11–20 of 38 posts
That said, this kind of corporate innovation is pretty broken, too. The way I interpret this document is not "how can we make a great product?" but rather: "How can we emulate a great product?"
Almost ironic, now that the iPhone app store is almost entirely comprised of mine craft rip offs.
It would have been nice to see them trying to make their products better than the iPhone, but, alas, they are only trying to play "catch-up", not "exceed".
It's a shame that every single screen simply talks about how they can make their products more like the iPhone. It would have been nice to see them trying to make their products better than the iPhone, but, alas, they are only trying to play "catch-up", not "exceed".
What's annoying is this isn't the real issue. Of course Samsung felt threatened by the iPhone, and set out to copy the aspects of it they liked. That's how capitalism works. The real issue is what degree of protection should our legal system provide original innovators against those who want to copy their innovations. I think the guiding principle should be the least legal protection that would still leave enough inc…
But this isn't the issue at hand. Apple's claiming that Samsung deliberately copied their trade dress to confuse consumers. Remember, trade dress isn't functionality. It's the look and feel of the product, not the functionality. It's over things like the color of the slide to unlock mechanism. The choice of icons and placement. Not the fact that you move your finger across the screen in a certain place to unlock the…
Surely Samsung wanted to mimic that sleek smartphone feeling that was all the rage, but try to confuse customers with a clone? They would be doing a terrible job.
For me the most depressing part is that you have what I consider to be a pretty reasonable gap analysis with recommendations that has now become damning evidence showing bad behavior. This is unfortunate. I'd like all companies to profile their own products against others and own up to where they fall short and have plans to get better. If a company says, "Our phone gets only four hours on a charge but their's gets s…
I don't think that's the case, if it's just showing the date on the icon.
On the other hand, if the instruction is to "Show the date display on the Calendar icon exactly like Apple's icon," that's a different story.
It's a shame that every single screen simply talks about how they can make their products more like the iPhone. It would have been nice to see them trying to make their products better than the iPhone, but, alas, they are only trying to play "catch-up", not "exceed".
I might argue that when you're that far behind, it isn't unreasonable to make the quarterly goal to "catch-up" and then finally to "exceed". These are not mutually exclusive goals, they are just situation relative.
And we've seen time and time again, that just as everyone else "catches-up" to an Apple device, Apple go and release the next one that jumps them ahead again, because they have that 1-2 year head start.
Yeah, I know it has not always been the case, but I think it's pretty safe to say it was the case with the iPod for it's entire life, and it does happen with the iPhone/iPad/MBA/MBPr
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this isn't the issue at hand. Apple's claiming that Samsung deliberately copied their trade dress to confuse consumers. Remember, trade dress isn't functionality. It's the look and feel of the product, not the functionality. It's over things like the color of the slide to unlock mechanism. The choice of icons and placement. Not the fact that you move your finger across the screen in a certain place to unlock the…
Doesn't their phone say "SAMSUNG" on the top of the frontside? Surely Samsung wanted to mimic that sleek smartphone feeling that was all the rage, but try to confuse customers with a clone? They would be doing a terrible job.
What's annoying is this isn't the real issue. Of course Samsung felt threatened by the iPhone, and set out to copy the aspects of it they liked. That's how capitalism works. The real issue is what degree of protection should our legal system provide original innovators against those who want to copy their innovations. I think the guiding principle should be the least legal protection that would still leave enough inc…
? I think you underestimate the costs for a company like Apple to go through the design, test, review, tweak cycle over and over again for each of those pixels. The cost to get it just right is not "little".
The extensive costs from the required multiple iterations required to arrive at such designs before they are seen by the public explains why companies like Samsung would prefer to save money, skip the iterations and simply jump straight to the end result by copying.