at the Zune HD. That was a beautifully designed piece of hardware. Make that a little bit bigger and make it a phone and I would eat it up


----------



## X-Nine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Higgins*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> What did the iPad rip off?
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying there were many tablets on the market before the iPad was launched. Apple acts as if it invented the tablet when it released the iPad.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps that's YOUR perception of it. Apple has made lots of tech better. MP3 players, phones, tablets, GUI. I have yet to see a claim where Apple has stated "we invented portable MP3 players, tablets, and smart phones."

Yet I keep seeing people on OCN bring up the argument as if they have.


----------



## dkL33t

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XNine*
> 
> Or perhaps that's YOUR perception of it. Apple has made lots of tech better. MP3 players, phones, tablets, GUI. I have yet to see a claim where Apple has stated "we invented portable MP3 players, tablets, and smart phones."
> Yet I keep seeing people on OCN bring up the argument as if they have.


And others have made even better tech than Apple after Apple took the lead.


----------



## Celeras

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XNine*
> 
> Or perhaps that's YOUR perception of it. Apple has made lots of tech better. MP3 players, phones, tablets, GUI. .


They legitimately made MP3 players better by giving them a touchscreen and OS. It was a good idea. Then they "made phones better" by taking their MP3 touchscreen, and slapping a cell network on top of it. Then they "made tablets better" by taking their MP3 touchscreen, and blowing it up to 5 times its original size.

That's not perception, that's fact. iPod Touch's were pretty cool for what they were, it's everything that was done afterwards that has people at Apple's throat. And rightfully so.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> http://www.buzzom.com/2010/01/is-apple-ipad-a-copy-of-chinese-device-p88/


Apple didn't copy that LOL.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Higgins*
> 
> He's saying there were many tablets on the market before the iPad was launched. Apple acts as if it invented the tablet when it released the iPad.


But Apple re-invented it.


----------



## edalbkrad

lol at apple. They can do nothing about this since their parts come from samsung.


----------



## baws

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Physical similarities, is that all?
> Seriously, the shape, and color are similar, and both have a single button at the bottom. Is that really worth a lawsuit?


Apple finds basically anything worth a lawsuit or patent these days.


----------



## Concept_357

I can't believe people are defending Samsung, It's just because they ripped off Apple's design that they feel obligated to defend Samsung. This is quite blatantly a design copy of the original 3GS. Don't tell me they look completely different and tell me one is 1.4mm wider than the other (BIG DEAL), they're own lawyer couldn't tell the difference between an Ipad and a a GTII!

Samsung deserves what they're going to get. I hate Apple's business philosophy, but what Sammy is doing is just ridiculous.


----------



## jjsoviet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> How can you guys continue to defend a company that so blatantly, so obviously, even shamefully rips off another company's design? Hiding behind the argument that all designs are going to be similar is a straw argument. If Apple were to start copying someone else's design like this, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. If its such an obvious design, Samsung would've come out with it first. But they didn't. At this point it's clear that Samsung is doing nothing but riding on Apple's coattails, trying to create a product that looks virtually identical to the iPhone. If it's not the phone, it's the box comes in, it's the cable that you use to charge it, etc. etc. There is nothing unique about any of Samsung's designs.


Nothing unique?

Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus, Epic 4G, Captivate, DROID Charge, Galaxy Note and Galaxy S II disagree with you.


----------



## ThirtySixNights

I think this is hilarious.
Good on you Samsung.

Copyright of such a simple, uncharacteristic shape is just outright ridiculous.

It's like how Apple claimed copyright over rounded edges on smart devices to sue Samsung for their Galaxy Tab design, how can you claim such a thing?!

You don't see mouse manufacturers going around and sueing eachother to non-existence just because they've copied the design for 'sculpted mice'. It's because mice are required to be in such formats and shapes, phones and smartphones are just like this.

Almost all smartphones at least have distinct similarities in their design and this is not because they went and got the blueprints for another phone and then just copied them, making a few changes here and there.

It's because they are designed to do the exact same thing, and that's sit in someone's hand.


----------



## Concept_357

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Celeras*
> 
> They legitimately made MP3 players better by giving them a touchscreen and OS. It was a good idea. Then they "made phones better" by taking their MP3 touchscreen, and slapping a cell network on top of it. Then they "made tablets better" by taking their MP3 touchscreen, and blowing it up to 5 times its original size.
> That's not perception, that's fact. iPod Touch's were pretty cool for what they were, it's everything that was done afterwards that has people at Apple's throat. And rightfully so.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThirtySixNights*
> 
> I think this is hilarious.
> Good on you Samsung.
> Copyright of such a simple, uncharacteristic shape is just outright ridiculous.
> It's like how Apple claimed copyright over rounded edges on smart devices to sue Samsung for their Galaxy Tab design, how can you claim such a thing?!
> You don't see mouse manufacturers going around and sueing eachother to non-existence just because they've copied the design for 'sculpted mice'. It's because mice are required to be in such formats and shapes, phones and smartphones are just like this.
> Almost all smartphones at least have distinct similarities in their design and this is not because they went and got the blueprints for another phone and then just copied them, making a few changes here and there.
> It's because they are designed to do the exact same thing, and that's sit in someone's hand.


You would not be saying this if Apple "copied" someone else's design.


----------



## tsm106

Coughs, xerox...


----------



## X-Nine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106*
> 
> Coughs, xerox...


You do realize that Xerox had zero intention of using the mouse or the GUI, right? The big-wigs didn't take to the idea of using a mouse or GUI, and Apple then PURCHASED the rights for those items knowing that the GUI was going to be the next evolutionary step in the desktop world. Apple even hired several Xerox PARC developers to assist in making the Macintosh.


----------



## Concept_357

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XNine*
> 
> You do realize that Xerox had zero intention of using the mouse or the GUI, right? The big-wigs didn't take to the idea of using a mouse or GUI, and Apple then PURCHASED the rights for those items knowing that the GUI was going to be the next evolutionary step in the desktop world. Apple even hired several Xerox PARC developers to assist in making the Macintosh.


Correct.
Also, Xerox is irrelevent here since we're talking about companies copying eachothers designs whereas xerox's technlology was purchased by Apple.


----------



## ForumViewer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThirtySixNights*
> 
> I think this is hilarious.
> Good on you Samsung.
> 
> Copyright of such a simple, uncharacteristic shape is just outright ridiculous.
> 
> It's like how Apple claimed copyright over rounded edges on smart devices to sue Samsung for their Galaxy Tab design, how can you claim such a thing?!
> 
> You don't see mouse manufacturers going around and sueing eachother to non-existence just because they've copied the design for 'sculpted mice'. It's because mice are required to be in such formats and shapes, phones and smartphones are just like this.
> 
> Almost all smartphones at least have distinct similarities in their design and this is not because they went and got the blueprints for another phone and then just copied them, making a few changes here and there.
> 
> It's because they are designed to do the exact same thing, and that's sit in someone's hand.


Given Samsungs history, you don't think they deliberately copied the iPhones design to make it look more like an Apple product in this case?


----------



## Strider_2001

Its cause apple is scarred of the success of some of these phones...so their only cars to play is to sue...i mean a lady can sue for spilling her own coffee on her lap and win 2 million dollars...apple might as well try a lawsuit...

Time for the dunder mifflin triangle tab...

And doesnt samsung make the cpus in apple devices...Ironic???


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Dont see the problem, Apple stopped iPhone 3G design. Samsung i using forgotten ideal.


----------



## Cyrilmak

Kinda reminds me of the Samsung Instinct.


----------



## MAD_J

Samsung cant deny that they coppied that one. Sure its different but not enough.


----------



## Concept_357

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Strider_2001*
> 
> Its cause apple is scarred of the success of some of these phones...so their only cars to play is to sue...i mean a lady can sue for spilling her own coffee on her lap and win 2 million dollars...apple might as well try a lawsuit...
> Time for the dunder mifflin triangle tab...
> And doesnt samsung make the cpus in apple devices...Ironic???


Do you actually think Apple is scared of these products? Apple dosen't need to sue other companies to have profitable sales. They're doing it because they truly believe that these companies have ripped off their designs. With the Apple II, the Macintosh, the Ipod, the Iphone and the Ipad, Apple has showed the world the way of the future, except they don't see it like tat, they believe their innovations truly belong to them and them alone, not the world...


----------



## brucethemoose

Samsung is just trying to inflame Apple and start a patent war. The Samsung Series 7 is a straight up MBP clone (a cheaper one too, which I'm fine with), the Series 9 came out before other Macbook air clones COUGH COUGH, ahem, ultrabooks came out, we got the anti-apple commercial, and now we get this.

It' war now. Should be fun to watch, and it may force Apple to start innovating and setting trends more like they used too. But it'll probably just make lawyers money.


----------



## Shozzking

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> How can you guys continue to defend a company that so blatantly, so obviously, even shamefully rips off another company's design? Hiding behind the argument that all designs are going to be similar is a straw argument. If Apple were to start copying someone else's design like this, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. If its such an obvious design, Samsung would've come out with it first. But they didn't. At this point it's clear that Samsung is doing nothing but riding on Apple's coattails, trying to create a product that looks virtually identical to the iPhone. If it's not the phone, it's the box comes in, it's the cable that you use to charge it, etc. etc. There is nothing unique about any of Samsung's designs.


Ever heard of the LG Prada, it came out before the very first iphone yet it looks extremely similar to the iphone 4.

What do you think of that?


----------



## darthspartan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shozzking*
> 
> Ever heard of the LG Prada, it came out before the very first iphone yet it looks extremely similar to the iphone 4.
> 
> What do you think of that?


Thank You! Apples whole "We own that shape thing." Just gets to me on every level seriously im gonna patent a device in the shape of a circle its so vague i can sue brigestone tires for copying my design


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shozzking*
> 
> Ever heard of the LG Prada, it came out before the very first iphone yet it looks extremely similar to the iphone 4.
> 
> What do you think of that?


LOL thank you

Just like the samsung commercial stated how many of apples fans are sheeps.

Apple innovated what? nothing tablets have been out way before this stupid large ipod touch that they call an ipad. Everything still looks almost the same from most of the apple phones the only REAL big change was from the 3gs to the iphone 4. But how much has the OS changed? Need I remind you that it took until the 3gs for apple to include SMS ......... -_- Apple is scared of these phone companies because more people are starting to realize how much a rip off apple is. I would rather keep my HTC thunderbolt then to ever grab an iphone.


----------



## -iceblade^

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> The iPhone 3GS, which looks exactly the same as it's slower predecessor, is easily Apple's best release to date. Not in terms of features of course, but the device was still reeling in new customers some two-and-a-half years after its initial release - right up until the iPhone 4S dropped in October of last year. Perhaps Samsung decided the tried and tested method would be better than, say, innovating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung deserve a lawsuit for this one. Hell I thought the GSII lawsuit was justified (and I'm an owner of said phone), this just takes the biscuit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source
Click to expand...

it looks like a galaxy S II / note though?


----------



## tompsonn

I recon both companies stink and we should all give up playing snakes and ladders over it.
What are we all? Two? Sure Samsung looks like they took ideas from the 3GS design, but who cares? Apple... maybe.

Oops, --insert monitor manufacturer here-- took the idea of putting an LCD panel within a rectangular bezel from --insert monitor manufacturer here--!

Looks play a part in a device of course, but I think things should be more focused on what the device can actually do.

EDIT: I am getting sick of this forum stripping out things that LOOK like HTML tags when they are not!


----------



## poyyiee

Average joe could easily identify the different, Samsung doesn't have fruit logo on it..


----------



## HA3AP

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Celeras*
> 
> They legitimately made MP3 players better by giving them a touchscreen and OS. It was a good idea. Then they "made phones better" by taking their MP3 touchscreen, and slapping a cell network on top of it. Then they "made tablets better" by taking their MP3 touchscreen, and blowing it up to 5 times its original size.
> That's not perception, that's fact. iPod Touch's were pretty cool for what they were, it's everything that was done afterwards that has people at Apple's throat. And rightfully so.


Get your info right before following the sheep kid. 1) Apples first MP3 is not the itouch. 2) The iphone was released before the itouch 3) they did make tablets better, hence all and every major player is making one right now, AFTER apple created the market by introducing the ipad.


----------



## robwadeson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Physical similarities, is that all?
> Seriously, the shape, and color are similar, and both have a single button at the bottom. Is that really worth a lawsuit?


anything is worth a lawsuit simply by exaggerating potential damage.


----------



## L D4WG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shozzking*
> 
> Ever heard of the LG Prada, it came out before the very first iphone yet it looks extremely similar to the iphone 4.
> 
> What do you think of that?


I think no one has ever heard of the LG Prada... No one purchased it... and in this instance, Apple created a much more successful product... If they did take some design from it, it was not because it was a successful revolutionary design.

The difference is the iPhone IS a successful, well known look, and Samsung has copied it because of that, to trick non tech savvy people into thinking they have purchased something else, or to make them think they have purchased a cheaper phone that does the same thing as an iPhone.

ON TOPIC:

The OP is a blatant rip of of the 3G / 3GS design, and Samsung deserves to be sued.

They did the same thing with the Tablet cover, the look, design and functionality of the iPad 2 Smart Cover and simply called it the Smart Case...

Looks similar right...


----------



## Garvani

are you guys serious.. yes the shape is similar but they look obviously different, theres no way you could sue over this but im picking that apple will


----------



## Frankzro

I am starting to hate Samsung phones... alot of people say that their phones are great and that the screens save battery ,but I disagree with that entirely... Battery life is actually worst on Samsung phones than most phones due to the screen size and brightness... turn on 100% brightness I dare you... watch the Battery eat itself alive. My Captivate was a great phone and then I noticed that I was never really using the full potential of the screen and when I wanted to the phone would die super fast. I trust Motorola now... they never really gave me issues anyway. This phone on the thread.. seriously? one button...?

Here is my response to that ...

Take that phone... and pick it up and hit yourself in the face with it has hard as possible because innovation does not mean going backwards... ok Im done this pissed me off. -__-


----------



## Conner

Apple will sue you over your own intellectual property. Sometimes they succeed, this one is a much better case then some/most previous ones.


----------



## jetplane48

Slap in the face


----------



## -iceblade^

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L D4WG*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Shozzking*
> 
> Ever heard of the LG Prada, it came out before the very first iphone yet it looks extremely similar to the iphone 4.
> 
> What do you think of that?
> 
> 
> 
> *I think no one has ever heard of the LG Prada... No one purchased it...* and in this instance, Apple created a much more successful product... If they did take some design from it, it was not because it was a successful revolutionary design.
> 
> The difference is the iPhone IS a successful, well known look, and Samsung has copied it because of that, to trick non tech savvy people into thinking they have purchased something else, or to make them think they have purchased a cheaper phone that does the same thing as an iPhone.
> ]
Click to expand...

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/09/lg-prada-sales/
Quote:


> LG announced global sales of the LG Prada phone have crossed one million units, nearly a year-and-a-half after the phone was launched in March 2007.


may not be as fast as the iphone but 1m sales is nothing to sniff at


----------



## L D4WG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-iceblade^*
> 
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/09/lg-prada-sales/
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> LG announced global sales of the LG Prada phone have crossed one million units, nearly a year-and-a-half after the phone was launched in March 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> may not be as fast as the iphone but 1m sales is nothing to sniff at
Click to expand...

The iPhone 4S sole over a million in the first 24 hours.... So yes, 1 Million sold in a year is something to sniff at in comparison.


----------



## triarii3

it's not about the physical shape. it's the meaning of it. when the majority of the population see it, they will make a connection to the iphone 3g for sure. and obviously samsung is trying to ride off the apple ass


----------



## redsunx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L D4WG*
> 
> The iPhone 4S sole over a million in the first 24 hours.... So yes, 1 Million sold in a year is something to sniff at in comparison.


He's got a source. Lets see yours.


----------



## X-Nine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Shozzking*
> 
> Ever heard of the LG Prada, it came out before the very first iphone yet it looks extremely similar to the iphone 4.
> 
> What do you think of that?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL thank you
> 
> Just like the samsung commercial stated how many of apples fans are sheeps.
> 
> Apple innovated what? nothing tablets have been out way before this stupid large ipod touch that they call an ipad. Everything still looks almost the same from most of the apple phones the only REAL big change was from the 3gs to the iphone 4. But how much has the OS changed? Need I remind you that it took until the 3gs for apple to include SMS ......... -_- Apple is scared of these phone companies because more people are starting to realize how much a rip off apple is. I would rather keep my HTC thunderbolt then to ever grab an iphone.
Click to expand...

And people like you have no place in the tech world. You have no idea what the word "innovation" even means. Name one single Tablet that could do what the iPad does that came out before the iPad. You can't. Because there wasn't. Apple has always prided itself on the USER EXPERIENCE, the user INTERFACE, and making these work like second nature. That's innovation. Apple is the sole reason you even have a modern-day desktop with a GUI and a mouse. Apple pioneered the personal computer. Know your history.

Apple-haters like yourself are FAR more sheepish than most Apple fans. Hell, I love my Nexus One, best phone I've ever used, but I'm definitely considering the iPhone. It's sleek, fast, easy to use and has a much more robust market for more useful apps.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *redsunx*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *L D4WG*
> 
> The iPhone 4S sole over a million in the first 24 hours.... So yes, 1 Million sold in a year is something to sniff at in comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> He's got a source. Lets see yours.
Click to expand...

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/10/iphone-4s-sells-one-million-in-24-hours/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/10iPhone-4S-Pre-Orders-Top-One-Million-in-First-24-Hours.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2011/10/10/apple-sold-1m-iphone-4s-in-24-hours.html
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2011/10/iphone-4s-sold-out-for-launch-day-in-less-than-24-hours-at-apple.html
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/apple-breaks-pre-sale-records-with-iphone-4s/

Would you like more?


----------



## -iceblade^

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L D4WG*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *-iceblade^*
> 
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/09/lg-prada-sales/
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> LG announced global sales of the LG Prada phone have crossed one million units, nearly a year-and-a-half after the phone was launched in March 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> may not be as fast as the iphone but 1m sales is nothing to sniff at
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The iPhone 4S sole over a million in the first 24 hours.... So yes, 1 Million sold in a year is something to sniff at in comparison.
Click to expand...

i disagree. your initial contention was that the prada wasn't bought by anyone. while an exaggeration it's also blatantly wrong. i never disagreed that the iphone sold higher or better, but rather my point has been that the prada has sold more than just "nothing" and like the person i quoted said, it also looks rather similar to the iphone 4 despite coming out way earlier.

sword cuts both ways


----------



## dkL33t

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Concept_357*
> 
> I can't believe people are defending Samsung, It's just because they ripped off Apple's design that they feel obligated to defend Samsung. This is quite blatantly a design copy of the original 3GS. Don't tell me they look completely different and tell me one is 1.4mm wider than the other (BIG DEAL), they're own lawyer couldn't tell the difference between an Ipad and a a GTII!
> Samsung deserves what they're going to get. I hate Apple's business philosophy, but what Sammy is doing is just ridiculous.


You can't believe anything can you?


----------



## Silent8Strike

Anyone else notice that the capacitive back and menu buttons were conveniently missing from the pics? Those alone make a big difference in the phones design compared to apple's "more than one button is too complex" design. This is just a glossy backed version of the original Ace, which as you can see looks like this:

Samsung even moved the camera to the middle so it wouldnt be so much like the the 3G. Honestly though it does look like the 3G, and I'm sure Samsung knows it. Guess that means Samsung is just poking Apple with a stick, and good for them.

On another note that smart cover lawsuit is complete rubbish. First, Samsung said they never even sold the cover, second Samsung said the lawsuit wasnt even about the cover at all.
Quote:


> We would like to clarify that the additional claims filed by Apple in Australia do not relate to protective case accessories, as has been indicated in some media reports. In fact, the intellectual property asserted are patents related to the utility of mobile devices and design rights related to the external appearance of devices. We are confident we can demonstrate that the GALAXY range of devices is innovative and distinctive, and will take all available measures to ensure our products remain available to consumers in Australia.


Source


----------



## jellis142

Companies are taking advantage of courts that can't tell the difference. And it's embarrassing. Personally, the shape of a phone is too general to go through the trouble of filing a lawsuit. Tablets included.

In my eyes, those two phone's aren't similar. Which automatically makes me smarter then most lawyers


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XNine*
> 
> And people like you have no place in the tech world. You have no idea what the word "innovation" even means. Name one single Tablet that could do what the iPad does that came out before the iPad. You can't. Because there wasn't. Apple has always prided itself on the USER EXPERIENCE, the user INTERFACE, and making these work like second nature. That's innovation. Apple is the sole reason you even have a modern-day desktop with a GUI and a mouse. Apple pioneered the personal computer. Know your history.
> Apple-haters like yourself are FAR more sheepish than most Apple fans. Hell, I love my Nexus One, best phone I've ever used, but I'm definitely considering the iPhone. It's sleek, fast, easy to use and has a much more robust market for more useful apps.
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/10/iphone-4s-sells-one-million-in-24-hours/
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/10iPhone-4S-Pre-Orders-Top-One-Million-in-First-24-Hours.html
> http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2011/10/10/apple-sold-1m-iphone-4s-in-24-hours.html
> http://www.iphonehacks.com/2011/10/iphone-4s-sold-out-for-launch-day-in-less-than-24-hours-at-apple.html
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/apple-breaks-pre-sale-records-with-iphone-4s/
> Would you like more?


GUI and mouse? Wasn't Xerox the original creators? Apple used the idea for their personal gain. But so did microsoft who also took the same idea and made it for consumers.

Ipad is just one huge ipod touch so again what innovation? You took the same idea from your ipod touch and just put it on a bigger screen.

Maybe apple should stick to trying patent things that already have been done instead of "innovating" anything

Also you call me a sheep but a sheep of what group is what you failed to add.


----------



## CJRhoades

While I agree that many of Apple's earlier law suits were silly, Samsung deserves to get nailed for this one. Those phones look incredibly similar at a glance and I'm sure they could easily be confused by someone not very tech oriented.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> GUI and mouse? Wasn't Xerox the original creators? Apple used the idea for their personal gain.


Apple bought that tech from Xerox. Xerox wasn't planning to use it anyway.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Dont see the problem, Apple stopped iPhone 3G design. Samsung i using forgotten ideal.


The 3G design is identical to the iPhone 3GS design, and they still sell the iPhone 3GS.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> LOL thank you
> Just like the samsung commercial stated how many of apples fans are sheeps.
> Apple innovated what? nothing tablets have been out way before this stupid large ipod touch that they call an ipad. Everything still looks almost the same from most of the apple phones the only REAL big change was from the 3gs to the iphone 4. But how much has the OS changed? Need I remind you that it took until the 3gs for apple to include SMS ......... -_- Apple is scared of these phone companies because more people are starting to realize how much a rip off apple is. I would rather keep my HTC thunderbolt then to ever grab an iphone.


The tablet was just a niche product until Apple re-invented it and made the iPad. The reason each iPhone looks so similar is because it's the same model of phone.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> Now explain why the Iphone 4S sold that much? Besides obvious fan boys who want the latest even though it's no where near the greatest


It's one of the best, if not the best 3.5 inch smartphone available and it competes strongly with the larger 4+ inch devices.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> The 3G design is identical to the iPhone 3GS design, and they still sell the iPhone 3GS.
> The tablet was just a niche product until Apple re-invented it and made the iPad. The reason each iPhone looks so similar is because it's the same model of phone.
> It's one of the best, if not the best 3.5 inch smartphone available and it competes strongly with the larger 4+ inch devices.


Im just asking what makes it so good ?


----------



## PCSarge

ok, from what i gather you boys are fighting like 5 year old children in here.

apple copied some designs and attempted patents, technically LG could sue them for ever making an iphone, but LG doesnt have anything to lose on the prada design anyways its a been and done dead duck in history.

i do agree the ipad and ipad 2 are just big ipods with glorified features, my friend has one and i hate it, i love my transformer and ill keep it thank you, android is so much more fun compared to iOS.

xerox in fact did sell that technology to apple in 1979 i believe, after steve jobs demanded they sell it to him because they were going to scrap the idea, says so right in the nice autobiography of steve jobs i have right here in my hand that i got as a christmas gift. arguement over.

please act like civil people and adults guys, samsung improves ideas so instantly thier phone is an "iphone copy". please, samsung was innovating and apple is just trying to cut into the cake samsung is baking to kill iphone sales, the buisness and technology world is a game of cat and mouse, today samsung is the cat, and apple feels vulnerable.

*flame suit on*

because i know im gonna get it for this one


----------



## Shozzking

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XNine*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Shozzking*
> 
> Ever heard of the LG Prada, it came out before the very first iphone yet it looks extremely similar to the iphone 4.
> 
> What do you think of that?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL thank you
> 
> Just like the samsung commercial stated how many of apples fans are sheeps.
> 
> Apple innovated what? nothing tablets have been out way before this stupid large ipod touch that they call an ipad. Everything still looks almost the same from most of the apple phones the only REAL big change was from the 3gs to the iphone 4. But how much has the OS changed? Need I remind you that it took until the 3gs for apple to include SMS ......... -_- Apple is scared of these phone companies because more people are starting to realize how much a rip off apple is. I would rather keep my HTC thunderbolt then to ever grab an iphone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people like you have no place in the tech world. You have no idea what the word "innovation" even means. Name one single Tablet that could do what the iPad does that came out before the iPad. You can't. Because there wasn't. Apple has always prided itself on the USER EXPERIENCE, the user INTERFACE, and making these work like second nature. That's innovation. Apple is the sole reason you even have a modern-day desktop with a GUI and a mouse. Apple pioneered the personal computer. Know your history.
> 
> Apple-haters like yourself are FAR more sheepish than most Apple fans. Hell, I love my Nexus One, best phone I've ever used, but I'm definitely considering the iPhone. It's sleek, fast, easy to use and has a much more robust market for more useful apps.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *redsunx*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *L D4WG*
> 
> The iPhone 4S sole over a million in the first 24 hours.... So yes, 1 Million sold in a year is something to sniff at in comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's got a source. Lets see yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/10/iphone-4s-sells-one-million-in-24-hours/
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/10iPhone-4S-Pre-Orders-Top-One-Million-in-First-24-Hours.html
> http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2011/10/10/apple-sold-1m-iphone-4s-in-24-hours.html
> http://www.iphonehacks.com/2011/10/iphone-4s-sold-out-for-launch-day-in-less-than-24-hours-at-apple.html
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/apple-breaks-pre-sale-records-with-iphone-4s/
> 
> Would you like more?
Click to expand...

A sales comparison of the LG Prada and the iPhone 4s is really innaccurate. The Prada was the first full touch phone while the 4s is building upon an already established brand.

A more fair comparison would be the Prada to the original iPhone. The Prada sold 1 million units while the iPhone 2G sold 6 million. Which proves that the Prada was a competitor while it was on the market.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> Im just asking what makes it so good ?


The reason it's so good is because it wasn't anything like previous tablets which ran Windows, had low battery life, and were heavier. The iPad had an OS built for touch input, built for a slate, it was lighter and offered significantly more battery life. I'm pretty sure it was cheaper too. The software was good and Apple built upon their already successful iPhone App Store.

That's why Apple's sold like 70 million iPads or some crazy figure like that.


----------



## Chilly

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Licht*
> 
> Samsung deserves what Samsung is about to get.












Yep, Samsung is now trolling Apple


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> The reason it's so good is because it wasn't anything like previous tablets which ran Windows, had low battery life, and were heavier. The iPad had an OS built for touch input, built for a slate, it was lighter and offered significantly more battery life. I'm pretty sure it was cheaper too. The software was good and Apple built upon their already successful iPhone App Store.
> That's why Apple's sold like 70 million iPads or some crazy figure like that.


No not the tablet I meant the phones. What makes the Iphone so good that every couple of months people have to buy the newer one?


----------



## Mike395

If these were two random companies and two random phones, I'd probably say it's coincidence, as there's only so many ways to make a phone and some are bound to look alike.

But considering the shenanigans going on between Samsung and Apple over the course of the past year or so, and the success of the iPhone 3G(S) design, odds are Samsung really did blatantly decide to rip off the design IMO.


----------



## Shozzking

I just realized that the picture of the phone is incomplete, all android phones need back and menu buttons. They wouldn't work without them. Yet the picture depicts the phone without them.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk


----------



## j0z3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> You're tech savvy.
> A lot of people on this site seem to forget that.
> A lot of you seem to think that iOS is too dumbed down and simplistic, which for the most part this is true. You do however have to remember that you are in the 95th percentile in regards to actually being a technology hobbyist.
> Common folk couldn't tell you the difference between OSX and Windows, never mind something as subtle as a rectangular button versus a circular button. To the masses, this is pretty much an iPhone and I'll be damned if they would be able to tell them apart without getting up close and personal. Even Touchwiz imitates iOS with its sliding app drawer.
> The differences between the two are way too subtle, Apple are winning this one without a shadow of a doubt and rightly so too.


You couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Skoobs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Physical similarities, is that all?
> Seriously, the shape, and color are similar, and both have a single button at the bottom. Is that really worth a lawsuit?


absolutely; apple loves being in court more than they like finding tech guys that have no idea how to fix problems. which is a lot.

its not like this phone will come close to replacing the ipod. apple needs to go drawl under the house and die already. the hipsters are just too much.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> No not the tablet I meant the phones. What makes the Iphone so good that every couple of months people have to buy the newer one?


The majority don't. There's probably some who upgrade yearly if the upgrade is worth it, but most I imagine would upgrade every two years. I bought my 4S about 20 months after my 3GS. I might sell and upgrade to the 5 if the upgrade is significant but probably not, I'd rather put the money towards a gaming PC.


----------



## psycow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> But Apple re-invented it.


Ah ofcause, Samsung is also just "re-inventing" GS2....


----------



## psycow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Concept_357*
> 
> I can't believe people are defending Samsung, It's just because they ripped off Apple's design that they feel obligated to defend Samsung. This is quite blatantly a design copy of the original 3GS. Don't tell me they look completely different and tell me one is 1.4mm wider than the other (BIG DEAL), they're own lawyer couldn't tell the difference between an Ipad and a a GTII!
> 
> Samsung deserves what they're going to get. I hate Apple's business philosophy, but what Sammy is doing is just ridiculous.


Please explain to me HOW you can patent a shape, that has been a open standert for YEARS!
It like me patenting a square house, and then suing everyone thats has one....

And me views are pretty simple: OFCAUSE they look alike... its the ONLY way a phone can look(expact of removing the "home" button), and the real villian here is the US patent office...


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Physical similarities, is that all?
> Seriously, the shape, and color are similar, and both have a single button at the bottom. Is that really worth a lawsuit?


To Apple it is worth the lawsuit. A couple of months ago Apple sued someone (It was Samsung IIRC) because their tablet had a 10.1 inch screen.


----------



## psycow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *triarii3*
> 
> it's not about the physical shape. it's the meaning of it. when the majority of the population see it, they will make a connection to the iphone 3g for sure. and obviously samsung is trying to ride off the apple ass


Only if they are IDIOTS, Apple is so OVER hyped that everyone and their mother knows the diffrents between them and other manufactors


----------



## CJRhoades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *psycow*
> 
> Only if they are IDIOTS, Apple is so OVER hyped that everyone and their mother knows the diffrents between them and other manufactors


So wrong... you obviously have no idea how incredibly technology ignorant most of the world is. I've had people ask me if my Motorola Atrix is an iPhone.

We're all the same way in some form or another. For instance, I could easily tell the difference between different types of phones or computers, but I couldn't for the life of me tell the difference between two different brands of handbags.


----------



## OutlawNeedsHelp

...trollface.jpg.


----------



## psycow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CJRhoades*
> 
> So wrong... you obviously have no idea how incredibly technology ignorant most of the world is. I've had people ask me if my Motorola Atrix is an iPhone.


No, no Im not... atleas not where I live(Denmark, and Ill extend that to every scandinavian country).


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> How can you guys continue to defend a company that so blatantly, so obviously, even shamefully rips off another company's design? Hiding behind the argument that all designs are going to be similar is a straw argument. If Apple were to start copying someone else's design like this, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. If its such an obvious design, Samsung would've come out with it first. But they didn't. At this point it's clear that Samsung is doing nothing but riding on Apple's coattails, trying to create a product that looks virtually identical to the iPhone. If it's not the phone, it's the box comes in, it's the cable that you use to charge it, etc. etc. There is nothing unique about any of Samsung's designs.


So what, cable chargers should now use trapezoidal shapes to avoid 'ripping off Apple', and Samsung's phones shoudl feature triangular screens while coming in hexagonal boxes?

















You're hilarious to read.


----------



## MacA

This is a tough one for Samsung, it looks way too similar.
Denying the fact that Samsung takes advantage of Apple's success (in both the tablet and smartphone markets) is... delusional.
I usually write a huge text to explain that but I got bored of repeating myself so it'll be short. (Check my older posts if you want to)

Look at the tablets market before the iPad, look at it after. See? Apple created that market and took all the risks and now others like Samsung want a piece of the cake. *I'm not blaming them, it's business*. But just stop saying Apple doesn't innovate or is a patent troll, they're defending themselves. Really, you're being the exact thing you seem to hate: sheeps. Hating on Apple makes you feel different from "the masses" maybe? That's what I call being a _hipster_. Not a smart consumer.


----------



## Skrillex

What's funny is Samsung can and do design decent phones that aren't similar to Apple's line of phones.

Galaxy Nexus

Oh no wait just the one, that was co-designed with Google too.

I guess they really don't have any creative thoughts.


----------



## PCSarge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skrillex*
> 
> What's funny is Samsung can and do design decent phones that aren't similar to Apple's line of phones.
> Galaxy Nexus
> Oh no wait just the one, that was co-designed with Google too.
> I guess they really don't have any creative thoughts.


hmm yet samsung was making phones before apple, my dad still uses one of thier old ones, oh wait...that means apple copied samsung getting into the phone buisness, should they sue them now?

^ that text line i typed is as pointless as half the posts in here, samsung can do what the hell they want, they could make a better phone that looks nothing like an iphone,apple will sue them for screen size or something,apple cant improve its own design, so its version of "innovation" is patent trolling and sueing other companies who do.

samsung is a threat to the existence of iphone and ipad, thus constantly brought to court for no reason.


----------



## Dragonii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CJRhoades*
> 
> So wrong... you obviously have no idea *how incredibly technology ignorant most of the world is*. I've had people ask me if my Motorola Atrix is an iPhone.
> We're all the same way in some form or another. For instance, I could easily tell the difference between different types of phones or computers, but I couldn't for the life of me tell the difference between two different brands of handbags.


That I would have to agree with.
I have people at the office ask me all the time about my "iPad" ...



People in general are just ignorant when it comes to tech.

On another note, I do believe that there is only so many ways that you can design a device like a phone. Of course their will be phones that look alike. Did Sammy do this on purpose? Maybe. They may be at the point of frustration with Apple acting like a spoiled little school yard brat that they want to push their buttons.
As someone already said, it will be fun to watch Samsung, Sony, LG, etc sue Apple left and right when they start making TV's.

Personally, I don't buy devices based on looks, so I think this whole argument is childish. I buy my tech based on what it can do... which is why I use Android.
I also recently converted both my mother and my sister from iPhones to Android.... guess what... they have both said that they would never go back to Apple phones.


----------



## X-Nine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MacA*
> 
> This is a tough one for Samsung, it looks way too similar.
> Denying the fact that Samsung takes advantage of Apple's success (in both the tablet and smartphone markets) is... delusional.
> I usually write a huge text to explain that but I got bored of repeating myself so it'll be short. (Check my older posts if you want to)
> 
> Look at the tablets market before the iPad, look at it after. See? Apple created that market and took all the risks and now others like Samsung want a piece of the cake. *I'm not blaming them, it's business*. But just stop saying Apple doesn't innovate or is a patent troll, they're defending themselves. Really, you're being the exact thing you seem to hate: sheeps. Hating on Apple makes you feel different from "the masses" maybe? That's what I call being a _hipster_. Not a smart consumer.


In the end, you won't get through to these people. It's fairly obvious that all of these "tech-experts" on OCN don't know any history behind the technology we all know so much about. All you'll hear from them is the same "Apple is fail, they don't innovate, all they do is copy, all they do is sue, all they do is patent troll." Yet, you won't see them say the same of Samsung, HTC, Microsoft, IBM, AMD, Intel, and countless other tech firms. They're all guilty of it to some degree, some more than others. Unfortunately, they all fail to realize that Apple is less guilty then they make them out to be.

Do I agree with everything Apple does? Absolutely not, but I don't look a gift horse in the mouth, either.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonii*
> 
> it will be fun to watch Samsung, Sony, LG, etc sue Apple left and right when they start making TV's.


Let's just hope Samsung, Sony, LG, etc has already patented things like 720p, 1080p, 1080i, 576i, 16:9, 4:3, rectangles bigger than 20 inches, black screen when it is switched off, stands, wall mounts, internet on TV, WiFi, light indicating if the TV is either on or on standby, logos on the front, back and sides, UI, GUIs, internal speakers, external speakers, colour displays. That way they can beat Apple at their own game.


----------



## DCSRM

bahaha those pics in the OP are great!!

GSII =/= iPhone

This new phone... well... wow.


----------



## Guswut

Even laymen cannot mistake that phone for the iPhone at a distance (notice the well-placed Samsung logos). Besides that, yes, it does look very similar, just like the vast majority of phones on the market. Good luck, Apple, as you're going to need it now what with the mess you've started.


----------



## Newbie2009

Most lcd tv and monitors look similar also. How is this a copy of Apple when samsung logo is on it. If you removed Sony or Samsung logo from an LCD tv, could you tell which company made it?


----------



## prava

This permanent discussion is just getting out of hand...and boring.

I'm sorry for those Apple fanboys...but there are products that will ALWAYS look similar because you just can't make a phone off and odd-shape. You just can't...and it doesn't matter who "RE-INVENTED IT", Apple never invented the squared form for a phone so they can't do anything about it.

Its also funny that people say that "people not tech-savvy would confuse both phones...", oh, right. Would you tell me what brand is each TV, please?





Would you tell me what brand is each camera?





I could keep going all day long, but I won't. The fact of the matter is that everybody's work is inspired but all the prior art...unless you are the REAL inventor off of it, and have the right patent for it. Did Apple create the phone? Nope, it didn't. Did it create the tablet? Nope, it didn't either. What Apple did, and thats something nobody is discussing, is that it modified previous designs and made them both successful and profitable...but heck, didn't Apple get a fortune thanks to it? Thats how the frigging market works, damn it, you create a different product than the competition and, until they have adapted, you get rich with it...but you just can't sue the others for "copying" your work when you did exactly the same thing (and no, the success of a product has nothing to do with the fact that you are copying or not...Apple's work is based off previous work...wether such work was successful is something out of the argument as its pointless).

I'm seriously kinda tired with this rubbish that has all the forums plagued, with people assuming that Apple are the creators of the world we live into...and that all the other companies owe them, when:

Apple hasn't invented any of the product lines it sells (NONE).
Apple is a huge patent troll...whereas the other companies don't use their patents to fight with each other, unless there are legitimate claims (not design ones).
Apple just profits from prior art as everybody else does
Now, to answer the topic:
Is this Samsung phone similar to the 3GS? Sure it is, just as all phones ressemble to all the other existing ones because...mmm...they are phones.
Does "being similar" grant a demand? No, it doesn't. A phone is as it is, as long as they are not exactly equal (and they are not, specially when theyr similarities end when you start them...and, BIG ONE, a mobile phone is not a painting...you actually use it, you know?







) there is nothing to be demanded.


----------



## Dragonii

By the way, asking a lawyer to identify between an iPad and a Galaxy tablet from across the room is about like asking a 16 year girl to identify between an old Dodge Challenger and an old Chevy Camaro.



They don't even recognize the details that make them different.


----------



## Skylit

Just as blatant as HP's new Envy 15 and 17.


----------



## tubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CJRhoades*
> 
> So wrong... you obviously have no idea how incredibly technology ignorant most of the world is. I've had people ask me if my Motorola Atrix is an iPhone.
> We're all the same way in some form or another. For instance, I could easily tell the difference between different types of phones or computers, but I couldn't for the life of me tell the difference between two different brands of handbags.


LOL and 2 weeks ago my aunt got an LG Double Play and I said it wasn't an Iphone. Then she said "It's not!?".

Apparently to those people "touch screen, near iphone size = iphone".

Pretty sure there's tons of people with money who thinks like that.


----------



## LTC

Chillax people! I agree, yes this phone might look like an iPhone, however defending Apple is so wrong to do, with all this lawsuit stuff going around... In this case, yes, defend each company as your want, however as a whole, the Apple company should not be defended, what they have done to the tech world is unbearable, and please, do not quote me on that, replying: "APPLEZ MADE THE IPOD!!! OMGZ! Seriously, if Apple wouldn't have made it, someone else would... Apple is copying everything right now, however they did exactly the same thing back in the days, no Apple did not invent the touchscreen, or the multitouch. They did not invent the tablet, or reinvent it for that matter, yes they did make it userfriendly, and "cool" however its functionality is as much or less that the tablets that were around at the release of the iPad. Oh, and that iPhone 3G? Yeah, why not pay the licens to use the 3G before releasing the phone? Apple is such a dirty company, however ignorant people is ignorant, if they get a iPhone into their hands, they got a worldwide known brand, which makes them "cool" and the iPhone is so popular, which MUST mean, that it's the best phone on the entire planet!


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Personally i buy iPhone for iOS first.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LTC*
> 
> Chillax people! I agree, yes this phone might look like an iPhone, however defending Apple is so wrong to do, with all this lawsuit stuff going around... In this case, yes, defend each company as your want, however as a whole, the Apple company should not be defended, what they have done to the tech world is unbearable, and please, do not quote me on that, replying: "APPLEZ MADE THE IPOD!!! OMGZ! Seriously, if Apple wouldn't have made it, someone else would... Apple is copying everything right now, however they did exactly the same thing back in the days, no Apple did not invent the touchscreen, or the multitouch. They did not invent the tablet, or reinvent it for that matter, yes they did make it userfriendly, and "cool" however its functionality is as much or less that the tablets that were around at the release of the iPad. Oh, and that iPhone 3G? Yeah, why not pay the licens to use the 3G before releasing the phone? Apple is such a dirty company, however ignorant people is ignorant, if they get a iPhone into their hands, they got a worldwide known brand, which makes them "cool" and the iPhone is so popular, which MUST mean, that it's the best phone on the entire planet!


I am going to have to disagree with you about this. Apple may not have invented the phone or tablet, but they certainly established the market. A lot of you seems to have a revisionist view or selective amnesia about things, most likely from established bias towards the company. Unlike most of the sheep and haters on this community, I remember the MP3, cell phone, and tablet market before Apple led the way and each of those markets were beyond stagnated. Let us start with MP3 players first.

Prior to the iPod, there were only small MP3 players like Rio Diamond (most ran on AA batteries) with like up to 32MB of memory storage, MP3/CD players, and the oversized and ugly Jukebox. Apple released a truly portable MP3 player that did not also sacrifice memory size or media type. After that, portable HDD based MP3 players became the trendy flavor.

Prior to the iPhone, we were part of a cellular market ruled by the CARRIERS, where CARRIERS determined what features were allowed on phones. There was a reason why so many smartphone enthusiasts in the US were importing in their phones from overseas. Smartphones were also fairly difficult to use, especially with crap like the Palm Treo. Hell, the best phone readily available in the US at the time was the HTC Touch Pro running Windows Mobile or the Nokia N95. The iPhone brought 2 HUGE changes to the market; the power of deciding what is included on the phone shifted to the manufacturer as carriers not ATT were desperate for their own easy mode smartphone and manufacturers were now driven to develop not only their own smartphones with touch screens, but tailor mobile OS to the touchscreen interface as well.

Prior to the iPad, there was virtually no tablet market. Aside from people who needed tablets due to field work, there was no market or innovation. You had clunky, underpowered crap attempting to run a full blown OS that no one wanted. I don't even need to go into the battery issues. The iPad showed what a consumer could do with a slim, light weight, aesthetically pleasing tablet running a mobile OS. After that, again there was an influx as all the other companies followed suit.

It is easy to say in hindsight, "Well anyone could have done it and someone would have." However, that statement is also very naive and stupid. While anyone could have came up with that idea, the point is that until Apple (who has a consistent history of innovating functionality and creating markets) decided to make the first foray and no one else did. Large companies generally just fall in line and rehash what other companies do because they are afraid to make the huge financial commitment of establishing a new market or even trying something new. Going with what is popular or established has always been safer.


----------



## LTC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> I am going to have to disagree with you about this. Apple may not have invented the phone or tablet, but they certainly established the market. A lot of you seems to have a revisionist view or selective amnesia about things, most likely from established bias towards the company. Unlike most of the sheep and haters on this community, I remember the MP3, cell phone, and tablet market before Apple led the way and each of those markets were beyond stagnated. Let us start with MP3 players first.
> Prior to the iPod, there were only small MP3 players like Rio Diamond (most ran on AA batteries) with like up to 32MB of memory storage, MP3/CD players, and the oversized and ugly Jukebox. Apple released a truly portable MP3 player that did not also sacrifice memory size or media type. After that, portable HDD based MP3 players became the trendy flavor.
> Prior to the iPhone, we were part of a cellular market ruled by the CARRIERS, where CARRIERS determined what features were allowed on phones. There was a reason why so many smartphone enthusiasts in the US were importing in their phones from overseas. Smartphones were also fairly difficult to use, especially with crap like the Palm Treo. Hell, the best phone readily available in the US at the time was the HTC Touch Pro running Windows Mobile or the Nokia N95. The iPhone brought 2 HUGE changes to the market; the power of deciding what is included on the phone shifted to the manufacturer as carriers not ATT were desperate for their own easy mode smartphone and manufacturers were now driven to develop not only their own smartphones with touch screens, but tailor mobile OS to the touchscreen interface as well.
> Prior to the iPad, there was virtually no tablet market. Aside from people who needed tablets due to field work, there was no market or innovation. You had clunky, underpowered crap attempting to run a full blown OS that no one wanted. I don't even need to go into the battery issues. The iPad showed what a consumer could do with a slim, light weight, aesthetically pleasing tablet running a mobile OS. After that, again there was an influx as all the other companies followed suit.
> It is easy to say in hindsight, "Well anyone could have done it and someone would have." However, that statement is also very naive and stupid. While anyone could have came up with that idea, the point is that until Apple (who has a consistent history of innovating functionality and creating markets) decided to make the first foray and no one else did. Large companies generally just fall in line and rehash what other companies do because they are afraid to make the huge financial commitment of establishing a new market or even trying something new. Going with what is popular or established has always been safer.


I'm not saying that Apple didn't invent anything, I'm just saying that the company as a whole has become more and more corrupt over the years, they tend to tell that they invented all the technologies in their products, which is absolutely BS, also, the way Apple is marketing their products is outrageous! The whole computer vs mac thing really started getting on my nerves, telling people that the OSX was the most secure system on the planet, when it actually wasn't, using the non-techsavy people as puppets, because Apple do know that those people that do not have the interest in technology, are the easiest to manipulate, by going straight at them with agressive marketing. Also, looking back at the whole "Oh Apple is the best" thing, I truly hate Apple for telling people that the iPod is the best music player in the world, not really giving the ordinary people a choice, and making it incredible hard for other companies to sell their, for the most time superior products. And even when companies invent things, to compete against the iPad, iPhone or iPod, Apple steals it, and I know steal is a strong word, but I don't know how else to describe their actions.


----------



## Abs.exe

Aren't all cars looking the same ?

Y U NO USE YOUR BRAIN TO BE CREATIVE ?!


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

I personally can't wait for Apple to sue Samsung yet again. Then, because Samsung is part of the Android gang, Google will come running at Apple with its newly aquired patents from Motorola and sue the hell out of them. Why do you think they bought Motorola? They bought it for the patents. They aren't interested in actually making their own hardware themselves. They have never been in that business. The occasional nexus phones they release are built through somebody else, they don't need to have the physical ability to build their own phones.

I can't wait for Google to stop the imports of iPhones. Since that is exactly what Apple is trying to do to HTC and Samsung. Apple may be big, but you can't deny that Google is as big of a bad ass in the industry.

Oh, and to show how ****ed up the patent office is. Basically a story on how Apple got the patent for slide to unlock. However, slide to unlock has existed since the predator movies.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/apple_granted_new_slide_unlock_patent_expect_lawsuits_start_flying_soon


----------



## psycow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> Prior to the iPhone, we were part of a cellular market ruled by the CARRIERS, where CARRIERS determined what features were allowed on phones. There was a reason why so many smartphone enthusiasts in the US were importing in their phones from overseas. Smartphones were also fairly difficult to use, especially with crap like the Palm Treo. Hell, the best phone readily available in the US at the time was the HTC Touch Pro running Windows Mobile or the Nokia N95. The iPhone brought 2 HUGE changes to the market; the power of deciding what is included on the phone shifted to the manufacturer as carriers not ATT were desperate for their own easy mode smartphone and manufacturers were now driven to develop not only their own smartphones with touch screens, but tailor mobile OS to the touchscreen interface as well.


Apple made the mobile market oO woaw... maybe in the US.


----------



## prava

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> I am going to have to disagree with you about this. Apple may not have invented the phone or tablet, but they certainly established the market. A lot of you seems to have a revisionist view or selective amnesia about things, most likely from established bias towards the company. Unlike most of the sheep and haters on this community, I remember the MP3, cell phone, and tablet market before Apple led the way and each of those markets were beyond stagnated. Let us start with MP3 players first.
> Prior to the iPod, there were only small MP3 players like Rio Diamond (most ran on AA batteries) with like up to 32MB of memory storage, MP3/CD players, and the oversized and ugly Jukebox. Apple released a truly portable MP3 player that did not also sacrifice memory size or media type. After that, portable HDD based MP3 players became the trendy flavor.
> Prior to the iPhone, we were part of a cellular market ruled by the CARRIERS, where CARRIERS determined what features were allowed on phones. There was a reason why so many smartphone enthusiasts in the US were importing in their phones from overseas. Smartphones were also fairly difficult to use, especially with crap like the Palm Treo. Hell, the best phone readily available in the US at the time was the HTC Touch Pro running Windows Mobile or the Nokia N95. The iPhone brought 2 HUGE changes to the market; the power of deciding what is included on the phone shifted to the manufacturer as carriers not ATT were desperate for their own easy mode smartphone and manufacturers were now driven to develop not only their own smartphones with touch screens, but tailor mobile OS to the touchscreen interface as well.
> Prior to the iPad, there was virtually no tablet market. Aside from people who needed tablets due to field work, there was no market or innovation. You had clunky, underpowered crap attempting to run a full blown OS that no one wanted. I don't even need to go into the battery issues. The iPad showed what a consumer could do with a slim, light weight, aesthetically pleasing tablet running a mobile OS. After that, again there was an influx as all the other companies followed suit.
> It is easy to say in hindsight, "Well anyone could have done it and someone would have." However, that statement is also very naive and stupid. While anyone could have came up with that idea, the point is that until Apple (who has a consistent history of innovating functionality and creating markets) decided to make the first foray and no one else did. Large companies generally just fall in line and rehash what other companies do because they are afraid to make the huge financial commitment of establishing a new market or even trying something new. Going with what is popular or established has always been safer.


Does Apple own the patent for the mp3?
Does Apple own the patent for the mobile phone?
Does Apple own the patent for the tablet?

No, it doesn't. And because it doesn't, because Apple doesn't own such patents it doesn't matter if Apple reinvented the wheel or it didn't because *APPLE MADE A TRUCK-LOAD AMOUNT OF MONEY* off of it. They started the fashion, made money, profit. There is nothing to complain about it as its the way the market works in every single aspect of the world. Cars, shoes, jeans, televisions...you name it.

So, stop crying. Companies copy each other all the damn time, the difference with Apple is that they are trying to sue others for ideas they aren't even theirs. Thats reality, no matter what you want to say about it, just because Apple made something popular means nothing regarding IP...or did Ford patent the car as we know it today, just because it was a pioneer? No, it didn't. Ford proffited from being the first to introduce the car as we speak...and thats about it.

If we started giving patents for such things people would be successful once and be done about it. Thank god it ain't, but we need to stop greedy companies from wasting people's money, specially in the US where the law system is as screwed as it could be (it couldn't be done worse).


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LTC*
> 
> I'm not saying that Apple didn't invent anything, I'm just saying that the company as a whole has become more and more corrupt over the years, they tend to tell that they invented all the technologies in their products, which is absolutely BS, also, the way Apple is marketing their products is outrageous! The whole computer vs mac thing really started getting on my nerves, telling people that the OSX was the most secure system on the planet, when it actually wasn't, using the non-techsavy people as puppets, because Apple do know that those people that do not have the interest in technology, are the easiest to manipulate, by going straight at them with agressive marketing. Also, looking back at the whole "Oh Apple is the best" thing, I truly hate Apple for telling people that the iPod is the best music player in the world, not really giving the ordinary people a choice, and making it incredible hard for other companies to sell their, for the most time superior products. And even when companies invent things, to compete against the iPad, iPhone or iPod, Apple steals it, and I know steal is a strong word, but I don't know how else to describe their actions.


The responsibility is on the CONSUMER to properly research their purchases. If someone buys something, especially something of high value, without properly researching the good, then any buyer's remorse is on them. Advertising is designed to sell the products and thus there are going to be embellishments no matter what. Now of course if it is a flat out lie, then yes that is bad and it will be up to the courts to handle per federal or civil legal systems. As far as security goes, all things tech typically come in 2 flavors; practicality or theory. It is true that provided enough motivation, one can into the OS X platform making it the same level as everyone else. It can also be said however, that due to the much smaller market share of OS X, that simply out of incompatibility and lack of interest, that OS X becomes more "secure" than other OS's.

What kind of company will promote other companies' products? Apple established the right of marketing dominance for the MP3 player industry when it lead the way with the HDD based iPod. It is up to the rest of the companies to either fight for the remaining share and eventually usurp the leader's share. If Samsung had released their MP3 player BEFORE the iPod and marketed it successfully with Apple's advertising savvy, we could very well have been talking about Samsung today instead. Another thing to consider, Apple has an established reputation as a corporation who still treats customers well. Would I have the same hope with a company like Samsung?


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skylit*
> 
> Just as blatant as HP's new Envy 15 and 17.


You haven't seen the new Samsung 15" laptop have you?


----------



## PCSarge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonii*
> 
> By the way, asking a lawyer to identify between an iPad and a Galaxy tablet from across the room is about like asking a 16 year girl to identify between an old Dodge Challenger and an old Chevy Camaro.
> 
> They don't even recognize the details that make them different.


hey! that looks like my Camaro.....









on a side note....id rather drive a Fury than a Challenger


----------



## prava

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> *It is not really important who made something* as anyone can invent something, but if you can't sell it, you cannot create, establish, or dominate a market. To act like Apple has done nothing good or that taking advantage of a system is not smart or that defending something you feel you have rights to is very childish.


Of course its important to know who made something...because whoever did it deserves its IP to be protected.

What did Apple do? Apple never invented the wheel, Apple always took an existing product and made some improvements, but that fact grants you nothing. Well, of course it does, the moment you do a good innovation you are the first to sell it and get huge money thanks to it, what else do you want?

Its clear to me that some of you just confuse ideas. Success has nothing to do with patents nor rights nor anything similar. A product sells more or sells less, but you talk that "Apple reinvented stuff because they were successful and thus has rights..." when it doesn't. You have rights when you are the legitimate inventor of something, which Apple isn't. And thats why some of us hate Apple...not because we are stupid enough not to see the genius in many of its work...but because we are tired to see big companies using its sheer size to rule the market as they see fit (which is easy when you deal with a broken law-system, such as the one in the US), using every single hole they find in order to pushing the competition out.

Thats the only reason. I may or may not like Apples products...but I just can't stand the companies philosophy and I'm sick of this "quest for patents" because its getting too far, and Apple is the most moral-lax company I have yet to see.


----------



## Domino

They look too similar.


----------



## cayennemist

LOL

I love this! SAMSUNG is obviously telling Apple that they aren't afraid of them. And they have Google Android backing them up.

The best part of the whole thing, it's just a stupid little Entry-Level phone







almost hinting that the iPhone is a "Entry-Level" in Samsung's eye's.

I may get one just for the fun of it... *going to look at the specks*


----------



## CJRhoades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cayennemist*
> 
> LOL
> I love this! SAMSUNG is obviously telling Apple that they aren't afraid of them. And they have Google Android backing them up.
> The best part of the whole thing, it's just a stupid little Entry-Level phone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> almost hinting that the iPhone is a "Entry-Level" in Samsung's eye's.
> I may get one just for the fun of it... *going to look at the specks*


The 3GS IS an entry level phone now.


----------



## redsunx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XNine*
> 
> And people like you have no place in the tech world. You have no idea what the word "innovation" even means. Name one single Tablet that could do what the iPad does that came out before the iPad. You can't. Because there wasn't. Apple has always prided itself on the USER EXPERIENCE, the user INTERFACE, and making these work like second nature. That's innovation. Apple is the sole reason you even have a modern-day desktop with a GUI and a mouse. Apple pioneered the personal computer. Know your history.
> Apple-haters like yourself are FAR more sheepish than most Apple fans. Hell, I love my Nexus One, best phone I've ever used, but I'm definitely considering the iPhone. It's sleek, fast, easy to use and has a much more robust market for more useful apps.
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/10/iphone-4s-sells-one-million-in-24-hours/
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/10iPhone-4S-Pre-Orders-Top-One-Million-in-First-24-Hours.html
> http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2011/10/10/apple-sold-1m-iphone-4s-in-24-hours.html
> http://www.iphonehacks.com/2011/10/iphone-4s-sold-out-for-launch-day-in-less-than-24-hours-at-apple.html
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/apple-breaks-pre-sale-records-with-iphone-4s/
> Would you like more?


No lol I just wanted to read about it.

Also I noticed that this phone was designed in correlation with the iPhone's patents.


----------



## ForumViewer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *LTC*
> 
> Chillax people! I agree, yes this phone might look like an iPhone, however defending Apple is so wrong to do, with all this lawsuit stuff going around... In this case, yes, defend each company as your want, however as a whole, the Apple company should not be defended, what they have done to the tech world is unbearable, and please, do not quote me on that, replying: "APPLEZ MADE THE IPOD!!! OMGZ! Seriously, if Apple wouldn't have made it, someone else would... Apple is copying everything right now, however they did exactly the same thing back in the days, no Apple did not invent the touchscreen, or the multitouch. They did not invent the tablet, or reinvent it for that matter, yes they did make it userfriendly, and "cool" however its functionality is as much or less that the tablets that were around at the release of the iPad. Oh, and that iPhone 3G? Yeah, why not pay the licens to use the 3G before releasing the phone? Apple is such a dirty company, however ignorant people is ignorant, if they get a iPhone into their hands, they got a worldwide known brand, which makes them "cool" and the iPhone is so popular, which MUST mean, that it's the best phone on the entire planet!
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to have to disagree with you about this. Apple may not have invented the phone or tablet, but they certainly established the market. A lot of you seems to have a revisionist view or selective amnesia about things, most likely from established bias towards the company. Unlike most of the sheep and haters on this community, I remember the MP3, cell phone, and tablet market before Apple led the way and each of those markets were beyond stagnated. Let us start with MP3 players first.
> 
> Prior to the iPod, there were only small MP3 players like Rio Diamond (most ran on AA batteries) with like up to 32MB of memory storage, MP3/CD players, and the oversized and ugly Jukebox. Apple released a truly portable MP3 player that did not also sacrifice memory size or media type. After that, portable HDD based MP3 players became the trendy flavor.
> 
> Prior to the iPhone, we were part of a cellular market ruled by the CARRIERS, where CARRIERS determined what features were allowed on phones. There was a reason why so many smartphone enthusiasts in the US were importing in their phones from overseas. Smartphones were also fairly difficult to use, especially with crap like the Palm Treo. Hell, the best phone readily available in the US at the time was the HTC Touch Pro running Windows Mobile or the Nokia N95. The iPhone brought 2 HUGE changes to the market; the power of deciding what is included on the phone shifted to the manufacturer as carriers not ATT were desperate for their own easy mode smartphone and manufacturers were now driven to develop not only their own smartphones with touch screens, but tailor mobile OS to the touchscreen interface as well.
> 
> Prior to the iPad, there was virtually no tablet market. Aside from people who needed tablets due to field work, there was no market or innovation. You had clunky, underpowered crap attempting to run a full blown OS that no one wanted. I don't even need to go into the battery issues. The iPad showed what a consumer could do with a slim, light weight, aesthetically pleasing tablet running a mobile OS. After that, again there was an influx as all the other companies followed suit.
> 
> It is easy to say in hindsight, "Well anyone could have done it and someone would have." However, that statement is also very naive and stupid. While anyone could have came up with that idea, the point is that until Apple (who has a consistent history of innovating functionality and creating markets) decided to make the first foray and no one else did. Large companies generally just fall in line and rehash what other companies do because they are afraid to make the huge financial commitment of establishing a new market or even trying something new. Going with what is popular or established has always been safer.
Click to expand...

And you forgot the MacBook Air, which everyone is slavishly copying as well.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> And you forgot the MacBook Air, which everyone is slavishly copying as well.


Yes, everyone is copying having a non removable battery, a hard drive that is proprietary instead of standard, and only coming in a white color.

Oops.

Edit: Also, can you really say going thin is a patentable design? Technology has always gotten thinner, so you can't really say that because the macbook air was the thinnest for a brief time that it can patent the look.

Also, look at this article. Funny who made the Macbook air before it even came out
Spoiler---- Sony did, in 2003.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/237992/windows_laptop_makers_cant_catch_up_to_the_macbook_air.html

Apple fans: Shut the front door!

Also, a google search shows that apple approves of thinner computers. It says "Designed the way every notebook should be." Apple approves.


----------



## Tipless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> You're tech savvy.
> A lot of people on this site seem to forget that.
> A lot of you seem to think that iOS is too dumbed down and simplistic, which for the most part this is true. You do however have to remember that you are in the 95th percentile in regards to actually being a technology hobbyist.
> Common folk couldn't tell you the difference between OSX and Windows, never mind something as subtle as a rectangular button versus a circular button. To the masses, this is pretty much an iPhone and I'll be damned if they would be able to tell them apart without getting up close and personal. Even Touchwiz imitates iOS with its sliding app drawer.
> The differences between the two are way too subtle, Apple are winning this one without a shadow of a doubt and rightly so too.


ummmm tech savvy doesnt mean anything. anyone could be handed this phone and point out the differences between the 2. the lawyers in court were told to pick out the samsung tablet from over 10 feet away. it would be hard for anyone to discern which one was which.

that being said the only thing similar is the rectangledness of the phones. apple is a child sueing over who touched who: "he touched me" "he wont stop touching me" "he poked me"

you could say that apple copied opther touch screeen phones first. the HTC Touch comes to mind


----------



## Darkslayer7

I don't hate Samsung , nor Apple .
I personally think that Samsung has more to offer ,
Their smartphones cost less , and are as good as an iphone , or even better .
I'm still using my old Galaxy S , and i'm happy with it .


----------



## Vlasov_581

oh for pete's sake.......can these idiots just drop all this bickering and concentrate on releasing sick hardware?


----------



## darthspartan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XNine*
> 
> And people like you have no place in the tech world. You have no idea what the word "innovation" even means. Name one single Tablet that could do what the iPad does that came out before the iPad. You can't. Because there wasn't. Apple has always prided itself on the USER EXPERIENCE, the user INTERFACE, and making these work like second nature. That's innovation. Apple is the sole reason you even have a modern-day desktop with a GUI and a mouse. Apple pioneered the personal computer. Know your history.
> Apple-haters like yourself are FAR more sheepish than most Apple fans. Hell, I love my Nexus One, best phone I've ever used, but I'm definitely considering the iPhone. It's sleek, fast, easy to use and has a much more robust market for more useful apps.
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/10/iphone-4s-sells-one-million-in-24-hours/
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/10iPhone-4S-Pre-Orders-Top-One-Million-in-First-24-Hours.html
> http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2011/10/10/apple-sold-1m-iphone-4s-in-24-hours.html
> http://www.iphonehacks.com/2011/10/iphone-4s-sold-out-for-launch-day-in-less-than-24-hours-at-apple.html
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/apple-breaks-pre-sale-records-with-iphone-4s/
> Would you like more?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> GUI and mouse? Wasn't Xerox the original creators? Apple used the idea for their personal gain. But so did microsoft who also took the same idea and made it for consumers.
> Ipad is just one huge ipod touch so again what innovation? You took the same idea from your ipod touch and just put it on a bigger screen.
> Maybe apple should stick to trying patent things that already have been done instead of "innovating" anything
> Also you call me a sheep but a sheep of what group is what you failed to add.


Yep we really should be giving Xerox a lot of credit considering most major GUI's are based on there designs. As for the Mouse it originates from a German company Telefunken in 1968 well before apple. One of Xerox's engineers was working with a mouse design of his own in 1972.


----------



## ForumViewer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> Yes, everyone is copying having a non removable battery, a hard drive that is proprietary instead of standard, and only coming in a white color.
> Oops.
> Edit: Also, can you really say going thin is a patentable design? Technology has always gotten thinner, so you can't really say that because the macbook air was the thinnest for a brief time that it can patent the look.
> Also, look at this article. Funny who made the Macbook air before it even came out
> Spoiler---- Sony did, in 2003.
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/237992/windows_laptop_makers_cant_catch_up_to_the_macbook_air.html
> Apple fans: Shut the front door!
> Also, a google search shows that apple approves of thinner computers. It says "Designed the way every notebook should be." Apple approves.


Unless you are literally blind, there is no possible way you can claim companies are not copying Apple's MBA and MBP designs. End of story.

But instead you start putting words in my mouth. I never once claimed Apple owned the patent to any design or should have full rights to any particular design. I don't think anyone here has, but that style of phone (black/white front, single home button, silver bezel) and laptop (aluminum unibody) are synonymous with Apple. That Sony you linked to from 2003 is a nice thin laptop, but it looks nothing like a MacBook Air. The point isn't who created what first - nobody is claiming Apple invented the mp3 player, the tablet, the cell phone, etc etc - NO ONE. The only people saying that are the ones bashing Apple. The point is companies are blatantly copying Apple's modern designs. It's really as simple as that.

And spare us the "the design is obvious" and blah blah blah. If Apple's designs are so obvious or inevitable or simple, other companies would have come to market with them first.





Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> So what, cable chargers should now use trapezoidal shapes to avoid 'ripping off Apple', and Samsung's phones shoudl feature triangular screens while coming in hexagonal boxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're hilarious to read.


Sorry for the long image, but the point I was making is that Samsung knows no limits when it comes to copying Apple.


----------



## Anth0789

Damm and I just bought an Ace.


----------



## NuclearSlurpee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Licht*
> 
> Samsung deserves what Samsung is about to get.


I have to agree. They're just asking for it.


----------



## ressurrectin

Personally, I think it's silly. They're branded differently, and while they may have similar shape - nothing on either phone is exactly like the other.
Just quit bickering about it jeez.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Kinda dumb picture tbh.

1. Isn't safari available on the android platform?
2. The adapter is larger for the Samsung. And think about it, easier than putting another cord in the box, and since you now have decided to use an adapter, do you want it to be overly large? No. Do you want it to stick out so things can bump into it? No.
3.USB is a standard. It is a rectangle hole. Apple didn't invent USB btw.
4. It is black and has a label on it. Get over it.

Now it gets into better stuff.
5. Putting your devices picture on a box isn't something either of these companies invented. And choosing a white box means you don't have to die everything black (which scuffs easily).
6. OMG dramatic opening. The product is visible right when you open it. Not an invention of apples btw. Motorola packaging is very similar. Once you swing the top flap off, you see your beautiful Razr 2. I should know. I sill have it and the box.
Here is a video for a Motorola phone from 2008.



7. Half of the cord photo is unneeded. USB is a standard invented partly by Intel and some other companies. The shape of the plug is defined. Can't do anything with it.
The side that connects to the device should be wide because it allows more wires through and adds to the physical integrity of the plug. Making it short means you dont have to worry about something extra long sticking out the side of it.
8. This one is stupid. Of course they put a microphone. I can't find any pictures, but I am sure APPLE IS NOT THE FIRST TO PUT A MICROPHONE ON THE RECORDING PROGRAM. Get over it. Did not invent or conceptualize first.


----------



## JedixJarf

Really?

Why on earth would they do this to themselves?


----------



## HA3AP

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> No not the tablet I meant the phones. What makes the Iphone so good that every couple of months people have to buy the newer one?


You are confusing iphone with android devices. Apple's release cycle is 12months. Android phones on the other hand are updated with a new model every few months.


----------



## ressurrectin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HA3AP*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> No not the tablet I meant the phones. What makes the Iphone so good that every couple of months people have to buy the newer one?
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing iphone with android devices. Apple's release cycle is 12months. Android phones on the other hand are updated with a new model every few months.
Click to expand...

mhm, but do people buy the new model every month? don't think so.. unless they have issues with their current phone in my experience people use it until it breaks.


----------



## Mygaffer

There are only so many shapes that make sense for a phone. It is ridiculous that a black, bar shaped phone can be infringing on another black, bar shaped phone when the phone in question uses a completely different operating system and has the manufacturer's name stamped right on the back of the phone.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mygaffer*
> 
> There are only so many shapes that make sense for a phone. It is ridiculous that a black, bar shaped phone can be infringing on another black, bar shaped phone when the phone in question uses a completely different operating system and has the manufacturer's name stamped right on the back of the phone.


It's not like it's even possible to confuse the two to a level where it would affect sales. If someone goes to their wireless provider and says they want an iPhone, they'll be GIVEN AN IPHONE. You don't look at a wall of shelved phones like DVDs, where some ignorant moron could potentially see a $100 touchscreen phone and think "Oh wow that's a cheap iPhone!" Don't kid yourself. If you want an iPhone, you know that the damn thing is made by Apple and NOT Samsung. I'm also nearly 100% certain that it wouldn't be hard to return to the store and say "Hey... this isn't an iPhone," and get the right phone you wanted, though the Apple sheep would likely be so embarrassed to even do that, that we would probably never hear of that happening.

I guess in that case one should demand Samsung put an obnoxiously huge Android robot on their box, with huge labels that say "THIS IS AN ANDROID POWERED HANDSET. IT IS NOT (*DEFINITELY* NOT) JUST AN IPHONE." A court order that Samsung put clear indication on the box that their product is NOT their competitor's product should easily resolve this ridiculous matter...


----------



## IcedEarth

I want a slice of Apple pie!

Sent from my Galaxy SII


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *psycow*
> 
> No, but I know or know of alteast over 200 people(which is a big enough pool of people to use in a study),
> and of those Ive yet to meat someone that COULDNT tell if my phone was a Samsung or a Apple product.
> So Im sorry your surrounded by morons, that cant read or recognise a half eaten apple, but people here can...
> and Im sure that if you wanted to you could find the reports of how tech savy scandinavians are,
> and even the reports that show we are the best market to test new tech, simply because we addapt to them so fast... so... infact.. I AM a genius...


Most of the people I personally know can tell the difference between an Apple product and something that isn't even if they look similar but most of the population can't tell the difference between an iPhone 4 and a LG Prada (which as you know because you are a "genius" was first announced on Dec 12 2006, almost 4 years before the iPhone 4) You are just as arrogant as Kanye West.


----------



## BizzareRide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CJRhoades*
> 
> You don't like the iPhone 4? Wow, I guess that makes every satisfied owner a complete idiot. I suppose that also makes all the review sites idiots as well for giving it good reviews. Oh wait, you're not the almighty tech god? Nevermind then.
> OT: While I agree that many of Apple's earlier law suits were silly, Samsung deserves to get nailed for this one. Those phones look incredibly similar at a glance and I'm sure they could easily be confused by someone not very tech oriented.
> Apple bought that tech from Xerox. Xerox wasn't planning to use it anyway.


Just like they bought their retina displays; just like they bought the Siri tech; just like they bought an ARM license that forms the basis of the A4 chip; just like they bought Xerox PARC's tech, etc... Simply buying technology that existed, or prior art, isn't pioneering.

I have no problem with calling their products great, but innovative is a word I wouldn't use to describe their underlying tech. If you wish not to skew the definition of innovative so that it excludes Apple's executions then I'm fine with that also. It's just that other corporations will also have to be included.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> The same is true with the packaging, prior to the iPhone and iPad it looked totally different, and after it's literally identical.


They aren't really copying Apple packaging. These days companies want to be environmentally friendly so they are using less packaging. Apple just happens to be a minimalist company so everything they do uses the least amount of what ever is required. Even food products use less packaging these days, not only because it makes it cheaper to produce but also cheaper to sell. If I wanted to I can go out and buy instant coffee in a bag rather than the traditional glass jar and if I do that I could get the same amount of coffee for half the price. Do you think this coffee company I am talking about is also copying Apples packaging?

The iPhone and iPad came out just before all these companies started to become more environmentally friendly. Fair enough with the layout and images on the packaging but like I said Apple has always used the minimum amount of packaging possible and other companies are doing that now to save money and be environmentally friendly.


----------



## Dragonii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PCSarge*
> 
> hey! that looks like my Camaro.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on a side note....id rather drive a Fury than a Challenger


You'd have to paint it red and call it Christine. lol


----------



## IcedEarth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BizzareRide*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *CJRhoades*
> 
> You don't like the iPhone 4? Wow, I guess that makes every satisfied owner a complete idiot. I suppose that also makes all the review sites idiots as well for giving it good reviews. Oh wait, you're not the almighty tech god? Nevermind then.
> OT: While I agree that many of Apple's earlier law suits were silly, Samsung deserves to get nailed for this one. Those phones look incredibly similar at a glance and I'm sure they could easily be confused by someone not very tech oriented.
> Apple bought that tech from Xerox. Xerox wasn't planning to use it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like they bought their retina displays; just like they bought the Siri tech; just like they bought an ARM license that forms the basis of the A4 chip; just like they bought Xerox PARC's tech, etc... Simply buying technology that existed, or prior art, isn't pioneering.
> 
> I have no problem with calling their products great, but innovative is a word I wouldn't use to describe their underlying tech. If you wish not to skew the definition of innovative so that it excludes Apple's executions then I'm fine with that also. It's just that other corporations will also have to be included.
Click to expand...

I disagree, Apple had the foresight to realise these things would be a success within the market. Just because they didn't primarily invent the technology it does not mean they're not innovative.

Chefs do not invent pasta, but they can still use obscure ingredients to make an awesome pasta meal in order to innovate.

They're market leaders and pioneers, innovation != invention (in the sense of all accompanying technology within a product)

Sent from my Galaxy SII


----------



## snoball

I've got the solution. I still can't stand apple but the fact that other companies continue to be stubborn about it is so annoying. Courts won't solve anything here and both sides will continue to troll the other.

Samsung CEO vs Apple CEO deathmatch. Winner assumes control. At this point it seems to be the only way to stop this lawsuit stuff, we are beyond a year now aren't we?


----------



## Dragonii

Looks like Samsung did pull an Apple trick on this one. They took existing tech and improved on it.
With the slight flare on the device end of the plug you can apply more pressure to the housing than the wire. I never could get a grip on those little Apple style plugs.


----------



## .Sup

but the button is not a circle


----------



## biltong

I own a Samsung Galaxy Ace (not the plus) and I can say for sure that the iPhone definitely influenced the design. The row of buttons on the homescreen and app drawer at the bottom looks identical to the iPhone, and even the sliding app drawer itself looks identical, especially if you have animations enabled. The standard keyboard samsung included even looks very similar to the blue and silver themed one on iOS. People have often said it looks like an iPhone if I take it out of my pocket quickly or flash it around, but then they see the silver at the top and know.


----------



## hajile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> I am going to have to disagree with you about this. Apple may not have invented the phone or tablet, but they certainly established the market. A lot of you seems to have a revisionist view or selective amnesia about things, most likely from established bias towards the company. Unlike most of the sheep and haters on this community, I remember the MP3, cell phone, and tablet market before Apple led the way and each of those markets were beyond stagnated. Let us start with MP3 players first.
> Prior to the iPod, there were only small MP3 players like Rio Diamond (most ran on AA batteries) with like up to 32MB of memory storage, MP3/CD players, and the oversized and ugly Jukebox. Apple released a truly portable MP3 player that did not also sacrifice memory size or media type. After that, portable HDD based MP3 players became the trendy flavor.
> Prior to the iPhone, we were part of a cellular market ruled by the CARRIERS, where CARRIERS determined what features were allowed on phones. There was a reason why so many smartphone enthusiasts in the US were importing in their phones from overseas. Smartphones were also fairly difficult to use, especially with crap like the Palm Treo. Hell, the best phone readily available in the US at the time was the HTC Touch Pro running Windows Mobile or the Nokia N95. The iPhone brought 2 HUGE changes to the market; the power of deciding what is included on the phone shifted to the manufacturer as carriers not ATT were desperate for their own easy mode smartphone and manufacturers were now driven to develop not only their own smartphones with touch screens, but tailor mobile OS to the touchscreen interface as well.
> Prior to the iPad, there was virtually no tablet market. Aside from people who needed tablets due to field work, there was no market or innovation. You had clunky, underpowered crap attempting to run a full blown OS that no one wanted. I don't even need to go into the battery issues. The iPad showed what a consumer could do with a slim, light weight, aesthetically pleasing tablet running a mobile OS. After that, again there was an influx as all the other companies followed suit.
> It is easy to say in hindsight, "Well anyone could have done it and someone would have." However, that statement is also very naive and stupid. While anyone could have came up with that idea, the point is that until Apple (who has a consistent history of innovating functionality and creating markets) decided to make the first foray and no one else did. Large companies generally just fall in line and rehash what other companies do because they are afraid to make the huge financial commitment of establishing a new market or even trying something new. Going with what is popular or established has always been safer.


I would debate that Apple revolutionized the PMP. The original ipod wasn't a huge leap over the Creative NOMAD (NOMAD even had removable storage). Later, Creative successfully sued Apple because Apple ripped off Creative's "clickwheel" and UI. Since the advent of the ipod, many others have offered more features, better audio, and cheaper prices while Apple stagnated. The only "win" that Apple made in the market is successful marketing.

In the phone market, all of the "revolutionary" advances were made by companies such as Nokia. Maemo and Symbian both had/have many more features than iOS. Nokia had been playing around with lots of ideas and had even released several models. Nokia hadn't made a big marketing push simply because hardware makers (esp ARM) hadn't made hardware that could keep up. The only major change that Apple introduced that wasn't necessarily inevitable was the use of capacitive touchscreens. Even this wasn't a completely good change. Now everyone uses them while ignoring the superior resistive screen technology (glass surface with REAL pressure sensitivity and much better precision if needed via stylus).

As to the tablet market, Apple did the inevitable. The historical problem with tablets has always been power usage vs performance; there was no way to get both "enough" performance and decent battery life. This is a Moore's Law problem and waiting (or doing the best with what's available) is the only option. I believe that Apple felt pressure to rush the ipad to market before its competitors. ipad was all about using existing stuff, thus the use of the iOS interface (which is a legacy phone UI let alone an even worse UI on larger screens) and the ability to plug in to an existing application market was another huge time to market advantage. Everyone had an eye on the tablet market. Viable touchscreen technology was available. Moore's law had finally caught up (ie ARM/MIPS finally had enough processing power), and all that was needed was to stick phone guts in a larger device.

If Palm had thrown together a tablet earlier (which was possible except for the upset of the HP purchase), then the tablet market would be very different (no one would view the iOS interface as tablet friendly as WebOS (despite its problems) would have set a much higher standard).

Apple marketing influence has shown up in nasty ways too. One is the use of Aluminum in products. Carbon fiber is lighter, stronger, less prone to damage, doesn't attenuate wireless signals, etc. The only theoretical downside is that it costs more and hurts profit margins. In practice, consumers believe that aluminum is better (mostly due to all the macbook hype). As a result, purchasing a carbon fiber laptop is mostly impossible. Sony made some, but everyone thought that they were overprices because they were about as expensive as macbooks, but weren't aluminum (I guess people/reviewers thought the notebooks were plastic or something).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> Yes, everyone is copying having a non removable battery, a hard drive that is proprietary instead of standard, and only coming in a white color.
> Oops.
> Edit: Also, can you really say going thin is a patentable design? Technology has always gotten thinner, so you can't really say that because the macbook air was the thinnest for a brief time that it can patent the look.
> Also, look at this article. Funny who made the Macbook air before it even came out
> Spoiler---- Sony did, in 2003.
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/237992/windows_laptop_makers_cant_catch_up_to_the_macbook_air.html
> Apple fans: Shut the front door!
> Also, a google search shows that apple approves of thinner computers. It says "Designed the way every notebook should be." Apple approves.


I'm guessing you are talking about the 2003 Sony VAIO x505.

Interesting note: the carbon fiber x505 weighed 1.73 pounds while the current 11" macbook air weights 2.38 pounds. Despite the lighter weight, the x505 still had a removable battery.


----------



## BizzareRide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> I disagree, Apple had the foresight to realise these things would be a success within the market. Just because they didn't primarily invent the technology it does not mean they're not innovative.
> Chefs do not invent pasta, but they can still use obscure ingredients to make an awesome pasta meal in order to innovate.
> They're market leaders and pioneers, innovation != invention (in the sense of all accompanying technology within a product)
> Sent from my Galaxy SII


What exactly do you disagree with as I never said innovation equated to invention. My point was that they can't be credited with being pioneers of technology that existed before them. A scientist doesn't invent new physical properties simply because he was the first to witness them; he merely discovers facts about the world that which always existed. (I'm by no means calling Jobs a scientist)

They were the first to have a successful GUI, great... I get that... I personally think its a dubious title to have. A more important title would be having the first commercially viable GUI-based OS and unfortunately, this title goes to the Xerox Star; a more important title still would be having a GUI-based OS that's hardware-agnostic and real work can be achieved on... While Apple and Jobs focused on making their OS pretty, Microsoft and Gates focused on power and usability, a design philosophy that we still witness in their latest builds. Remnants of that very same design philosophy can be found in Linux as well as much as Linux Lobbyist would have you disbelieve. That is by no means an attack on Linux as it has innovated in its own right.

I personally feel that all major players in the OS game have contributed in some form. If you feel innovation rests with Apple then you're delusional, simply put.


----------



## adamkatt

Samsung can troll too


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> I would debate that Apple revolutionized the PMP. The original ipod wasn't a huge leap over the Creative NOMAD (NOMAD even had removable storage). Later, Creative successfully sued Apple because Apple ripped off Creative's "clickwheel" and UI. Since the advent of the ipod, many others have offered more features, better audio, and cheaper prices while Apple stagnated. The only "win" that Apple made in the market is successful marketing.
> In the phone market, all of the "revolutionary" advances were made by companies such as Nokia. Maemo and Symbian both had/have many more features than iOS. Nokia had been playing around with lots of ideas and had even released several models. Nokia hadn't made a big marketing push simply because hardware makers (esp ARM) hadn't made hardware that could keep up. The only major change that Apple introduced that wasn't necessarily inevitable was the use of capacitive touchscreens. Even this wasn't a completely good change. Now everyone uses them while ignoring the superior resistive screen technology (glass surface with REAL pressure sensitivity and much better precision if needed via stylus).
> As to the tablet market, Apple did the inevitable. The historical problem with tablets has always been power usage vs performance; there was no way to get both "enough" performance and decent battery life. This is a Moore's Law problem and waiting (or doing the best with what's available) is the only option. I believe that Apple felt pressure to rush the ipad to market before its competitors. ipad was all about using existing stuff, thus the use of the iOS interface (which is a legacy phone UI let alone an even worse UI on larger screens) and the ability to plug in to an existing application market was another huge time to market advantage. Everyone had an eye on the tablet market. Viable touchscreen technology was available. Moore's law had finally caught up (ie ARM/MIPS finally had enough processing power), and all that was needed was to stick phone guts in a larger device.
> If Palm had thrown together a tablet earlier (which was possible except for the upset of the HP purchase), then the tablet market would be very different (no one would view the iOS interface as tablet friendly as WebOS (despite its problems) would have set a much higher standard).
> Apple marketing influence has shown up in nasty ways too. One is the use of Aluminum in products. Carbon fiber is lighter, stronger, less prone to damage, doesn't attenuate wireless signals, etc. The only theoretical downside is that it costs more and hurts profit margins. In practice, consumers believe that aluminum is better (mostly due to all the macbook hype). As a result, purchasing a carbon fiber laptop is mostly impossible. Sony made some, but everyone thought that they were overprices because they were about as expensive as macbooks, but weren't aluminum (I guess people/reviewers thought the notebooks were plastic or something).
> I'm guessing you are talking about the 2003 Sony VAIO x505.
> Interesting note: the carbon fiber x505 weighed 1.73 pounds while the current 11" macbook air weights 2.38 pounds. Despite the lighter weight, the x505 still had a removable battery.


My point was that it is so easy for Apple haters to say things like "Oh any one could have done it." or "It was inevitable!" but the fact remains that Apple lead away. Hindsight is 20/20 and it was Apple that was consistently influencing and reshaping the market, not all these other companies that are always waiting on the cusp of inevitability. There is a difference between having the tech available and actually not only utilizing it, but marketing it into a success. These other companies had every opportunity themselves to release their own iPhone, iPod, or iPad first. They didn't and chose to wait until a market was created or properly established.


----------



## LTC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> My point was that it is so easy for Apple haters to say things like "Oh any one could have done it." or "It was inevitable!" but the fact remains that Apple lead away. Hindsight is 20/20 and it was Apple that was consistently influencing and reshaping the market, not all these other companies that are always waiting on the cusp of inevitability. There is a difference between having the tech available and actually not only utilizing it, but marketing it into a success. These other companies had every opportunity themselves to release their own iPhone, iPod, or iPad first. They didn't and chose to wait until a market was created or properly established.


You might be right about the marketing stuff, however, the way Apple stole things and called them their own, which they still do is just not a proper way to do it, as it was said earlier, Apple stole the clickwheel, called it their own, and the calling the Macbook Air soooo damn great, even though it was released in 2008, where the IBM T43, which was almost as thin was released in early 2005, it had a DVD drive as well, and a replaceable battery, so if you look back, Apple didn't really push technology as much as you would think, they did however know how to sell them, with their aggressive marketing.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LTC*
> 
> You might be right about the marketing stuff, however, the way Apple stole things and called them their own, which they still do is just not a proper way to do it, as it was said earlier, Apple stole the clickwheel, called it their own, and the calling the Macbook Air soooo damn great, even though it was released in 2008, where the IBM T43, which was almost as thin was released in early 2005, it had a DVD drive as well, and a replaceable battery, so if you look back, Apple didn't really push technology as much as you would think, they did however know how to sell them, with their aggressive marketing.


I never said anything about pushing technology. Inventing or pushing technology does not mean crap if you cannot take advantage of it and market it. Business success comes from identifying a successful consumer good, service, or strategy, then marketing and pushing it successfully. Only consumers care about innovation or pushing technology. Companies drive innovation only to fuel their revenue or stay ahead of the game, not out of the kindness of their hearts.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Great move Samsung.

Now I will just consider your TV's and other Electronics as cheap rip-offs of someone else's product. Hope your troll move was worth it.


----------



## kazenagi

Business wise anyone would do this too wouldn't they. Say you were back in your elementary school years and the neighbour's kid across the street opens up a lemonade stand making a few bucks, you'd see that it's working out for him and decide to open up your own since you know it's a surefire way to make a little money. Of course the neighbour's kid wouldn't like that and would want your lemonade stand gone by any means like tearing down your stand, throwing things, getting their parents.. or something else.

This would be Apple suing Samsung over every little thing in order to protect their profits, business interest, growth and etc for the shareholders, if apple never protected their investments every company would copy everything in hopes of a surefire way to make money by riding off apple's success. Samsung could've done this to make profit by confusing your average consumer to thinking the ace is like an iphone cause rectangle touchscreen phone = iphone to many and by the time the lawsuit hits it could be chump change compared to what they made riding off apple.

Designs will always look similar once companies realize what the market likes, you don't see tvs in the shape of hexagons or keyboards in the shape of triangles, if one company patented a shape there wouldn't be common designs amongst electronics and such. Would you rather make a design practical to today's market or design something that looks so far off that would scare today's market and not make profit just to avoid a simple lawsuit? Even cars look like each other back in the 90's you couldn't even tell two cars apart.

Could you tell which cars a honda or toyota at first glance?


----------



## WC_EEND

To be honest, I've always found Samsung's Galaxy S line of phones to be blatant iPhone ripoffs (which was also a reason for me not to buy one). I mean, how hard could it be to give your phone line a unique design. HTC and Sony Ericsson (Xperia phones) seem to manage fine. Apple rightfully deserves to win this one. It's exactly the same story with Samsung's Galaxy Tabs and iPads.


----------



## Strider_2001

Yea that s2 screen looks just like the tiny screen apple has....its square and everything...


----------



## IRO-Bot

Dammit, why don't someone come out with a triangle phone?


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> You're completely missing the point. Or maybe I wasn't breaking it down far enough to be obvious.
> It's not about the individual technology (touchscreen, wifi), concept (tablet, cell phone), or whatever other thing you want to bring into the debate. It's about DESIGN and how those individual technologies are packaged into one seamless unit. There's a million and a half ways to design a laptop, a cell phone, a tablet, etc etc. Yet Apple's competitors are keen are on delivering items that look as close to Apple's gear as possible. I really don't see how that is debatable. The phone that is the subject of this thread is a shining example of this. HP's Envy line is another example (I posted screen shots a few posts back). It's not a "fanboy" comment to say, it's a completely objective observation and I simply don't understand how you guys can deny it under the guise that anyone who says so is an Apple fanboy. That's ludicrous.


Yes, because SONY made something so much thinner than the Macbook back in the day. Also, look at the aesthetics of it. Can you say you don't see some ideas of what Apple laptops have looked like since? Apple hasn't blatantly copied sony (unless you want to say the same of HP copying Apple, when it really would be copying Sony), but they have took some of the aesthetics and applied it to their own devices.



An example that people are giving is tvs. Consumers like thin tvs that have thin bezels (usually in black). Producers try to give them that. No current producer is going to try to make a tv that is as fat as tvs were 10 years ago. They aren't going to make them into a piece of furniture. And you can bet that Apple won't either, if they rumors are true that they are making an actual TV. I can guarantee that Apple will make the front of the tv as flat as possible, no curves on the bezel, rounded edges, an apple logo towards the bottom of the item, and a stand that supports it. They could just as easily make it without a stand, but they won't. Consumers like stands.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kazenagi*
> 
> Could you tell which cars a honda or toyota at first glance?


Hyundai Genesis vs. Infiniti G37. Down to the COLOR and the WHEELS they look nearly identical.


Hyundai Genesis Sedan vs. Mercedes Benz (there's a Benz model that looks much much more like the Genesis, I just couldn't find it)


A few hundred watches that all look practically identical:


I don't see any legal issues between these competitors. They WANT competition. They're not worried about the competition dominating in certain sectors like Apple clearly is.

TVs. Keyboards. Mice. Speakers. Toys. JEANS. In every market, there are thousands of products that look nearly identical, even more that are simply "alike." The overall physical appearance of a product is not in any way owned by its designer, and rightfully so. Take this completely outside of your preference of Apple or Samsung. Can you imagine if someone had sole rights to the design of jeans? We would all be locked to buying jeans from ONE company. No thank you!

Let's all just kill our chosen sides and end this debate with: OK, the iPhone and a few Samsung phones look ALIKE, but in the end, have COMPLETELY different hardware and software. Samsung isn't deceiving anybody; someone who wants an iPhone, will get an iPhone, and won't erroneously get a Samsung phone because it looked similar. They'll go to an Apple store, or their provider store which will hand them the phone they're asking for. Apple is suing simply to make money and harm their competitor. As low as that is, it's the business world. Move on with your lives.


----------



## Dragonii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> An example that people are giving is tvs. Consumers like thin tvs that have thin bezels (usually in black). Producers try to give them that. No current producer is going to try to make a tv that is as fat as tvs were 10 years ago. They aren't going to make them into a piece of furniture. And you can bet that Apple won't either, if they rumors are true that they are making an actual TV. I can guarantee that Apple will make the front of the tv as flat as possible, no curves on the bezel, rounded edges, an apple logo towards the bottom of the item, and a stand that supports it. They could just as easily make it without a stand, but they won't. Consumers like stands.


Yep, and it will probably look something like this....


Oh wait, that's a Samsung.

The sad thing is that they will wait six months and then release it in white and call it a "Feature", even sadder than that, fanboys will sell the black one at a cheap price just to get the white one.


----------



## Dragonii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Hyundai Genesis vs. Infiniti G37. Down to the COLOR and the WHEELS they look nearly identical.
> 
> Hyundai Genesis Sedan vs. Mercedes Benz (there's a Benz model that looks much much more like the Genesis, I just couldn't find it)
> 
> A few hundred watches that all look practically identical:
> 
> I don't see any legal issues between these competitors. They WANT competition. They're not worried about the competition dominating in certain sectors like Apple clearly is.
> TVs. Keyboards. Mice. Speakers. Toys. JEANS. In every market, there are thousands of products that look nearly identical, even more that are simply "alike." The overall physical appearance of a product is not in any way owned by its designer, and rightfully so. Take this completely outside of your preference of Apple or Samsung. Can you imagine if someone had sole rights to the design of jeans? We would all be locked to buying jeans from ONE company. No thank you!
> Let's all just kill our chosen sides and end this debate with: OK, the iPhone and a few Samsung phones look ALIKE, but in the end, have COMPLETELY different hardware and software. Samsung isn't deceiving anybody; someone who wants an iPhone, will get an iPhone, and won't erroneously get a Samsung phone because it looked similar. They'll go to an Apple store, or their provider store which will hand them the phone they're asking for. Apple is suing simply to make money and harm their competitor. As low as that is, it's the business world. Move on with your lives.


I was driving to lunch with some friends one day and one of them saw a Mercedes and said something about liking it so much. One of the other guys in the car didn't miss a beat and replied "just wait a year or two and buy the Hyundai, it's much cheaper."


----------



## linkinparkfan007

I personally tbh wouldn't sue Samsung for that.
Like sure it looks the same but doesn't every smartphone pretty much look the same.
Like i bet eventually Apple might start patenting their resolutions and once they come out with 720p be like everybody is being sued for using our "RESOLUTION"


----------



## LTC

They are probably going to sue each other as well... not.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

This is obviously Samsung trolling, fairly ballsy actually lol.


----------



## Papas

My point is, astetics is not a big deal. there are not to many different ways to design things anymore. its all been done before. a phone is a phone is a phone. there were phones that has similar designs before the iphone came out. it was a rectangle, touch screen. than others started to come out after the iphone and suddenly there copying the iphone. I am not defending samsung copying the iphone. I am defending there right to copy a GENERIC design. The hardware is what gets me. how can you defend a company like apple over looks when they stole functions and used parts without licensing agreements. Its not like they used a like model wireless chip, they used samsung wireless chips and didnt pay samsung the license agreements for it.

I could understand if samsung ordered apples case and than used it to make there own phone, but they didnt, they made there own, similar case and made a phone around that.


----------



## jrbroad77

I don't see the resemblance. Both are rectangles with rounded corners and similar aspect ratios, that is all.

..But if you want to talk stealing design features..

released January 2010


released June 2010


Glossy black back, silver trim. Please Lenovo, sue them! All it'll take is putting 2 pictures not to scale side by side from ~15 feet to convince these stupid judges.


----------



## Papas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jrbroad77*
> 
> I don't see the resemblance. Both are rectangles with rounded corners and similar aspect ratios, that is all.
> ..But if you want to talk stealing design features..
> released January 2010
> 
> released June 2010
> 
> Glossy black back, silver trim. Please Lenovo, sue them! All it'll take is putting 2 pictures not to scale side by side from ~15 feet to convince these stupid judges.


AHAHA, seriously almost spit out my coffee on the screen. Nice laugh there. ty


----------



## WC_EEND

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LTC*
> 
> 
> They are probably going to sue each other as well... not.


that's because they are all the same car underneath, just with different body panels and branding attached to it. The Galaxy Ace and iPhone 3G(S) are completely different phones.


----------



## HA3AP

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LTC*
> 
> You might be right about the marketing stuff, however, the way Apple *stole things and called them their own*, which they still do is just not a proper way to do it, as it was said earlier, Apple stole the clickwheel, called it their own, and the calling the Macbook Air soooo damn great, even though it was released in 2008, where the IBM T43, which was almost as thin was released in early 2005, it had a DVD drive as well, and a replaceable battery, so if you look back, Apple didn't really push technology as much as you would think, they did however know how to sell them, with their aggressive marketing.


So if I buy a car and then call it my own, i stole it?! Better erase the vin numbers and scrap it asap... Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Dragonii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WC_EEND*
> 
> that's because they are all the same car underneath, just with different body panels and branding attached to it. The Galaxy Ace and iPhone 3G(S) are completely different phones.


Can you make that argument with these?


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HA3AP*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *LTC*
> 
> You might be right about the marketing stuff, however, the way Apple *stole things and called them their own*, which they still do is just not a proper way to do it, as it was said earlier, Apple stole the clickwheel, called it their own, and the calling the Macbook Air soooo damn great, even though it was released in 2008, where the IBM T43, which was almost as thin was released in early 2005, it had a DVD drive as well, and a replaceable battery, so if you look back, Apple didn't really push technology as much as you would think, they did however know how to sell them, with their aggressive marketing.
> 
> 
> 
> So if I buy a car and then call it my own, i stole it?! Better erase the vin numbers and scrap it asap... Thanks for the heads up!
Click to expand...

Umm. No. Wrong comparison. We're not saying that Apple is buying anything and claiming it as their own product. We're saying that they're improving an already existing product, and making it seem like they were the first to invent that product. It's pretty much their regular practice in their entire history.

Here comes the car analogy (to play along and draw it out how you were trying to)

Ford brings out a new Mustang and claims that they were the inventors of the automobile, or the V8 engine. They weren't. Just as Apple didn't "invent" a freakin' circular wheel that clicks buttons beneath it.


----------



## skatingrocker17

They only looking alike because of the UI and the one button. The back is totally different, most phones look somewhat similar because they're all still cell phones. I really don't think this is as bad as most people think it is.


----------



## HA3AP

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Umm. No. Wrong comparison. We're not saying that Apple is buying anything and claiming it as their own product. We're saying that they're improving an already existing product, and making it seem like they were the first to invent that product. It's pretty much their regular practice in their entire history.
> Here comes the car analogy (to play along and draw it out how you were trying to)
> Ford brings out a new Mustang and claims that they were the inventors of the automobile, or the V8 engine. They weren't. Just as Apple didn't "invent" a freakin' circular wheel that clicks buttons beneath it.


First of all read the op that I quoted, especially the bold part where he does claim that apple stole the inventions and claimed them as their own.

Now to answer your analogy, buying/licensing and claiming as your own is a normal practice in business. And more so on your analogy see: Flash of genius.


----------



## MountainDewMadOScar

This phone is a giant "come at me bro"


----------



## hajile

At its most basic, the iphone 3g is an ellipsoid stretched to fit a round rectangle. Is such an almost fundamental shape proprietary?


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hajile*
> 
> At its most basic, the iphone 3g is an ellipsoid stretched to fit a round rectangle. Is such an almost fundamental shape proprietary?


According to our epic patent office, absolutely!


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> They aren't really copying Apple packaging. These days companies want to be environmentally friendly so they are using less packaging. Apple just happens to be a minimalist company so everything they do uses the least amount of what ever is required. Even food products use less packaging these days, not only because it makes it cheaper to produce but also cheaper to sell. If I wanted to I can go out and buy instant coffee in a bag rather than the traditional glass jar and if I do that I could get the same amount of coffee for half the price. Do you think this coffee company I am talking about is also copying Apples packaging?
> The iPhone and iPad came out just before all these companies started to become more environmentally friendly. Fair enough with the layout and images on the packaging but like I said Apple has always used the minimum amount of packaging possible and other companies are doing that now to save money and be environmentally friendly.


That's great that they're environmentally friendly now but you can do that without copying Apple. The packaging is literally identical for both phone and slate but it wasn't before the iPad was released.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> They aren't really copying Apple packaging. These days companies want to be environmentally friendly so they are using less packaging. Apple just happens to be a minimalist company so everything they do uses the least amount of what ever is required. Even food products use less packaging these days, not only because it makes it cheaper to produce but also cheaper to sell. If I wanted to I can go out and buy instant coffee in a bag rather than the traditional glass jar and if I do that I could get the same amount of coffee for half the price. Do you think this coffee company I am talking about is also copying Apples packaging?
> The iPhone and iPad came out just before all these companies started to become more environmentally friendly. Fair enough with the layout and images on the packaging but like I said Apple has always used the minimum amount of packaging possible and other companies are doing that now to save money and be environmentally friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> That's great that they're environmentally friendly now but you can do that without copying Apple. The packaging is literally identical for both phone and slate but it wasn't before the iPad was released.
Click to expand...

Come on Steelbom didn't you read Papa's post? There's only one way to design phones and packaging now. And apparently that way is exactly like Apple.


----------



## Shozzking

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> They aren't really copying Apple packaging. These days companies want to be environmentally friendly so they are using less packaging. Apple just happens to be a minimalist company so everything they do uses the least amount of what ever is required. Even food products use less packaging these days, not only because it makes it cheaper to produce but also cheaper to sell. If I wanted to I can go out and buy instant coffee in a bag rather than the traditional glass jar and if I do that I could get the same amount of coffee for half the price. Do you think this coffee company I am talking about is also copying Apples packaging?
> The iPhone and iPad came out just before all these companies started to become more environmentally friendly. Fair enough with the layout and images on the packaging but like I said Apple has always used the minimum amount of packaging possible and other companies are doing that now to save money and be environmentally friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> That's great that they're environmentally friendly now but you can do that without copying Apple. The packaging is literally identical for both phone and slate but it wasn't before the iPad was released.
Click to expand...

So if Apple is entitled to be the only ones to use that type of packaging then couldn't every type of packaging be patented? That would mean that some random company could sue others for using the clamshell, anti-theft type of packaging for toys. I hate to break it to you but Apple wasnt the first one to come up with a box where you opened it and the first thing that you saw was the phone.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> Sorry for the long image, but the point I was making is that Samsung knows no limits when it comes to copying Apple.


And Apple knows no limits when it comes to copying prior art, and they are proud of it.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Nevermind I'm done commenting don't want to upset the loving folks.


----------



## -=R00bin=-

So will all the ipod 3gs skins fit the samsung? Hhaha


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shozzking*
> 
> So if Apple is entitled to be the only ones to use that type of packaging then couldn't every type of packaging be patented? That would mean that some random company could sue others for using the clamshell, anti-theft type of packaging for toys. I hate to break it to you but Apple wasnt the first one to come up with a box where you opened it and the first thing that you saw was the phone.


We're not talking about using a type of packaging rather Samsung copying Apple's packaging. Surely there's other ways to make efficient packaging other than EXACTLY as Apple does it.


----------



## Foolsmasher

People here try to nit pick apart each little point someone makes about the similarities between Samsung's new gear and Apple's past/present gear. It's the whole body of Samsung's work that gives it away.

Seriously, just go look at Forumviewer's post a while back and tell me that in general they aren't trying to mimic Apple's style at all. You have the devices themselves which look similar, skins on Android making the OS look like iOS, packaging that is identical in color and style to iPhone/iPad, peripherals that are virtually the same.........

It's not each individual portion that needs to be picked apart, it's the sum of the parts. I'm not saying that they should be forced to go out of business or anything, I just think you'd have to be completely blind and naive to think that there's only one way to create a product in the smart-phone and tablet game, and that the way to do it is nearly identical to the market leader in those categories.


----------



## mark_thaddeus

I'm sorry but this samsung phone looks like the F700 (front fascia of course) which was released Feb of 2007. This was one of the very first phones that offered a full touchscreen with a slide out keypad. If you ask me the first iphone copied (released June 29, 2007) and improved upon the F700.

http://www.gsmarena.com/showpic.php3?sImg=reviewsimg/samsung-f700/gsmarena_001.jpg&idPhone=1849


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> We're not talking about using a type of packaging rather Samsung copying Apple's packaging. Surely there's other ways to make efficient packaging other than EXACTLY as Apple does it.


Other than putting the phone at the bottom of the packaging instead of the top. Not really no, Apple use the most efficient way of packaging so it is impossible to make it any more efficient unless the phone doesn't come with a box at all.


----------



## IcedEarth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mark_thaddeus*
> 
> I'm sorry but this samsung phone looks like the F700 (front fascia of course) which was released Feb of 2007. This was one of the very first phones that offered a full touchscreen with a slide out keypad. If you ask me the first iphone copied (released June 29, 2007) and improved upon the F700.
> http://www.gsmarena.com/showpic.php3?sImg=reviewsimg/samsung-f700/gsmarena_001.jpg&idPhone=1849


I agree that both the iPhone 2G and the F700 look similar (in respect to the front fascia only) but other than that there are no real similarities.

The F700 doesn't have the same radius and gradual camber that the iPhone 2G had (ignoring the front fascia.)

My problem with your post is that you insinuate that Apple copied Samsung....simply because they released the iPhone 2G *3 months* after the F700. Do you really think any company could design, manufacture and create a phone with a fully functional OS in 3 months? That would be a logistical miracle!

It is entirely possible that one of the designs (F700, 2G) copied the other, however it is not at all possible to deduce which one is the copy cat due to the limited time scales we have to judge from.

However upon you providing me with this F700 example which was previously oblivious to me, I am willing to accept the front fascia of the Ace Plus may not exactly be a 3GS copy cat, it could simply pass as a natural progression of the F700.

The overall design...that still imitates a 2G/3G/3GS

To prove my point, look at the back of the F700 below, it looks nothing like an iPhone.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mark_thaddeus*
> 
> I'm sorry but this samsung phone looks like the F700 (front fascia of course) which was released Feb of 2007. This was one of the very first phones that offered a full touchscreen with a slide out keypad. If you ask me the first iphone copied (released June 29, 2007) and improved upon the F700.
> http://www.gsmarena.com/showpic.php3?sImg=reviewsimg/samsung-f700/gsmarena_001.jpg&idPhone=1849
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that both the iPhone 2G and the F700 look similar (in respect to the front fascia only) but other than that there are no real similarities.
> 
> The F700 doesn't have the same radius and gradual camber that the iPhone 2G had (ignoring the front fascia.)
> 
> My problem with your post is that you insinuate that Apple copied Samsung....simply because they released the iPhone 2G *3 months* after the F700. *Do you really think any company could design, manufacture and create a phone with a fully functional OS in 3 months? That would be a logistical miracle!*
> 
> It is entirely possible that one of the designs (F700, 2G) copied the other, however it is not at all possible to deduce which one is the copy cat due to the limited time scales we have to judge from.
> 
> However upon you providing me with this F700 example which was previously oblivious to me, I am willing to accept the front fascia of the Ace Plus may not exactly be a 3GS copy cat, it could simply pass as a natural progression of the F700.
> 
> The overall design...that still imitates a 2G/3G/3GS
> 
> To prove my point, look at the back of the F700 below, it looks nothing like an iPhone.
Click to expand...

If Iran (not amazingly resourceful) can produce a nuclear missile in 2 months, I don't think a phone (produced by one of the largest electronics companies in the world, with a huge Korean employee base on hand) in that time-frame would be unheard of. I somewhat disagree on the iPhone rear looking "nothing" like the F700. It's a freakin' rectangle with a camera on it. You can't defend one side and not the other in the same exact case. You're saying that it's fine for the iPhone to look remotely similar to the F700 (a rectangular back with a camera on it) yet it's not fine for Samsung's Ace to have the same overall shape. Yes, it's now thinner, like the iPhone, and that's because it doesn't have a keyboard like the F700 did. Even with the camera placed in the center, I guess that's not enough of a difference from the iPhone's design for you guys? There are only such few ways you can position a camera on a damn rectangle; you can't place it at the bottom, as your hand would block that quite often. The front of the Ace is PRETTY much identical to the F700. I just don't see why Samsung doesn't just say "hey, we have prior art of this design, see: F700 blueprints from 2006/maybe even 2005." The case should be a done deal at that point.


----------



## IcedEarth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> If Iran can produce a nuclear missile in 2 months, I don't think a phone in that time-frame would be unheard of. I somewhat disagree on the iPhone rear looking "nothing" like the F700. It's a freakin' rectangle with a camera on it. You can't defend one side and not the other in the same exact case. You're saying that it's fine for the iPhone to look remotely similar to the F700 (a rectangular back with a camera on it) yet it's not fine for Samsung's Ace to have the same overall shape. Yes, it's now thinner, like the iPhone, and that's because it doesn't have a keyboard like the F700 did. Even with the camera placed in the center, I guess that's not enough of a difference from the iPhone's design for you guys? There are only such few ways you can make a damn rectangle.


Hang on, are you actually suggesting that Apple went through an initial R&D phase, for their very first phone, created an OS, complied with all regulations, acquired all patent permissions, set up carrier deals, had all hardware manufactured, mass produced millions of phones and shipped them to stores globally....in just 3 months?

It is not possible, not at all. Iran already had an infrastructure and a capability to produce said weapons, they were just waiting until they mustered up the nuts to actually produce them.

What's with all of this 'freaking rectangle' nonsense? It is different, again the front fascia may not be but the back is different. You could successfully and easily tell the phones apart.

I'm not saying it's fine to look like the F700, not at all. Did you even read what I said?

I said due to the time frame in which both phones were released makes it impossible to deduce which one did the copying. Again, if the 2G was released one year after then yeah, I'd say it copied, if the F700 was released a year later I would also state that it copied. However both phones were released within mere months of each other, so it's impossible to tell which one conceived the design first. Either one of them copied or it was a genuine coincidence.


----------



## Concept_357

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mark_thaddeus*
> 
> I'm sorry but this samsung phone looks like the F700 (front fascia of course) which was released Feb of 2007. This was one of the very first phones that offered a full touchscreen with a slide out keypad. If you ask me the first iphone copied (released June 29, 2007) and improved upon the F700.
> http://www.gsmarena.com/showpic.php3?sImg=reviewsimg/samsung-f700/gsmarena_001.jpg&idPhone=1849
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that both the iPhone 2G and the F700 look similar (in respect to the front fascia only) but other than that there are no real similarities.
> 
> The F700 doesn't have the same radius and gradual camber that the iPhone 2G had (ignoring the front fascia.)
> 
> My problem with your post is that you insinuate that Apple copied Samsung....simply because they released the iPhone 2G *3 months* after the F700. *Do you really think any company could design, manufacture and create a phone with a fully functional OS in 3 months? That would be a logistical miracle!*
> 
> It is entirely possible that one of the designs (F700, 2G) copied the other, however it is not at all possible to deduce which one is the copy cat due to the limited time scales we have to judge from.
> 
> However upon you providing me with this F700 example which was previously oblivious to me, I am willing to accept the front fascia of the Ace Plus may not exactly be a 3GS copy cat, it could simply pass as a natural progression of the F700.
> 
> The overall design...that still imitates a 2G/3G/3GS
> 
> To prove my point, look at the back of the F700 below, it looks nothing like an iPhone.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Iran (not amazingly resourceful) can produce a nuclear missile in 2 months, I don't think a phone (produced by one of the largest electronics companies in the world, with a huge Korean employee base on hand) in that time-frame would be unheard of. I somewhat disagree on the iPhone rear looking "nothing" like the F700. It's a freakin' rectangle with a camera on it. You can't defend one side and not the other in the same exact case. You're saying that it's fine for the iPhone to look remotely similar to the F700 (a rectangular back with a camera on it) yet it's not fine for Samsung's Ace to have the same overall shape. Yes, it's now thinner, like the iPhone, and that's because it doesn't have a keyboard like the F700 did. Even with the camera placed in the center, I guess that's not enough of a difference from the iPhone's design for you guys? There are only such few ways you can position a camera on a damn rectangle; you can't place it at the bottom, as your hand would block that quite often.
Click to expand...

So according to you, this is what happened:

Samsung releases F700
Steve Jobs:"Wow this is a great design, lets copy it and make a touchscreen smartphone and call it Iphone."
3 Months later, F700 copycat is released.

Yea right.

And besides, do you have any idea all the effort and work put into creating the original Iphone? It was a revolution in the smartphone industry. I don't think they could've developped a groundbreaking UI, OS, capacitive touch screen, multi-touch interface, speedometer(and all the other breakthrough sensors Apple used), Etc. in a span of 3 months. Do you really think a computer company can enter a new market and release their first product in 3 months? Sure.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> If Iran can produce a nuclear missile in 2 months, I don't think a phone in that time-frame would be unheard of. I somewhat disagree on the iPhone rear looking "nothing" like the F700. It's a freakin' rectangle with a camera on it. You can't defend one side and not the other in the same exact case. You're saying that it's fine for the iPhone to look remotely similar to the F700 (a rectangular back with a camera on it) yet it's not fine for Samsung's Ace to have the same overall shape. Yes, it's now thinner, like the iPhone, and that's because it doesn't have a keyboard like the F700 did. Even with the camera placed in the center, I guess that's not enough of a difference from the iPhone's design for you guys? There are only such few ways you can make a damn rectangle.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hang on, are you actually suggesting that Apple went through an initial R&D phase, for their very first phone, created an OS, complied with all regulations, acquired all patent permissions, set up carrier deals, had all hardware manufactured, mass produced millions of phones and shipped them to stores globally....in just 3 months?
> 
> 2. It is not possible, not at all. Iran already had an infrastructure and a capability to produce said weapons, they were just waiting until they mustered up the nuts to actually produce them.
> 
> 3. What's with all of this 'freaking rectangle' nonsense? It is different, again the front fascia may not be but the back is different. You could successfully and easily tell the phones apart.
> 
> 4. I'm not saying it's fine to look like the F700, not at all. Did you even read what I said?
> 
> 5. I said due to the time frame in which both phones were released makes it impossible to deduce which one did the copying. Again, if the 2G was released one year after then yeah, I'd say it copied, if the F700 was released a year later I would also state that it copied. However both phones were released within mere months of each other, so it's impossible to tell which one conceived the design first. Either one of them copied or it was a genuine coincidence.
Click to expand...

1. No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. Both phones are rectangles, with a screen, a button, a camera, and an ear-speaker. It's no science marvel that two companies had such a generic, plain design.

2. The rumors about Apple coming out with a phone were around since 2005 (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/05/09/29/motorola_ceo_fuels_apple_cell_phone_rumors.html) so they were clearly as capable as you're saying Iran was. Let's leave the Iran topic behind, I was only using that as a reference that 2-3 months isn't really that unbelievable. There's a Russian company that sells custom made Android phones, they had mass produced their phones maybe a month after they announced they were entering the market. A company with the resources can meet a goal that may seem impossible.

3. And you can successfully tell the phones apart even now... one has a pretty obnoxious indication both on the box and on the phone itself that say it is a Samsung Galaxy/etc. product, and not an iPhone. The other has... well, an... Apple.







If today's LCD/LED TV boxes and TVs themselves had no company logos/emblems on them, would you be able to tell most of them apart? Having such labels serves exactly that purpose: let people know what the hell they're buying.

4. I meant: We say that Samsung isn't really blatantly copying the iPhone, as it has its differences, regardless of how minor they are (Ace's camera is in the center) and you guys (maybe not you specifically) toss that fact aside like it doesn't matter. Then, you bring up that the rear of the iPhone is not fully identical to the F700's, so that makes it ok, the iPhone definitely can't be copying the F700 because it's not 100% identical.

5. Even release/unveiling date doesn't dictate that, as one company could have secretly had a corporate spy employed within the other company, that had access to their concept models/designs that were sketched up years before the product's release.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Concept_357*
> 
> Cut to not have such a long post


My point in my posts here isn't even about who is copying and who isn't. If this were Samsung versus Sony most of us here would still oppose the situation at hand, where the design being sued for is ridiculously vague, generic, and has already been used.

My point is that there isn't much to copy to BEGIN WITH. Apple and you guys defending Apple are making a huge deal over a phone being thin and rectangular in shape with a touchscreen, single button, speaker, and camera on the back. Aren't Apple laptops rectangular in shape, with a screen, keyboard, touchpad, and speakers, all more or less in the same location of any other laptop that has ever been produced? Are they copying this design from all the other companies that have made laptops before them? Absolutely not... it's the market's standard design, as anything that is far different from that would be ridiculous to carry or even use. All cars (bar the ridiculous 3 wheelers and stuff) have 4 wheels. All TVs (again, bar some VERY rare/absurd/uncommon designs) are quadrilaterals. Some have thin bezels, some have thicker bezels. All pens have the same general physical appearance: they're a long, thin, twig-like utensil with an ink cartridge that has a tip to write with. Can you imagine holding some sort of circular shaped pen and writing with it regularly? Well, the same applies to a damn phone. I'd love to see someone holding a triangular, octagonal, or some other shaped phone. The standard has long been and still is: a rectangle, whether it's a flip phone, slide phone, or touch screen phone.

Notification bar in iOS5? Cool, that's fine. I don't feel Google should be able to sue the crap out of Apple for using that, claiming that they "stole" the idea. It's a damn software GUI that you slide down with your finger which shows you important notifications. It's a pretty generic concept; the equivalent of a Windows taskbar/Mac dock. I'm not picking at bones because it's Apple being involved. I'm looking at the scenario overall, and the matter at hand (suing over how a competitor's phone looks like yours) is just pathetic. I respect all of you dudes here, and regardless of my completely negative views of Apple and boycotting all of their products, Apple itself has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make: the design in question is WAY too generic and common. Apple is in no way being unique, inventive, nor creative to an extent that they deserve the sole rights to using that design or any design similar to it. Be the first to bring out some AMAZING, mind-blowing holographic smartphone that I don't even have to physically put in my pocket or hold and I'll 100% support that you deserve the sole rights to that design. In this case, we're talking about some rectangular pieces of plastic sandwiched over phone hardware, not all that much different from the cell phones that have been produced in the past decade aside from having a touch screen and much more advanced hardware.


----------



## james_ant

Honestly they both have a flat black front, and a rounded type of back with a camera on the back? Your going to say one company copied another? It's such a simplistic design really the internals are nothing alike. Compare most android phones and windows phones and they will also have an overall similar design.

You didn't see Asus suing people all over the place for copying their net-book concept. Its just the way the industry works.


----------



## bencher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> Given Samsungs history, you don't think they deliberately copied the iPhones design to make it look more like an Apple product in this case?


No......

If Samsung was doing that I wouldn't like or buy any of their phones.
I haven't seen one phone from Samsung that looks like an apple product.

You are a funny guy.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Yes, they do look alike. You notice the Prada has the dramatic black back (looks like glass, might not be). Wasn't that one of the huge changes of the iPhone 4 over the 3GS? Also, the prada has a very small place in the screen for the earphone, and it looks exactly like the iphone in that respect.


----------



## Riou

Someone kill this thread with fire. Pointless circular arguments that never end up anywhere.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Other than putting the phone at the bottom of the packaging instead of the top. Not really no, Apple use the most efficient way of packaging so it is impossible to make it any more efficient unless the phone doesn't come with a box at all.


How about a different colour? That's a pretty simple start.

Do you think they time and money to research the most efficient packaging, or do you think they just looked at Apple's packaging and copied it? Considering they look the same, I'm inclined to believe the latter.


----------



## ressurrectin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> How about a different colour? That's a pretty simple start.
> Do you think they time and money to research the most efficient packaging, or do you think they just looked at Apple's packaging and copied it? Considering they look the same, I'm inclined to believe the latter.


So what if they copied it? It's an effecient shape and size to use for packaging a smartphone. If they didn't, great. If they did, why does it matter? No-one buys something based on the box it's packages in, that box never sees the light of day once the contents have been removed. Bunch of fuss over nothing. It's not stealing marketting or design techniques, it's stealing cost-saving techniques. Get over it.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ressurrectin*
> 
> So what if they copied it? It's an effecient shape and size to use for packaging a smartphone. If they didn't, great. If they did, why does it matter? No-one buys something based on the box it's packages in, that box never sees the light of day once the contents have been removed. Bunch of fuss over nothing. It's not stealing marketting or design techniques, it's stealing cost-saving techniques. Get over it.


I wasn't saying I care, just that they copied it.


----------



## ressurrectin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> I wasn't saying I care, just that they copied it.


You can't prove that without having close affiliations with Samsung's RND team. You can assume it based on the final result and your bias towards samsung, but is it so far fetched that both RND teams came to the same logical conclusion without the assistance of each other?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ressurrectin*
> 
> You can't prove that without having close affiliations with Samsung's RND team. You can assume it based on the final result and your bias towards samsung, but is it so far fetched that both RND teams came to the same logical conclusion without the assistance of each other?


Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. The packaging is almost identical which leads me to believe one way or another that they copied them and I'm afraid neither of us can offer proof whether they did or didn't, it's all just speculation.

I believe it because of the final result and because I see Samsung copying Apple in some other things, that's about it.


----------



## mark_thaddeus

Have to agree that we need to kill this thread! I'm sorry I even posted on this...


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kikkO*
> 
> You must be high on something, the Prada and iPhone 4 look nothing alike.


I think you must be the one high on something. Other than the buttons on the front the iPhone 4 looks identical to the Prada


----------



## WhiteCrane

Apple can not patent shapes...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk


----------



## theturbofd

I love how people act like the Iphone didn't copy the prada but then as soon as the GS2 or this ACE comes out its OMG! it's copying apple!


----------



## ressurrectin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> I love how people act like the Iphone didn't copy the prada but then as soon as the GS2 or this ACE comes out its OMG! it's copying apple!


Reality distortion field. Only explanation.


----------



## ForumViewer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ressurrectin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> I love how people act like the Iphone didn't copy the prada but then as soon as the GS2 or this ACE comes out its OMG! it's copying apple!
> 
> 
> 
> Reality distortion field. Only explanation.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the iPhone looks nothing like the prada?

The only thing they have in common besides color is the silver bezel.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> Or maybe the iPhone looks nothing like the prada?
> The only thing they have in common besides color is the silver bezel.


Shape as well? Just the iphone is a little big more round on the corners so if that's the case then how is the galaxy Ace the same as the iphone?


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Black with silver trim, flush design, yes it looks like an iphone.

Also, glass front and back... Isn't that basically how they advertised the iphone?

If the iphone doesn't look like a prada, by that same measuring stick, nothing looks like an iphone.


----------



## Eagle1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> Black with silver trim, flush design, yes it looks like an iphone.
> Also, glass front and back... Isn't that basically how they advertised the iphone?
> If the iphone doesn't look like a prada, by that same measuring stick, nothing looks like an iphone.


except the ace doesn't have a glass back and it's borrowing the design from an older samsung Ace phone. Wait i think i'm missing something.


----------



## ForumViewer

What am I missing here? Glasses? The phones are more dissimilar than anything. Like I said, the bezel is the main thing, but one is steel, the other looks like plastic. I think it's safe to say apple did not deliberately copy the Prada, of all phones. Get real guys, you're grasping at straws.


----------



## Eagle1337

and ios looks a heck of a lot like web os..


----------



## Eagle1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> Yea, I know, so I guess it was a serious post. Sadly. The two don't look the same, highly suggest you look closer or use them both. As the owner of a touchpad and iPad, that is just silly of you to say.


well i highly suggest that you closer into the samsung phones then, instead of spewing rubbish. Minus the prada being more flat and grayscale it's rather similar to the iphone..


----------



## Kasp1js

IMHO, they look nothing alike and both are incredibly ugly.


----------



## DUpgrade

I'll keep my iPhone 3GS until they stop doing updates for it.


----------



## ForumViewer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eagle1337*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> Yea, I know, so I guess it was a serious post. Sadly. The two don't look the same, highly suggest you look closer or use them both. As the owner of a touchpad and iPad, that is just silly of you to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well i highly suggest that you closer into the samsung phones then, instead of spewing rubbish. Minus the prada being more flat and grayscale it's rather similar to the iphone..
Click to expand...

There would be no mistaking an iPhone for a prada. With the Samsung phone, you could easily mistake the two. Not sure wha rubbish you think I'm spewing beyond a differing opinion.


----------



## Eagle1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> There would be no mistaking an iPhone for a prada. With the Samsung phone, you could easily mistake the two. Not sure wha rubbish you think I'm spewing beyond a differing opinion.


Also do consider that the new ace looks a whole lot like the original ACE which came out in 2008 and no one was claiming iphone copy then.


----------



## tedman

I love the "I don't agree/like Apple, but...." phrases.

Reminds me of the "I'm not racist, but..." saying









So funny watching so many Apple haters trying to *ensure* that nobody mistakes them for liking Apple! God forbid!!









Here are some facts that people need to get used to:

1. Apple make great, premium products

2. Apple make generally reliable and well-built products

3. Apple focus *obsessively* on the user experience

4. Apple have undeniably pulled off some amazing business skills over the past decade

If you don't like Apple, then don't buy any of their products.

You will be missing out though


----------



## MAD_J

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kasp1js*
> 
> IMHO, they look nothing alike and both are incredibly ugly.


Trolling?

Remove the apple and samsung logos and you have the same device.

Successful troll or serious? NOT SURE AM I.


----------



## ressurrectin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tedman*
> 
> You will be missing out though


NOPE.

_Posted from my PC, Galaxy S II is charging._


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eagle1337*
> 
> except the ace doesn't have a glass back and it's borrowing the design from an older samsung Ace phone. Wait i think i'm missing something.


Hay doink, I was comparing the Prada and the iPhone. Sorry to confuse you.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> There would be no mistaking an iPhone for a prada. With the Samsung phone, you could easily mistake the two. Not sure wha rubbish you think I'm spewing beyond a differing opinion.


Yes, because apple slips a little chemical into the kool-aid that makes think differently. I forget that sometimes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tedman*
> 
> I love the "I don't agree/like Apple, but...." phrases.
> Reminds me of the "I'm not racist, but..." saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny watching so many Apple haters trying to *ensure* that nobody mistakes them for liking Apple! God forbid!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some facts that people need to get used to:
> 1. Apple make great, premium products
> 2. Apple make generally reliable and well-built products
> 3. Apple focus *obsessively* on the user experience
> 4. Apple have undeniably pulled off some amazing business skills over the past decade
> If you don't like Apple, then don't buy any of their products.
> You will be missing out though


I agree with your post. 100%. You sound like a person of knowledge and reason. Really, I would be okay with Apple if it weren't for 2 things.

The religious like cult that follows them and waits at every single product launch, even if it is only for a new color or even _Siri_. And then they go ape **** saying how Siri is the most amazing thing in the world, and if your phone doesn't have it, you are a loser. And they forget that the iPhone didn't have SMS messaging for the longest time, they didn't have copy and paste, they don't have 4G. But they don't care. And neither does the sane world.

I also hate how they get it into their mind they have to sue everybody that is part of team Android. I mean, now that Android is a legitimate threat, Apple will stop at nothing to keep the market in a monopoly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MAD_J*
> 
> Trolling?
> Remove the apple and samsung logos and you have the same device.
> Successful troll or serious? NOT SURE AM I.


Camera's are in different places, and on one the button is more rectangle. Obviously not an iPhone.


----------



## steelbom

Seriously? People are seriously trying to say that the iPhone looks like the Prada? What? The two phones couldn't look more different.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tedman*
> 
> I love the "I don't agree/like Apple, but...." phrases.
> 
> Reminds me of the "I'm not racist, but..." saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny watching so many Apple haters trying to *ensure* that nobody mistakes them for liking Apple! God forbid!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some facts that people need to get used to:
> 
> 1. Apple make great, premium products
> 
> 2. Apple make generally reliable and well-built products
> 
> 3. Apple focus *obsessively* on the user experience
> 
> 4. Apple have undeniably pulled off some amazing business skills over the past decade
> 
> If you don't like Apple, then don't buy any of their products.
> 
> You will be missing out though


Points 1 and 2 contradict each other. "Generally reliable" and "premium" doesn't go hand in hand. Furthermore, considering the design behind their macbook line, their products are horrifically engineered for cooling performance. Out of the box, i7s have been locked on Apple platforms while running Windows as they cannot cool them properly. That is not a "premium" product.

Apple has been pulling shady business practises for the past few years. You are right in the terms that they have had great success in the marketing departments, and have developed a good phone and tablet product, but they have not marketed their way in good heart. Considering their manufacturers, it is hard to support a company that not only underlyingly cheats the customer but also supports inhumane treatment towards their employers. So, you could say that have no had any "amzing" business skills as the majority of them were unethuical, especially with their patent garbage of patenting others' designs, designs that never made it into mass production, etc.


----------



## jrbroad77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tedman*
> 
> I love the "I don't agree/like Apple, but...." phrases.
> Reminds me of the "I'm not racist, but..." saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny watching so many Apple haters trying to *ensure* that nobody mistakes them for liking Apple! God forbid!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some facts that people need to get used to:
> 1. Apple make great, premium products
> 2. Apple make generally reliable and well-built products
> 3. Apple focus *obsessively* on the user experience
> 4. Apple have undeniably pulled off some amazing business skills over the past decade
> If you don't like Apple, then don't buy any of their products.
> You will be missing out though


All those are facts? *Prove it.* You like Apple, that's fine. "Great", "obsessively", "amazing" are not fact-based words though, nor are your statements generally accepted as true.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

I'm sorry... but I agree with him.

Apple makes premium products. They don't make their products out of this cheap plastic that Acer and HP makes their out of. They use actual metal in construction rather than cheapen the design like the rest of the market.

They are reliable. I used my friends MacBook (I was letting him play Skyrim on my HAFBeast about a week after the game came out. My current laptop is a Gateway MT3705, which I love.) to do my microsoft office assignments. Now, besides everything is rearranged, the MacBook was incredibly solid feeling. It _felt_ like it was put together very well. The hinges on the screen were tight. The keys were crisp. The mousepad felt quality, even though I wanted my right click button. It just _felt_ solid.

The same goes for the rest of the Apple line-up. Every iPod uses metal and not plastic. The screens are clear. The items always feel like they have been well thought out in how they operate. You can't _always_ say the same for Windows computers, or Android phones.

And when it comes to software, they think about all the little things. The rotating screen was a great idea. The accelarometer was another great idea to put in it. Maybe they didn't invent these things, but putting them into one package was the major revolution. They took all these slightly ignored technologies and licensed them for use and put them in a package were everything worked together.

I have never bought a new Apple product. I bought a used 8 GB iPod nano 5th gen and I love it. It is miles better than my old plastic mp3 player. I admit, it isn't perfect, but it tries so hard.

And that is the apple experience. They know they charge an exorbant amount for their goods. But they know they can because the people love the items. People are willing to pay for a great user experience.

Now, I admit that Apple fans can me malicious to other people. The can be snobs. And that is what I hate. Some of the people truely try to make you feel inferior for not being part of the whole hipster crowd (those damn hipsters!). And then you also have people buy Apple just because everybody buys Apple. The reason why Apple iPods are going to be a success for every generation is that they are the popular item. People like to show off, just pee in their morning coffee for being showy and flashy if it is that obvious.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> I'm sorry... but I agree with him.
> 
> Apple makes premium products. They don't make their products out of this cheap plastic that Acer and HP makes their out of. They use actual metal in construction rather than cheapen the design like the rest of the market.


This so called "cheap plastic" is able to be more thermdynamically sound then an oven of thin sheats of metal. Likewise, "cheap plastics" tend to be safer for the internals during a drop as they are more shock absorbant. Apple still has been unable to develope a new phone that does not become unaccessible under a single fall. All the other phone companies can, why can't apple?!


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> This so called "cheap plastic" is able to be more thermdynamically sound then an oven of thin sheats of metal. Likewise, "cheap plastics" tend to be safer for the internals during a drop as they are more shock absorbant. Apple still has been unable to develope a new phone that does not become unaccessible under a single fall. All the other phone companies can, why can't apple?!


BTW, metal is a much better conductor of heat _than_ plastic.

They make heatsinks from metal... not plastic... for a reason.

And yes, having a screen that can be broken from 1 fall is terrible. However, you take that chance when you buy a phone like that. I can firmly say that the best "designer" phone ever would be the Razr 2. I have mine (a Russian Retail version), and it has been dropped so many times the screen is cracked. It is still easy to use. The cracks appeared a little at a time, each time getting worse. It is still running. I also dropped it in the toilet, its screen screwed up for about a day, and then it was better. Just a tank of a "designer" phone. Battery will need to be replaced soon, but I love it so much.

But then again... Like you haven't had Android phones die from falls too?


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tedman*
> 
> I love the "I don't agree/like Apple, but...." phrases.
> Reminds me of the "I'm not racist, but..." saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny watching so many Apple haters trying to *ensure* that nobody mistakes them for liking Apple! God forbid!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some facts that people need to get used to:
> 1. Apple make great, premium products
> 2. Apple make generally reliable and well-built products
> 3. Apple focus *obsessively* on the user experience
> 4. Apple have undeniably pulled off some amazing business skills over the past decade
> If you don't like Apple, then don't buy any of their products.
> *You will be missing out though*


What exactly will I be missing out on?


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> This so called "cheap plastic" is able to be more thermdynamically sound then an oven of thin sheats of metal. Likewise, "cheap plastics" tend to be safer for the internals during a drop as they are more shock absorbant. Apple still has been unable to develope a new phone that does not become unaccessible under a single fall. All the other phone companies can, why can't apple?!


Apple could make a phone like that but they choose to make a more aesthetically pleasing phone rather than a more durable one. The simple solution is don't buy it if you drop it a lot and won't use a case.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Eagle1337*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> Yea, I know, so I guess it was a serious post. Sadly. The two don't look the same, highly suggest you look closer or use them both. As the owner of a touchpad and iPad, that is just silly of you to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well i highly suggest that you closer into the samsung phones then, instead of spewing rubbish. Minus the prada being more flat and grayscale it's rather similar to the iphone..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There would be no mistaking an iPhone for a prada. With the Samsung phone, you could easily mistake the two. Not sure wha rubbish you think I'm spewing beyond a differing opinion.
Click to expand...

Nahhhh you can tell them apart just as easily bruh... (considering the only major difference between the Prada's and iPhone's front surface are the bottom buttons...)



Got dat Samsung emblem on the front and back, no obnoxious Apple logo, and a centered camera. Edit: Oh, let's not forget dat flash


----------



## theturbofd

Nothing alike sorry


----------



## BlackVenom

I like this... this has to be a finger for apple. If I were willing to get a data plan I would totally get this. Apple needs to stop whining and being a little patent brat/whore. They don't even deserve to be called a troll.







And as for the article, apple doesn't innovate crap anyway.

And people, it's not whether you can tell the difference, it's whether there IS a difference. And the two are different.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Yeah, you can't mistake them. It says Samsung on both sides. Probably says it if you play it in reverse too!


----------



## kennh

Why cant we appreciate this beautiful piece of real life trolling?


----------



## doomlord52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennh*
> 
> Why cant we appreciate this beautiful piece of real life trolling?


Honestly... yea.
No one (someone is going to say "I do!!!"...) really cares what a tech device looks like. The fact is that it works. Like others have said, you CANT patent a shape (except in the US, where a rectangle is now patented by apple via the ipad vs. Galaxy Tab). Phones have been rectangles literally forever (look up ancient cell phones), and as time progressed, they were bound to become smaller and thinner so they could fit in your hand. Once the size got right, it came down to ergonomics, in which case a curved shape fits well in your hand. If you haven't noticed, most phones now have a beveled back. There's going to be a natural convergence of how stuff looks - we can see it in OS', Games, and so on.

Maybe instead of whining about one phone looking like another phone, the companies could instead make a BETTER phone.


----------



## cgg123321

tl;dr... how come that 3g has a samsung logo on it?????

jk. i really wish samsung would try to make their products a bit more different (physically)


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> This so called "cheap plastic" is able to be more thermdynamically sound then an oven of thin sheats of metal. Likewise, "cheap plastics" tend to be safer for the internals during a drop as they are more shock absorbant. Apple still has been unable to develope a new phone that does not become unaccessible under a single fall. All the other phone companies can, why can't apple?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, metal is a much better conductor of heat _than_ plastic.
> 
> They make heatsinks from metal... not plastic... for a reason.
> 
> And yes, having a screen that can be broken from 1 fall is terrible. However, you take that chance when you buy a phone like that. I can firmly say that the best "designer" phone ever would be the Razr 2. I have mine (a Russian Retail version), and it has been dropped so many times the screen is cracked. It is still easy to use. The cracks appeared a little at a time, each time getting worse. It is still running. I also dropped it in the toilet, its screen screwed up for about a day, and then it was better. Just a tank of a "designer" phone. Battery will need to be replaced soon, but I love it so much.
> 
> But then again... Like you haven't had Android phones die from falls too?
Click to expand...

First lesson to cooling a processor is *REMOVING* heat from the system. Do you even know why a fan is used in conjunction with a high thermal conductive material? Do you know how heat transfers? It goes from a hot medium to a cold medium (in lay man terms). Since heat transfer in air is poor, you add a fan. Since the CPU is warmer then the metal, it transfer to the metal and the fan works towards putting that heat into the air.

What happens when you surround the entire body of a macbook with such a composite with no fan? Well, the entire body around the CPU becomes just as hot as the metal itself. In fact, it will continue to get hot until a medium is reached. Since the cooling aparatus is poor to begin with (a simple fan), you have two mediums that are already in similar temperature and thus causes heat transfer to be poor. Heat will transfer better when the CPU is has 2 sharp temperature differences. Since Apple's engineers do no know the mere basics of thermodynamics, both the cpu and the surroundings is warm and thus its KE transfer less as it is closer to equalibrium. Hence why these so called "cheap plastics" (which aren't actually), are much, MUCH better then some crappy piece of alluminum. Apple, under no means, makes quality PCs. The most simple engineering practises are not remotely understood by the company.

I have dropped my previous windows phones and my current SGS II and not once had the screen smash or the phone ever be unuseable. It has been dropped multiple times under higher then normal velocities and still comes out strong and ticking. You can't say that for the iPhone 4(S). That is proof that Apple does not know a single thing about quality assurance of their products. Heck, they even kept the crappy phone design. The only good phones apple produced were from the 3GS and back. No, Apple is by no means a quality company.

Anyways...now you know!


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> Nothing alike sorry




iiii smeeelll a laawwwsuuuuuit coming between HP and ASUS!


----------



## RainMotorsports

LOL and the phone has 3 buttons thank you the LED's are not lit for the capacatives.

@OP the GS2 is way too far away compared to this to even compare to the iphone. All samsung ever really needed todo was do what they did for the American versions and go with a 4 button Capacitive and Apple would have had to concentrate harder on other models. This however definitely looks like a shot at apple and very comparable to a now out of production and out of style model.


----------



## Arthedes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThirtySixNights*
> 
> I think this is hilarious.
> Good on you Samsung.
> Copyright of such a simple, uncharacteristic shape is just outright ridiculous.
> It's like how Apple claimed copyright over rounded edges on smart devices to sue Samsung for their Galaxy Tab design, how can you claim such a thing?!
> You don't see mouse manufacturers going around and sueing eachother to non-existence just because they've copied the design for 'sculpted mice'. It's because mice are required to be in such formats and shapes, phones and smartphones are just like this.
> Almost all smartphones at least have distinct similarities in their design and this is not because they went and got the blueprints for another phone and then just copied them, making a few changes here and there.
> It's because they are designed to do the exact same thing, and that's sit in someone's hand.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Concept_357*
> 
> You would not be saying this if Apple "copied" someone else's design.


Lol, stop putting words in other people's mouths. Think for yourself


----------



## Arthedes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> Given Samsungs history, you don't think they deliberately copied the iPhones design to make it look more like an Apple product in this case?


Then why not copy the iphone 4 (s, its all the same), instead of making it look like a five-year-old apple design?


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tedman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Since Apple's engineers do no know the mere basics of thermodynamics
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that the Apple engineers, who have designed and created some of the most amazingly constructed laptops ever, have no understanding of thermodynamics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Have you ever taken a unibody MacBook/MacBook Pro apart? The way those things are put together is fantastic.
> 
> In terms of the unibody aluminium design, the chassis is designed to dissipate the heat, in theory acting as a big heatsink. It works great, but maybe the i7 heat was underestimated for this design concept.
> 
> I've worked extensively over the past few years with laptop repairs and the aluminium Macs are by far the most reliable and best constructed laptops.
> 
> I'm not an Apple fanboy at all, I just try to advocate unbiased opinions with the whole PC vs Mac debate. People need to be more open minded!
Click to expand...

Due to heating issues, macbook removes "turbo boost" as it becomes a heating issues while running windows 7. No, their engineers have not taken a thermodynmics course in their life. Heck, to be an electrical engineer you don't even have to take it.

In "theory", it doesn't act as a big heatsink but rather the "surroundings" in calculation. You need a temperature difference to make effective cooling, alluminum frames don't do so. So no, unfortuantely, your theory is incorrect as practical application proves otherwise. Considering your theory, other laptops should have worse cooling as this alluminum doubles as a headsink (also note we are considering the size of this "head sink"). But for some reason, these other manufacturers not only produce laptops that are able to withstand a fall as they consider shock asborbing material and don't turn off features because Apple couldn't design a proper product.

You guys really need to come up with "real" claims.


----------



## IcedEarth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RainMotorsports*
> 
> LOL and the phone has 3 buttons thank you the LED's are not lit for the capacatives.
> @OP the GS2 is way too far away compared to this to even compare to the iphone. All samsung ever really needed todo was do what they did for the American versions and go with a 4 button Capacitive and Apple would have had to concentrate harder on other models. This however definitely looks like a shot at apple and very comparable to a now out of production and out of style model.


My opinion on the GSII is not based on its aesthetics, more based on TouchWiz.









Don't get me wrong, I think the iPhone definitely influenced its design (come at me bros) but I don't think it is enough to claim a copy of design.

However I did transition straight from a 3GS to my GSII and I can definitely tell that the TouchWiz feature is a blatant imitation of iOS functionality. The scrolling app drawer, scrolling side to side on the main screen, the use of the 'one touch' home button. I know a lot of you will disagree with me, but then I would ask how many of you actually transitioned from an iPhone to a GSII in order to make a fair and objective decision.

I'm the guy who sits in the middle, I don't have any loyalty to Android nor do I have any of iOS. However it is from my personal experience that the GSII is just too much like iOS in terms of its day to day use, I'd be an idiot if I thought otherwise.

EDIT:

I'm actually going to detract my statement about the scrolling main screen. I remember when I first got my T-Mobile G1 and that had more than one screen, so it would be unfair of me to claim that one. Oh boy, what a piece of trash that phone was. I think this is one of the reasons why I love iOS so much, I was one of the guys who initially bit the bullet and invested in a G1, which was the very first Android phone, and I was stuck with that for 18 months. What a horrid, horrid phone that was. Then transitioning onto my 3GS it was like night and day, it was just so elegant and smooth compared to my G1. The GSII is also night and day compared to the G1 too, obviously.


----------



## ForumViewer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *RainMotorsports*
> 
> LOL and the phone has 3 buttons thank you the LED's are not lit for the capacatives.
> @OP the GS2 is way too far away compared to this to even compare to the iphone. All samsung ever really needed todo was do what they did for the American versions and go with a 4 button Capacitive and Apple would have had to concentrate harder on other models. This however definitely looks like a shot at apple and very comparable to a now out of production and out of style model.
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion on the GSII is not based on its aesthetics, more based on TouchWiz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think the iPhone definitely influenced its design (come at me bros) but I don't think it is enough to claim a copy of design.
> 
> However I did transition straight from a 3GS to my GSII and I can definitely tell that the TouchWiz feature is a blatant imitation of iOS functionality. The scrolling app drawer, scrolling side to side on the main screen, the use of the 'one touch' home button. I know a lot of you will disagree with me, but then I would ask how many of you actually transitioned from an iPhone to a GSII in order to make a fair and objective decision.
> 
> I'm the guy who sits in the middle, I don't have any loyalty to Android nor do I have any of iOS. However it is from my personal experience that the GSII is just too much like iOS in terms of its day to day use, I'd be an idiot if I thought otherwise.
Click to expand...

Right on. This is why like reading your posts. Despite what others may say, it is possible to have an objective opinion.


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

3GS is old news. Let them copy it who cares. It's really close, but not the same. If Samsung thinks they can get a few clean up sales, big deal. This phone will not stop a person who wants an iPhone 4(s or original) and will not stop someone from buying the 5 when it comes out. People that buy apple products know what is an apple product, and what isn't. Saying that another phone can't have a 1 touch home button, and rounded corners is like saying only one company can make light bulbs in a certain shape because they thought of it first. I doubt this will (if any) not affect apples sales at all. Whether it warrants a court case is a whole different story.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *RainMotorsports*
> 
> LOL and the phone has 3 buttons thank you the LED's are not lit for the capacatives.
> @OP the GS2 is way too far away compared to this to even compare to the iphone. All samsung ever really needed todo was do what they did for the American versions and go with a 4 button Capacitive and Apple would have had to concentrate harder on other models. This however definitely looks like a shot at apple and very comparable to a now out of production and out of style model.
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion on the GSII is not based on its aesthetics, more based on TouchWiz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think the iPhone definitely influenced its design (come at me bros) but I don't think it is enough to claim a copy of design.
> 
> However I did transition straight from a 3GS to my GSII and I can definitely tell that the TouchWiz feature is a blatant imitation of iOS functionality. The scrolling app drawer, scrolling side to side on the main screen, the use of the 'one touch' home button. I know a lot of you will disagree with me, but then I would ask how many of you actually transitioned from an iPhone to a GSII in order to make a fair and objective decision.
> 
> I'm the guy who sits in the middle, I don't have any loyalty to Android nor do I have any of iOS. However it is from my personal experience that the GSII is just too much like iOS in terms of its day to day use, I'd be an idiot if I thought otherwise.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> I'm actually going to detract my statement about the scrolling main screen. I remember when I first got my T-Mobile G1 and that had more than one screen, so it would be unfair of me to claim that one. Oh boy, what a piece of trash that phone was. I think this is one of the reasons why I love iOS so much, I was one of the guys who initially bit the bullet and invested in a G1, which was the very first Android phone, and I was stuck with that for 18 months. What a horrid, horrid phone that was. Then transitioning onto my 3GS it was like night and day, it was just so elegant and smooth compared to my G1. The GSII is also night and day compared to the G1 too, obviously.
Click to expand...

The G1 was a GREAT phone once modded. I was ready to throw mine into traffic until I decided to learn how to get CM onto it with Froyo. Android OS itself is what was really poorly optimized back then, and CM completely turned it into a new phone, even before overclocking. The G1 days is where I had more than several iPhones in hand, as I was selling them. Once overclocked, the G1 and iPhone were on par in performance, and that saved my G1 from the treacherous world of cars as I had already disliked Apple.


----------



## toX0rz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordikon*
> 
> Physical similarities, is that all?
> Seriously, the shape, and color are similar, and both have a single button at the bottom. Is that really worth a lawsuit?


This.

What has this poor world come to..
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ForumViewer*
> 
> How can you guys continue to defend a company that so blatantly, so obviously, even shamefully rips off another company's design? Hiding behind the argument that all designs are going to be similar is a straw argument. If Apple were to start copying someone else's design like this, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. If its such an obvious design, Samsung would've come out with it first. But they didn't. At this point it's clear that Samsung is doing nothing but riding on Apple's coattails, trying to create a product that looks virtually identical to the iPhone. If it's not the phone, it's the box comes in, it's the cable that you use to charge it, etc. etc. There is nothing unique about any of Samsung's designs.


You gotta be kidding me, what a poor arguement.
Why do 99% of computer keyboards look exactly the same? Why do all computer mice share the same shape?
By your logic, most computer peripherals nowadays would be rip-offs.
People dont realize that there are boundaries if it comes down to create a design or shape for a given product. Whats next? Do you want Samsung to create triangular Smartphones so it doesnt look too similar?
Just because it has a rounded and glossy backside and just one button at the front its immediately an Apple rip-off?
What will this world come to if everyone starts thinking like that..


----------



## CrazyNikel

Wait....

Apple can sue Samsung for making a smart phone look like a smart phone?

I should do this with mice lol. I wonder what shapes phones will take with Apple ruling the current design.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> First lesson to cooling a processor is *REMOVING* heat from the system. Do you even know why a fan is used in conjunction with a high thermal conductive material? Do you know how heat transfers? It goes from a hot medium to a cold medium (in lay man terms). Since heat transfer in air is poor, you add a fan. Since the CPU is warmer then the metal, it transfer to the metal and the fan works towards putting that heat into the air.
> What happens when you surround the entire body of a macbook with such a composite with no fan? Well, the entire body around the CPU becomes just as hot as the metal itself. In fact, it will continue to get hot until a medium is reached. Since the cooling aparatus is poor to begin with (a simple fan), you have two mediums that are already in similar temperature and thus causes heat transfer to be poor. Heat will transfer better when the CPU is has 2 sharp temperature differences. Since Apple's engineers do no know the mere basics of thermodynamics, both the cpu and the surroundings is warm and thus its KE transfer less as it is closer to equalibrium. Hence why these so called "cheap plastics" (which aren't actually), are much, MUCH better then some crappy piece of alluminum. Apple, under no means, makes quality PCs. The most simple engineering practises are not remotely understood by the company.
> I have dropped my previous windows phones and my current SGS II and not once had the screen smash or the phone ever be unuseable. It has been dropped multiple times under higher then normal velocities and still comes out strong and ticking. You can't say that for the iPhone 4(S). That is proof that Apple does not know a single thing about quality assurance of their products. Heck, they even kept the crappy phone design. The only good phones apple produced were from the 3GS and back. No, Apple is by no means a quality company.
> Anyways...now you know!


You, sir, are wrong in some of the things you think. Look at this picture. These two computers are the HP Voodoo (don't know exactly what it is called) and the HP Blackbird. Now, the reason they are raised off the ground on stands is to provide an additional cooling surface. And look, NO FANS! A metal surface that has heat on one side and is cool on the other will react as a conductor. The heat goes through the metal and leaves through the other side of the surface, even though fans are not blowing on them.

When these computers came out, the interview said something along the lines of "The reason we raised it off the ground was to provide a sixth cooling surface." If engineers from HP do this, and engineers from Apple do it, and you don't think it actually works unless you have a fan, WHO DO YOU THINK IS RIGHT?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Due to heating issues, macbook removes "turbo boost" as it becomes a heating issues while running windows 7. No, their engineers have not taken a thermodynmics course in their life. Heck, to be an electrical engineer you don't even have to take it.
> In "theory", it doesn't act as a big heatsink but rather the "surroundings" in calculation. You need a temperature difference to make effective cooling, alluminum frames don't do so. So no, unfortuantely, your theory is incorrect as practical application proves otherwise. Considering your theory, other laptops should have worse cooling as this alluminum doubles as a headsink (also note we are considering the size of this "head sink"). But for some reason, these other manufacturers not only produce laptops that are able to withstand a fall as they consider shock asborbing material and don't turn off features because Apple couldn't design a proper product.
> You guys really need to come up with "real" claims.


Please, don't count yourself qualified as an expert in thermodynamics.


----------



## CyberWolf575

Honesty every phone now looks exactly the same as the next one, they are ALL smartphones...


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

This thread is about apple 3G vs the new samsung galaxy ace. Please don't drag this topic to offtopic territory...


----------



## Stensby

Flame wars always happen in these Android vs Apple threads


----------



## RainMotorsports

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcedEarth*
> 
> My opinion on the GSII is not based on its aesthetics, more based on TouchWiz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think the iPhone definitely influenced its design (come at me bros) but I don't think it is enough to claim a copy of design.
> However I did transition straight from a 3GS to my GSII and I can definitely tell that the TouchWiz feature is a blatant imitation of iOS functionality. The scrolling app drawer, scrolling side to side on the main screen, the use of the 'one touch' home button. I know a lot of you will disagree with me, but then I would ask how many of you actually transitioned from an iPhone to a GSII in order to make a fair and objective decision.
> I'm the guy who sits in the middle, I don't have any loyalty to Android nor do I have any of iOS. However it is from my personal experience that the GSII is just too much like iOS in terms of its day to day use, I'd be an idiot if I thought otherwise.
> EDIT:
> I'm actually going to detract my statement about the scrolling main screen. I remember when I first got my T-Mobile G1 and that had more than one screen, so it would be unfair of me to claim that one. Oh boy, what a piece of trash that phone was. I think this is one of the reasons why I love iOS so much, I was one of the guys who initially bit the bullet and invested in a G1, which was the very first Android phone, and I was stuck with that for 18 months. What a horrid, horrid phone that was. Then transitioning onto my 3GS it was like night and day, it was just so elegant and smooth compared to my G1. The GSII is also night and day compared to the G1 too, obviously.


I can actually chime in as a pre Apple having an smartphone, smartphone user. But as you said the scrolling launcher screen is actually a stock feature of the operating system which is also featured in OEM and 3rd party launches. Touchwiz's "taskbar" as I would call it could have an arguable apple look to it and well as we know Apple thinks so as well.

I probably need a good definition on one touch home button. But best as I can tell Apple was very very late in having one. My Palm Treo 650 had a physical home button and this was a departure from the PDA lineups touch button which was later update on OS 5 Garnet to have software rendered touch buttons instead. Google basically requires their phones to have the 3 button or optionally the 4 button setup until now with 4.0 and they have covered the same ground palm did, Physical home, physical touch home and software touch home. I use a different launcher than Touchwiz so I wouldnt really compare my look and feel since its so much better than touchwiz.

Samsung most likely knew what they were doing when they did this. They took a shot at apple that if ever went to court would be argued as an old design. Apple wants Samsungs money not mine. If they ever wanted my money they wouldn't want to get my favorite devices banned. I don't have room in my budget for a whole lot of Apple but I can certainly make that permanent along with recommendations to people who always ask me for advice. But seriously if anyone bought something because it looked like a cell phone and they reside in say the North American market versus maybe China, then I wouldnt think Apple would truly want to deal with that kind of customer.

Hey at least its not a Meizu M8 right? The M9 looks like a Samsung too lol.

Apples next war might be with their Face Unlock patent which is a stock feature of 4.0. I mention this because Samsung is porting the feature to 2.3 Gingerbread for the Samsung Galaxy S which wont be seeing an official 4.0 ICS update due to rom size. Apple cant fight samsung over a stock feature thats their battle with google but with Samsung moving it outside of 4.0 it opens them up a bit. Some of the problems are part of the OS and OS requirements from Google.

Apple truly did something no one else had done before and this was moving the smartphone from the Business and Geek market to the everyone market. They most likely did this thanks to the success and popularity of the iPod in both the youth and adult market rather than the pure merits of the iPhone itself. The original model was enough on its own but you know how hard it is to push something into a market segment that doesnt know they want it. As its been said a smartphone is starting to look like a smartphone and Samsung is guilty here and there. But apple didnt invent alot of the things they might wish to claim as original. The smartphone evolved over time and it pulled with it features native to PDA's and Phones and followed along side developments in feature phones.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tedman*
> 
> If you don't like Apple, then don't buy any of their products.
> You will be missing out though


There's nothing to miss, when I'm getting this.










I especially won't miss that tiny 3.5" screen.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> I'm sorry... but I agree with him.
> Apple makes premium products. They don't make their products out of this cheap plastic that Acer and HP makes their out of. They use actual metal in construction rather than cheapen the design like the rest of the market.


You consider this premium? Something else I won't miss!


















Last but not least, Samsung is on a roll!


----------



## Fuell

Apple didn't invent the market, they didn't re-invent it either, they took an already existing idea and waited for the tech to make it possible to be mainstream and jumped the gun first. Tablets have been around for a long time, why did no1 use it? because the performance from the parts were horrible. My guess the reason Apple got their early lead was simply because most companies likely didn't think a small screen with less than Pent 4 power selling for $600+ would make any money, but Apple can get away with such things.

Anywho, lets be more serious. Apple is arguing very basic design features like rounded edged on a thin flat touchscreen device. That LG Prata fits the bill exactly. So why is it that Apple owns a design they apparently pioneered when there was a device on the market long b4 them... In order to figure this out we have to put on our Patented Apple Reality Distortion Field. Oh I get it, LG traveled into the future and stole Apples design and took it into the past. This is easily proven by the fact that the LG Prata was made b4 the Iphone, and everyone knows Apple is the creator of all life in the universe so they must have been first and this has to have been what happened right? Theres simply no other logical explanation









Sigh... I hate news about Apple... The only good news involving Apple is no news... that or Apple gets shut down, but that's just my own fantasy.


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> Apple didn't invent the market, they didn't re-invent it either, they took an already existing idea and waited for the tech to make it possible to be mainstream and jumped the gun first. Tablets have been around for a long time, why did no1 use it? because the performance from the parts were horrible. My guess the reason Apple got their early lead was simply because most companies likely didn't think a small screen with less than Pent 4 power selling for $600+ would make any money, but Apple can get away with such things.
> Anywho, lets be more serious. Apple is arguing very basic design features like rounded edged on a thin flat touchscreen device. That LG Prata fits the bill exactly. So why is it that Apple owns a design they apparently pioneered when there was a device on the market long b4 them... In order to figure this out we have to put on our Patented Apple Reality Distortion Field. Oh I get it, LG traveled into the future and stole Apples design and took it into the past. This is easily proven by the fact that the LG Prata was made b4 the Iphone, and everyone knows Apple is the creator of all life in the universe so they must have been first and this has to have been what happened right? Theres simply no other logical explanation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh... I hate news about Apple... The only good news involving Apple is no news... that or Apple gets shut down, but that's just my own fantasy.


They did re-invent it. Before the iPad all tablets were heavy, had low battery life, ran Windows, had weak hardware, and even some had hard drives instead of solid state drives, and now they're all like the iPad. Even after the release of the iPad it still took six months or so for a competitor to get a slate released, and a few months after that for some more.

>>>>>

The Ace is a blatant copy of the iPhone 3G. I don't really care, although I do find it a little funny -- as has been said, Samsung is trolling Apple.


----------



## Killam0n

*Samsung: Hey apple*
_Apple: Yes what do you want now sammy?_
*Samsung: you know you didn't invent the wheel right?- even though you have a patent to it...*
_Apple: Did so I totally invented the wheel, hmm maybe I can sue hot-wheels too while im at it.._
*
Samsung: Come at me bro.
*


In honor of Stephen Hawking, Congrats on your 70th!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LTC*
> 
> Also, looking back at the whole "Oh Apple is the best" thing, I truly hate Apple for telling people that the iPod is the best music player in the world, not really giving the ordinary people a choice, and making it incredible hard for other companies to sell their, for the most time superior products. And even when companies invent things, to compete against the iPad, iPhone or iPod, Apple steals it, and I know steal is a strong word, but I don't know how else to describe their actions.


The day I tried a Creative Zen X-Fi2 my brain imploded.

The iPod sounded like a bunch of sqealing pigs compared to it... And the 16GB + WiFi version is WAY cheaper than the iPod.

And it comes with decent earphones.


----------



## Quccu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_Chimera*
> 
> I think this phone is an obvious "Sue me, I dare you".


Exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Doomtomb

Samsung is like a contagion outright copying what Apple has done.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> Apple didn't invent the market, they didn't re-invent it either, they took an already existing idea and waited for the tech to make it possible to be mainstream and jumped the gun first. Tablets have been around for a long time, why did no1 use it? because the performance from the parts were horrible. My guess the reason Apple got their early lead was simply because most companies likely didn't think a small screen with less than Pent 4 power selling for $600+ would make any money, but Apple can get away with such things.
> Anywho, lets be more serious. Apple is arguing very basic design features like rounded edged on a thin flat touchscreen device. That LG Prata fits the bill exactly. So why is it that Apple owns a design they apparently pioneered when there was a device on the market long b4 them... In order to figure this out we have to put on our Patented Apple Reality Distortion Field. Oh I get it, LG traveled into the future and stole Apples design and took it into the past. This is easily proven by the fact that the LG Prata was made b4 the Iphone, and everyone knows Apple is the creator of all life in the universe so they must have been first and this has to have been what happened right? Theres simply no other logical explanation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh... I hate news about Apple... The only good news involving Apple is no news... that or Apple gets shut down, but that's just my own fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> They did re-invent it. Before the iPad all tablets were heavy, had low battery life, ran Windows, had weak hardware, and even some had hard drives instead of solid state drives, and now they're all like the iPad. Even after the release of the iPad it still took six months or so for a competitor to get a slate released, and a few months after that for some more.
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> The Ace is a blatant copy of the iPhone 3G. I don't really care, although I do find it a little funny -- as has been said, Samsung is trolling Apple.
Click to expand...

Proof that they re-invented it? How can you reinvent a market that already existed no different then today? All Apple did was improve on the market. Technology for all the handsets we on par with each other, had their own app market, had touch screens, etc. It was simple progression of technology. Simple really.

Looks like Apple's marketing crap claimed another victim.


----------



## Nocturin

You guys haven't ran out of steam, yet?


----------



## Dragonii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin*
> 
> You guys haven't ran out of steam, yet?


lol, apparently not. I for one hope they don't lock this thread. I'm actually enjoying it for its entertainment value.


----------



## hazarada

objection! both of these look too similar to what i just invented in my kitchen/basement!


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> They did re-invent it. Before the iPad all tablets were heavy, had low battery life, ran Windows, had weak hardware, and even some had hard drives instead of solid state drives, and now they're all like the iPad. Even after the release of the iPad it still took six months or so for a competitor to get a slate released, and a few months after that for some more.
> >>>>>
> The Ace is a blatant copy of the iPhone 3G. I don't really care, although I do find it a little funny -- as has been said, Samsung is trolling Apple.


Like I said, all they did was be the first to jump on the market when the tech was good enough to give tablets/smartphones that were not "heavy, had low battery life, ran windows, had weak hardware". They in no way invented it or pioneered it, it was coming regardless... I'll give them credit for being the first to push such an expensive tech on people, and for even making poor people want to throw away hundreds on whats little more than a novelty or toy imo (as it states "in my opin" means its an opinion, so get your panties out of a knot... , not directed at the person I'm quoting, just people that misunderstand and thing opins are being pushed as "facts" heh)

Smartphones were already invented, marketed and sold b4 the iphone came along, so in no way was the iPhone and iTouch "revolutionary" it was more "evolutionary" as the tech was finally catching up to what was needed to make the device fast, small, and light enough to make it user friendly, and not to mention battery life.... very few people would want a slow smartphone or tablet and have it last just an hour or so.... So with the LG prata (or prada... don't care enough to even google at this point







), smartphones as we know it today was already out there. And since the iTouch is an iPhone without a phone, and the iPads are just blown up touches... did they invent the market? Not a chance. What they did was jump the gun first, and do what Apple does best, marketing. Thats all, nothing else. I hate how people worship Apple as if we would not have smartphones or tablets at all today without them, thats a joke. A really funny one at that. Who knows exactly what the market might look right now if Apple didn't really get a head start or if they didn't even become a presence... Though with how things are now, it seems more like the market is gravitating towards the obvious, by that I mean it likely would look very similar to what we have today regardless... as most of the interface and control scheme are no brainers as being thesimplest and easiest way to do such things... Just like if someone were building a computer from scratch with an all new design.... chances are they will still end up with a kb and mouse... or a keyboard and something resembling a mouse... as its fairly obvious that one would need a way of inputting words and text or commands, and what better more efficient way then a kb? And even if they didn't come up with a mouse the basics would still be there, a hand controlled pointing device for navigation and interaction...

Bah, look what you made me do, write a big'ol post about nonsense... But yea, I still can't believe people think Apple is responsible for the devices we have today... makes for a good chuckle at least.

Edit> Forgot to talk about the ace vs 3gs.... if the Ace is copying the 3gs, then the iPhone itself is copying the Prata... so either Apple is a child-like hypocrite to the extreme, or they are just trolls... sorry I forgot, they are both!

And for the few people that can't deal to hear anything bad said about Apple... my opins are just that, opins. I dislike Apple because of the crap they pull, not because of the devices they make, though sometimes they price gouge pretty bad and leave out even the most basic of features to force people to buy extreme markup items to compensate for things missing that even a half its price device has standard... oops, there I go again... So.... decent products, garbage company.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *steelbom*
> 
> They did re-invent it. Before the iPad all tablets were heavy, had low battery life, ran Windows, had weak hardware, and even some had hard drives instead of solid state drives, and now they're all like the iPad. Even after the release of the iPad it still took six months or so for a competitor to get a slate released, and a few months after that for some more.
> >>>>>
> The Ace is a blatant copy of the iPhone 3G. I don't really care, although I do find it a little funny -- as has been said, Samsung is trolling Apple.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, all they did was be the first to jump on the market when the tech was good enough to give tablets/smartphones that were not "heavy, had low battery life, ran windows, had weak hardware". They in no way invented it or pioneered it, it was coming regardless... I'll give them credit for being the first to push such an expensive tech on people, and for even making poor people want to throw away hundreds on whats little more than a novelty or toy imo (as it states "in my opin" means its an opinion, so get your panties out of a knot... , not directed at the person I'm quoting, just people that misunderstand and thing opins are being pushed as "facts" heh)
> 
> Smartphones were already invented, marketed and sold b4 the iphone came along, so in no way was the iPhone and iTouch "revolutionary" it was more "evolutionary" as the tech was finally catching up to what was needed to make the device fast, small, and light enough to make it user friendly, and not to mention battery life.... very few people would want a slow smartphone or tablet and have it last just an hour or so.... So with the LG prata (or prada... don't care enough to even google at this point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), smartphones as we know it today was already out there. And since the iTouch is an iPhone without a phone, and the iPads are just blown up touches... did they invent the market? Not a chance. What they did was jump the gun first, and do what Apple does best, marketing. Thats all, nothing else. I hate how people worship Apple as if we would not have smartphones or tablets at all today without them, thats a joke. A really funny one at that. Who knows exactly what the market might look right now if Apple didn't really get a head start or if they didn't even become a presence... Though with how things are now, it seems more like the market is gravitating towards the obvious, by that I mean it likely would look very similar to what we have today regardless... as most of the interface and control scheme are no brainers as being thesimplest and easiest way to do such things... Just like if someone were building a computer from scratch with an all new design.... chances are they will still end up with a kb and mouse... or a keyboard and something resembling a mouse... as its fairly obvious that one would need a way of inputting words and text or commands, and what better more efficient way then a kb? And even if they didn't come up with a mouse the basics would still be there, a hand controlled pointing device for navigation and interaction...
> 
> Bah, look what you made me do, write a big'ol post about nonsense... But yea, I still can't believe people think Apple is responsible for the devices we have today... makes for a good chuckle at least.
> 
> Edit> Forgot to talk about the ace vs 3gs.... if the Ace is copying the 3gs, then the iPhone itself is copying the Prata... so either Apple is a child-like hypocrite to the extreme, or they are just trolls... sorry I forgot, they are both!
> 
> And for the few people that can't deal to hear anything bad said about Apple... my opins are just that, opins. I dislike Apple because of the crap they pull, not because of the devices they make, though sometimes they price gouge pretty bad and leave out even the most basic of features to force people to buy extreme markup items to compensate for things missing that even a half its price device has standard... oops, there I go again... So.... decent products, garbage company.
Click to expand...

I agree with his. Apple is a serious player and has contributed to the improvement of the market. But now, they seem to be destroying the positives they worked hard for.

It is sad that every Apple thread resorts to this because these _whatever you want to call them_ supporters always jump in and provoke a flame war between each company. OCN was, seriously, not as bad until these members started their provoking. It's sad that once proven wrong, they continue to act as they do. It's like they don't have a single rational bone in their body. Ugh.

I don't want to avoid Apple threads because of these members. I like the intelligent conversations that these threads CAN produce. It gives you a good side of things towards the company and their products and competitors. But the moment you start reading others' opinions on here, it's already a flame war. You can't even avoid these members as the threads go down hill the moment they join in the conversation. Blocking does nothing.


----------



## Foolsmasher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> It is sad that every Apple thread resorts to this because these _whatever you want to call them_ supporters always jump in and provoke a flame war between each company. OCN was, seriously, not as bad until these members started their provoking. It's sad that once proven wrong, they continue to act as they do. It's like they don't have a single rational bone in their body. Ugh.


Translation: I don't like when people disagree with me! Everyone should think exactly like I do on these matters, and anyone who doesn't is flaming!










I'm just surprised nobody has written in that Apple should die in a fire and that Steve Jobs is rotting in hell yet, perhaps the mods cleaned it up before I got here. VERY interesting view from your side of the fence......I don't think it's the reality whatsoever.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Foolsmasher*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> It is sad that every Apple thread resorts to this because these _whatever you want to call them_ supporters always jump in and provoke a flame war between each company. OCN was, seriously, not as bad until these members started their provoking. It's sad that once proven wrong, they continue to act as they do. It's like they don't have a single rational bone in their body. Ugh.
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I don't like when people disagree with me! Everyone should think exactly like I do on these matters, and anyone who doesn't is flaming!
Click to expand...

Not at all actually. I don't care if someone likes the product and or company while I don't. I actually like the iPhone4(S). The build quality or it's design is under par, as proven, but the specs are nice and functions alright. Previous iPhones were good products.

But see, I don't like the confrontation that specific members bring in. It makes OCN unprofessional that these people don't like it that someone dislikes their toys.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Not at all actually. I don't care if someone likes the product and or company while I don't. I actually like the iPhone4(S). The build quality or it's design is under par, as proven, but the specs are nice and functions alright. Previous iPhones were good products.
> 
> But see, I don't like the confrontation that specific members bring in. It makes OCN unprofessional that these people don't like it that someone dislikes their toys.


I would actually like an argument where people actually argue about the subject instead of throwing the random "your a sheep because of your opinion"


----------



## steelbom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Proof that they re-invented it? How can you reinvent a market that already existed no different then today? All Apple did was improve on the market. Technology for all the handsets we on par with each other, had their own app market, had touch screens, etc. It was simple progression of technology. Simple really.
> Looks like Apple's marketing crap claimed another victim.


The proof is in the fact that they were significantly different than today. How can you claim that it wasn't? Let's make a check list shall we? Tell me where I'm wrong:

Tablets:

1) They ran Windows
2) They used power hungry and underpowered hardware required to run Windows
3) They had very little battery life
4) They were heavy
5) They were expensive

The iPad:

1) Runs a mobile touch based OS
2) Uses power efficient and ample hardware required to run iOS
3) It had massive amounts of battery life
4) It's lighter than Windows based slates
5) It wasn't expensive comparatively

If it was a simple progression of technology why didn't anyone else do it first? And why after the release of the iPad was it out for at least six months before any attempt at competition? Apple was working on the iPad at least one year (maybe even a year and a half) before they released it which would be April 2009, so why wasn't another company doing the same thing at the same time if the tech was there, especially if it was just a simple progression of technology?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> Like I said, all they did was be the first to jump on the market when the tech was good enough to give tablets/smartphones that were not "heavy, had low battery life, ran windows, had weak hardware". They in no way invented it or pioneered it, it was coming regardless... I'll give them credit for being the first to push such an expensive tech on people, and for even making poor people want to throw away hundreds on whats little more than a novelty or toy imo (as it states "in my opin" means its an opinion, so get your panties out of a knot... , not directed at the person I'm quoting, just people that misunderstand and thing opins are being pushed as "facts" heh)
> Smartphones were already invented, marketed and sold b4 the iphone came along, so in no way was the iPhone and iTouch "revolutionary" it was more "evolutionary" as the tech was finally catching up to what was needed to make the device fast, small, and light enough to make it user friendly, and not to mention battery life.... very few people would want a slow smartphone or tablet and have it last just an hour or so.... So with the LG prata (or prada... don't care enough to even google at this point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), smartphones as we know it today was already out there. And since the iTouch is an iPhone without a phone, and the iPads are just blown up touches... did they invent the market? Not a chance. What they did was jump the gun first, and do what Apple does best, marketing. Thats all, nothing else. I hate how people worship Apple as if we would not have smartphones or tablets at all today without them, thats a joke. A really funny one at that. Who knows exactly what the market might look right now if Apple didn't really get a head start or if they didn't even become a presence... Though with how things are now, it seems more like the market is gravitating towards the obvious, by that I mean it likely would look very similar to what we have today regardless... as most of the interface and control scheme are no brainers as being thesimplest and easiest way to do such things... Just like if someone were building a computer from scratch with an all new design.... chances are they will still end up with a kb and mouse... or a keyboard and something resembling a mouse... as its fairly obvious that one would need a way of inputting words and text or commands, and what better more efficient way then a kb? And even if they didn't come up with a mouse the basics would still be there, a hand controlled pointing device for navigation and interaction...
> Bah, look what you made me do, write a big'ol post about nonsense... But yea, I still can't believe people think Apple is responsible for the devices we have today... makes for a good chuckle at least.
> Edit> Forgot to talk about the ace vs 3gs.... if the Ace is copying the 3gs, then the iPhone itself is copying the Prata... so either Apple is a child-like hypocrite to the extreme, or they are just trolls... sorry I forgot, they are both!
> And for the few people that can't deal to hear anything bad said about Apple... my opins are just that, opins. I dislike Apple because of the crap they pull, not because of the devices they make, though sometimes they price gouge pretty bad and leave out even the most basic of features to force people to buy extreme markup items to compensate for things missing that even a half its price device has standard... oops, there I go again... So.... decent products, garbage company.


The phone and slate market wouldn't be the same without Apple, they've had a significant impact on the industry. The iPad is a re-invention of the tablet, because previously tablets sucked, and the iPad was done in a different way which made it great. There was a teeny tiny small market for tablets, but now there's a huge demand for slates.

You say that they jumped the gun, but the tech was there earlier. Apple worked on the iPad for AT LEAST one year (likely longer) which means back in April 2009, which means the tech was there back then, so why hadn't another company started developing a slate back in 2009 for release in 2010?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Not at all actually. I don't care if someone likes the product and or company while I don't. I actually like the iPhone4(S). The build quality or it's design is under par, as proven, but the specs are nice and functions alright. Previous iPhones were good products.
> 
> But see, I don't like the confrontation that specific members bring in. It makes OCN unprofessional that these people don't like it that someone dislikes their toys.


That's your opinion though, I think the build quality (or design) of the iPhone 4S is great. It's not like they tried to make a durable phone and failed, they chose to make a very aesthetically pleasing phone. I knew very well that if I drop the phone it's game over, I know however that I don't drop my phone so it's a moot point for me.


----------



## ForumViewer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> There's nothing to miss, when I'm getting this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I especially won't miss that tiny 3.5" screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You consider this premium? Something else I won't miss!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last but not least, Samsung is on a roll!


And you people want to say Apple users are high and mighty? Wow. Talk about condescending.


----------



## Nocturin

But funny

Sent From somewhere over the rainbow.


----------

