Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that comment being voted down? It's exactly on point.
The iPhone was always going to happen as soon as capacitive multitouch technology became feasible at the consumer level. It was never going to happen a minute earlier, and it was absolutely inevitable a minute later. It was just a question of who was going to build it. Apple kept their eye on that particular ball, while Microsoft, Nokia, Blackberry, Samsung, and others did not. As a result, Apple was (properly) rewar…
Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
151–160 of 212 posts
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone ever accidentally bought a Samsung phone when they thought they were buying iPhone?
Yes. To fit the standard at issue here, that happened every time somebody bought a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone because they thought both phones basically did the same thing. Most people who buy phones are not as engaged with the market as HN commenters are. The argument at play here seems to be: you can make something that looks like a Braun device if Braun doesn't already have a design-patented device th…
I've owned both early iPhone and Samsung models and seriously they look and feel very different. The whole thing is a joke, and just irrational Apple "thermonuclear" sulking and foot-stomping.
Don't forget that before the iPhone, there were a TON of competing models of regular phone on the market, often very similar. Nobody was stomping their legal foot and sulking about patent violation for how the corner of a phone was bevelled or not. So please stop apologising for Apple's ego-fuelled temper tantrums.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#153There is one important aspect of this re-trial many of you are missing. The case was already decided years ago against Samsung -- there is nothing more to debate on that end, however absurd the decision. Now the new jury decided that those frivolous infringements amount to most of Samsung's entire profit. In another word, Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's patents rounded corners drove market demand for Samsu…
If design is so irrelevant to profits, how come Apple’s phones capture almost all of the profits in the mobile industry? Surely if your company has at great expense developed a legally protected advantage in the market that gains you the majority of the profit share, someone else copying your legally protected advantage and churning out products using all the same design features you spent years on must be pretty sic…
If you're agnostic to the OS, then, yes, Apple needs to convince you to buy theirs. But if you've decided on a platform - and design may certainly be part of that -, Apple has no competition, while every Android manufacturer is competing in an environment where people aren't only competing with unique devices but where they're also facing clones of clones of clones (e.g. my current Android phone is a Vernee Mix 2; Google recognises it as a Xiaomi Mix 2... there's at least half a dozen Mix 2 "clones" on the market, copying anything from just the exterior case to being near perfect copies including copying aspects of Xiaomi's UI)
So Apple has a much more sheltered position, especially as users get entrenched with large investments in apps and the overall ecosystem. Most of the Android competitors are competing in price segments Apple are uninterested in, but for most Android manufacturers at any price point has to deal with competitors selling phones that look and feel almost as theirs but costs 10% or 20% or 30% less - close enough to have near feature parity and attract the same customer segments -, which affects their margins substantially.
Couple that with Apple's logistics and manufacturing and integration and it's not surprising that Apple is so much more profitable.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think maybe he is talking about the general IDEA, not necessarily the look and feel. You're right in asserting that there really was nothing like iPhone before iPhone, but the IDEA was there from way back with HP Jornadas and the older BREW phones. (I do concede that the UI of all of those devices was, in PRACTICE, much different than the iPhone UI. That much is undeniable when you look at old pictures of them. Bac…
But the general idea of the UI was what set the iPhone apart. Instead of using a stylus to simulate a mouse, it used your fingers and direct manipulation of the user interface. That was a huge conceptual change.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a blatant attempt to diminish the massive effort huge numbers of very talented people put in in order to make the iPhone a reality when it became one. And I’m not at all convinced that it was such an obvious idea given the development of multitouch. I think it only seems obvious after the fact.
Multitouch and the accompanying interface was most probably developed by Synaptics, Apples touchscreen supplier: https://www.slashgear.com/synaptics-onyx-concept-live-demo-c...
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
The iPhone was always going to happen as soon as capacitive multitouch technology became feasible at the consumer level. It was never going to happen a minute earlier, and it was absolutely inevitable a minute later. It was just a question of who was going to build it. Apple kept their eye on that particular ball, while Microsoft, Nokia, Blackberry, Samsung, and others did not. As a result, Apple was (properly) rewar…
To support the obviousness of multitouch interfaces Camperbob mentions: See this prototype from Synaptics from 2006: https://www.slashgear.com/synaptics-onyx-concept-live-demo-c... The original iPhone used a Synaptics touchscreen IIRC, so it's pretty reasonable that Apple and every major phone manufacturer has been shown the Synaptics tech demo in 2006, probably earlier.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone ever accidentally bought a Samsung phone when they thought they were buying iPhone?
Yes, and I assume this anecdotal story of mine is not unique: phone salespeople do this. My grandmother (in her late 70s at the time) was sold an “iPhone” at a Verizon store, after her and I discussed which phone for her to get. It was a Samsung galaxy. At the time, she had an iPad and a MacBook so it made sense for her to get an iPhone when upgrading to her first smart phone. The salesperson explained to her it was…
It's flawed logic to say it's a widespread problem that people "accidentally buy a Samsung" because a salesperson lied to your grandmother. That's an edge case that means nothing.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone ever accidentally bought a Samsung phone when they thought they were buying iPhone?
The real question: has anyone bought a Samsung phone because they wanted something that looked like an iPhone but didn't particularly care or know enough to worry about it being an Apple device? "Hey, this Samsung phone is cheaper and looks the same, I'll just buy it instead" is probably more common than we'd think.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the general idea of the UI was what set the iPhone apart. Instead of using a stylus to simulate a mouse, it used your fingers and direct manipulation of the user interface. That was a huge conceptual change.
I used my fingers on my Palm Pilot because it was more practical than dragging the stylus out. It wasn't using fingers per se that was revolutionary with the iPhone but that it packaged everything up in a package that was actually attractive to "normal people" instead of only appealing to gadget geeks and power users the way things like Palm devices did.
Still using it in the same way as a mouse. The thing that set the iOS UI apart is direct manipulation of the UI. E.g. instead of using a scrollbar/arrows to scroll, you use your finger to move the page around. Instead of clicking a checkbox you move a slider. Instead of clicking a "zoom in" button you 'stretch' the photo out using your fingers. etc.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#160They patented "a grid of icons" when it's literally the first way you'd think of doing the UI - basically the definition of an "obvious patent". Not to mention that it'd already been done that way many times before and was the standard thing on smartphones by that point. So both obvious and massive prior art. For instance here's a Nokia phone from 2005: https://phys.org/news/2005-03-nokia-3g-imaging-smartphone-sh...…
There's also a decade or so of PDA's with grid of icon interfaces that predate the iPhone.