Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#221

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:12 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #174

Permit wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the end result could have been avoided had the "visionary" simply not been hypocritical and avoided doing "a bad thing".

Yes, and it also could have been avoided if everybody paid more attention to what is beneficial for them (i.e what the visionary said) than to what the visionary does or does not. You just gave a perfect example of the narrow minded logic explained in the article, that cares not what is good for them to do, but if the guy that advocates it is "consistent". Not to mention the other three paragraphs I quoted, that expl…

>To put it in very crude way, if you see a beaten-down meth addict telling you "just say no to meth", I'd say DO listen to him, even if he's doing it. //

Practically the problem with this is that unless you know the right thing to do before hand then you can't determine the right thing to do. The hypocrite does one thing and instructs you not to do that thing (or to do another instead) - but by their actions they're showing, rightly or wrongly, that the thing they're counselling against is something they've chosen [to some extent] for themselves.

In the case of the meth addict you assume that they're being helpful because you assume (barring personal wisdom on the matter) that meth is bad, m'kay. But perhaps they just want to keep all the lovely, lovely meth for themselves??

If a person espouses a universal good - avoiding meth is good for everyone. Or if that person espouses a personal good without explaining why it doesn't apply to them - avoiding meth is good for you. But still that person acts opposite to that they espouse - eg take meth. Then they're acting contrary to what they state will be to their benefit.

You can't trust such a person. Either they act in ways that they know are detrimental or they are lying to you about the benefits available by following their actions.

So you can't trust a hypocrites testimony nor can you - without outside knowledge - learn what actions are best to take solely from their testimony.

Coming back to the case in hand. Is it wrong to copy someone's design? We can't tell if Apple Corp consider it wrong or right. All we know is that they're untrustworthy. Then they use legal process to punish someone for allegedly copying a design whilst on the other hand copying a design and show that they're willing to act to the detriment of others who follow their lead. It's kinda hypocrisy+plus: not only do we say not to do that which we do but we'll punish you for doing that which we do.

>narrow minded logic explained in the article, that cares not what is good for them to do, but if the guy that advocates it is "consistent" //

Whatever a hypocrite advocates is basically irrelevant. One should discard their testimony about the good of an action and use outside sources/testimony to establish independently the nature of any good that can be derived by following their instruction. A hypocrite though, as you appear to contend, would be a valid source of ideas just not a sound source of wisdom (ie take their idea but don't follow it without independently examining it).

E&OE

tl;dr don't trust a hypocrite

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#222

Post by mistercow » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

brink wrote: post #21

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #12

No, no, no you guys don't understand. This is not a cheap rip-off. It's an homage and the Swiss will be honoured that their famous clock has been elevated to the high-art status of Apple design and innovation. The critical eye of an average iPhone user will appreciate the fine craftsmanship & precision of the painstaking work that went into translating the iconic clock into an exact digital replica.

I can't downvote you. But I think that this is a prime example of the snarky comments that people are complaining about that are hurting HN's comment quality.

The way that snarky comments can hurt the community is by hurting people's feelings and making people feel reluctant to show off what they're up to. "Show HN" posts in particular are one of the coolest things about HN, and if people feel like they're going to get torn open just for putting themselves out there, they are unlikely to do so.

So there's nothing intrinsically wrong about snarky comments. It's when the snarky comments are targeted at individuals undeserving of such harshness that there's a problem.

If someone makes a "Show HN" post, and you think their work is incompetent, or that the problem they're solving isn't important, that doesn't excuse being snarky at them.

If, on the other hand, they have blatantly ripped off someone else's work, snarkiness would be fine (assuming you have damned good reason to believe that they did so intentionally, and that they did not ask permission).

We should be happy to make people worry about unethical behavior here before posting, because the ethics of your behavior can usually be assessed by introspection. We should not make people think twice about their work being incompetent before posting, because competence cannot easily be judged through introspection. Only by actually posting and seeing constructive feedback will someone be able to know how they can improve.

Of course, this applies to more than Show HN posts; people who read HN can also have their work posted by other people. The point is that we don't really need to worry about hurting Apple's feelings over blatantly ripping off someone else's work.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#223

Post by pmr_ » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:17 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #153

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #12

No, no, no you guys don't understand. This is not a cheap rip-off. It's an homage and the Swiss will be honoured that their famous clock has been elevated to the high-art status of Apple design and innovation. The critical eye of an average iPhone user will appreciate the fine craftsmanship & precision of the painstaking work that went into translating the iconic clock into an exact digital replica.

Misguided sarcasm. It is indeed a homage. 1) Apple didn't copy the design to make it's own clock rip-off. It is for a very tiny part of their original product. 2) Apple didn't copy the design to sell more iPhones. 3) The design is famous. It's not like Apple sneakily copied it thinking no one will notice. 4) It's a common "click of the eye" gesture to design-savvy public, like their basing their podcast app to classi…

4) It's a common "click of the eye" gesture to design-savvy public, like their basing their podcast app to classic 60's design, etc.

Or it is just another case of Skeuomorphism gone wild. Not everybody who pays attention to design likes that kind of thing and appreciating it isn't making someone "design-savvy" either.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#224

Post by stordoff » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:21 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #35

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #12

No, no, no you guys don't understand. This is not a cheap rip-off. It's an homage and the Swiss will be honoured that their famous clock has been elevated to the high-art status of Apple design and innovation. The critical eye of an average iPhone user will appreciate the fine craftsmanship & precision of the painstaking work that went into translating the iconic clock into an exact digital replica.

Serious question, if the Railway company was a government institution when the design was released, is the design not in the public domain? Nowadays, it seems they're quasi-governmental, but back then I think they were strictly a national org. It'd be like DARPA trying to get royalties on the internet or something similar. I could be wrong in this line of thinking, of course.

If this was in the US, you could well be correct. In Switzerland, the law is quite likely to be different. It's not uncommon for Governments to have specific copyright rules in non-US jurisdictions (See e.g. Crown copyright[1] used in the UK, Canada, etc.)

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#225

Post by cstuder » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:26 PM UTC

hamrickdavid wrote: post #193

cstuder wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the SBB will sue Apple. Their relationship is a little bit more complex than mere two unrelated companies: Some context: The iPhone has a huge penetration rate in Switzerland (2.9 million devices sold for a population of 8 million people). Switzerland also has very good public transportation, held together by the train system of the SBB. And therefore, almost every iPhone user has the SBB Mobile App inst…

In-App purchases are for digital goods only (Content, Functionality, Services, Subscriptions). You are completely free to sell real/physical goods (ie. a train ticket) via your own payment system. https://developer.apple.com/appstore/in-app-purchase/In-App-... "You must deliver your digital good or service within your app. Do not use In-App Purchase to sell real-world goods and services."

Oh, I wasn't aware of this distinction.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#226

Post by jeltz » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:27 PM UTC

akldfgj wrote: post #212

jeltz wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an explanation in the Wikipedia article about the clock (written yesterday). The reason is to give some extra time to close the doors, and to also give the clocks a bit of more room to synchronize with the central clock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_railway_clock

Wow, so the trains don't run on time, so they make the time run on the trains?

Not really. The second hand takes 58.5 second to move the entire circle at constant speed if I recall correctly. Then it stops for 1.5 seconds before it starts moving again. During that 1.5 second pause you close the doors of the trains. So it is more a method of synching the closing of the doors with the clock rather than actually gaining any time.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#227

Post by anextio » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:36 PM UTC

hamrickdavid wrote: post #193

cstuder wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the SBB will sue Apple. Their relationship is a little bit more complex than mere two unrelated companies: Some context: The iPhone has a huge penetration rate in Switzerland (2.9 million devices sold for a population of 8 million people). Switzerland also has very good public transportation, held together by the train system of the SBB. And therefore, almost every iPhone user has the SBB Mobile App inst…

In-App purchases are for digital goods only (Content, Functionality, Services, Subscriptions). You are completely free to sell real/physical goods (ie. a train ticket) via your own payment system. https://developer.apple.com/appstore/in-app-purchase/In-App-... "You must deliver your digital good or service within your app. Do not use In-App Purchase to sell real-world goods and services."

It amazes me how many people continue to misunderstand App Store rules and quote bullshit on a daily basis.

In-App Purchasing rules apply to purchasing books in an e-reader, levels in a video game, or music in a player, etc.

It doesn't apply at all to real-world items. (This includes something like train tickets via Passbook because they are not consumed in the app, they are consumed by the train conductor scanning your phone.)

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#228

Post by Someone » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #113

Cushman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't understand the satire here. It sounds like you're mimicking the response to claims that Apple stole designs from Braun? But the two situations are nothing alike -- cribbing industrial design elements from defunct products is a far cry from duplicating a trademarked image more or less exactly. It seems more likely you're trying to dig on Apple for going thermonuclear on trade dress while at the same tim…

And the funny thing is Mondaine clocks may be good for a train station, where they are meant to be read at a distance, by people with less than 20/20 vision But it doesn't present any real advantage on an iPhone Too much skeumorphism again

1. Clocks are fashion accessories, too. That is why http://www.mondaine.com/mondaine-watches/ sells watches with the clock's face.

2. I guess many people will try and read the clock while not wearing glasses

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#229

Post by sswezey » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:44 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #188

dvhh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Apple RDF was more a "Steve Jobs" RDF

Actually, that's exactly right, according to Bud Tribble, the person who coined it, inside Apple: "Bud, that's crazy!", I told him. "We've hardly even started yet. There's no way we can get it done by then." "I know," he responded, in a low voice, almost a whisper. "You know? If you know the schedule is off-base, why don't you correct it?" "Well, it's Steve. Steve insists that we're shipping in early 1982, and won't…

The fact that there was a 1984-esque commercial from Apple and Steve Jobs had the characteristics of Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth is intriguing.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#230

Post by ktizo » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:53 PM UTC

roc wrote: post #191

varunsrin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People probably feel that it is hypocritical to sue one company for copying your designs, and then turn around and copy designs off someone else, especially when they happen right a few months apart. Personally, my moral compass immediately feels that this is worse than just plain copying, and I assume that is why people are reacting with a stronger anti-Apple sentiment here.

The big distinction that seems to be getting missed is that Apple isn't selling wall clocks with this design. So they aren't remotely competing with the designs that they 'copy' from. Samsung is copying Apple, arguably intentionally, to create directly competing products. This is a very different thing.

Phones compete with watches though.

Personally, I don't really care about people making knockoff Mondaine watches, I just find this funny and feel it is that peculiar form of justice that is generally known as "live by the sword, die by the sword".

Is like cannibals being left to their own devices till they get bored and eat each other.