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

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#231

Post by jamesbritt » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 5:01 PM UTC

glhaynes wrote: post #179

jmmcd wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I read your comment I agreed. After reading the many comments down-thread which missed rather obvious sarcasm, I reluctantly disagree.

I hate to be all "in the old days", but, really, threads on HN didn't used to be full of snark and jokes, which obviated this problem. I miss that.

Perhaps we should all start assuming that any blunt, snarky comment is really meant as a piss-take. E.g., if you read "Apple is a bunch of blatant design thieves", assume that no one could intend that at face value, so it's really facetious joking meant to express the opposite.

We'll all feel a lot better, and the blunt and snarky will realize that their posts are having the reverse effect expected.

OK, well, we'll at least all feel better.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#232

Post by omgsean » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 6:51 PM UTC

vadman wrote: post #201

omgsean wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really unlikely. Those clocks are famous, especially among the types of people who would be in charge of designing a clock at Apple.

Indeed. I don't know much about the designer subculture, but there are a bunch of "iconic" industrial designs that they (should) know about. Another famous one is the IBM wall clock: http://vimeo.com/40953003 (one of the Windows clock gadgets is obviously inspired by it). (Disclaimer: I am not an Apple fan.) As for the design itself, there is the blatant copying of the seconds hand, but otherwise it seems whoever did…

They should just license it. I think all the people who are saying it's analogous to the Apple/Samsung debacle are reaching though. No one is going to walk into a store with the intent of buying a Mondaine watch and leave with an iPhone instead.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#233

Post by vvpan » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 7:21 PM UTC

There are too many sarcastic comments in this thread. Seriously. There are 10 comments which are essentially the same. I hate to use the cliche comparison to Reddit, but it's hard not to.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#234

Post by batista » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 7:54 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #221

batista wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

Yes, this is where THINKING comes in.

First step, stop caring about anything specific about the person that gave you the advice, and only consider the advice.

Second step, try to think if it's good advice, in itself. If it is, follow it.

The guy being a hypocrite or not should not come into play at all. Neither should trust.

You should not follow some advice because you trust the guy who suggested it to you. You should follow it because you evaluated it.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#235

Post by malyk » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 7:55 PM UTC

Is there a clock, different than the clock app, that I'm not aware of? I'm using the iOS 6 Gold Master and the icon my clock app does not look like that at all.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#236

Post by batista » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 8:00 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #194

batista wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're meth example is not the same thing. The meth user's meth usage does not effect the person he tells not to use meth. Well, maybe there's something to be said about the societal issues. In the room example it is stated the bad thing affects everyone in the room to some detriment. Even though the visionary got everyone to stop, the eventual outcome is the detrimental one since the visionary keeps doing the bad th…

>In the room example it is stated the bad thing affects everyone in the room to some detriment. Even though the visionary got everyone to stop, the eventual outcome is the detrimental one since the visionary keeps doing the bad thing.

No, it's not the detrimental one at all. 1 person doing a bad thing (e.g farting in a room) is not at all the same as 100 persons doing a bad thing (e.g farting in a room).

>Therefore, in the end it doesn't matter if one of them or all of them does the bad thing. So, the fact that the visionary was a hypocrite has doomed them all.

No, it's their giving importance not to the idea of doing the good thing but to the consistency of the visionary that doomed them all. That's the whole point of the article.

>Only when the visionary is not a hypocrite can they all be saved.

No, they can also be saved if they STOP being obsessed with consistency in the visionary, and instead evaluate the visionary's ideas _in themselves_ and in how they benefit them all.

>The best thing for the self-interest of the people involved was to individually decide to leave the room.

In that thought experiment, as in lots of situations in life, there is no "leaving the room". Say, the room is earth, and the visionary is some early ecologist. If someone finds out that he doesn't recycle it shouldn't translate to "oh, hypocrisy, we shouldn't recycle either".

It would much better translate to: "Hmm, the guy doesn't do what he preaches, but we will continue doing it because it does good. He is a hypocrite, but, hey, at least the guy told us about the necessity of doing this thing in the first place, something we haven't figured at the time.".

But that's not a knee-jerk reaction, so it is too much to ask from some people.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#237

Post by batista » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 8:07 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #205

batista wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not hypocrisy if you try to live up to your ideals and fail. It's hypocrisy when you tell others to live up to your ideals, but you don't bother yourself. Also, you're assuming that a charge of hypocrisy automatically means the idea is voided. It's not - a charge of hypocrisy is an accusation of a serious character flaw.

>Also, you're assuming that a charge of hypocrisy automatically means the idea is voided. It's not - a charge of hypocrisy is an accusation of a serious character flaw.

I'm not assuming it's some general law. I know that it happens in lots of real life situations.

E.g people throwing the baby (idea) along with the bathwater (hypocrite).

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#238

Post by talmand » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 8:42 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #236

talmand wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're meth example is not the same thing. The meth user's meth usage does not effect the person he tells not to use meth. Well, maybe there's something to be said about the societal issues. In the room example it is stated the bad thing affects everyone in the room to some detriment. Even though the visionary got everyone to stop, the eventual outcome is the detrimental one since the visionary keeps doing the bad th…

> In the room example it is stated the bad thing affects everyone in the room to some detriment. Even though the visionary got everyone to stop, the eventual outcome is the detrimental one since the visionary keeps doing the bad thing. No, it's not the detrimental one at all. 1 person doing a bad thing (e.g farting in a room) is not at all the same as 100 persons doing a bad thing (e.g farting in a room). > Therefore…

Well, now you're changing things around with the thought experiment to support your point.

It was stated that the bad thing damages the room and the people in it as well; I took this to mean physical damage possibly leading to death because otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Therefore, with the two options that we are apparently forced into, the group is doomed regardless. It's only a matter of time. I say forced into two options because of the artificial restriction that the people cannot leave the room, which was not stated in the original explanation. Another out would be for the group to kill the visionary once he started back to doing the bad thing, remember that this damages them, which showed he could not be trusted and did not care for the well-being of the other people in the room. Is that not an option as well? In the end, the only choice the people had to fit their best interests was to leave the room, unless you can justify the murder of the visionary. But you took that away and I'm led to believe that they have no other options, so in the end they are all doomed regardless of either choice they go with.

Changing the rules, or adding new rules as I respond, to change the thought experiment is not a good way to invalidate my conclusion. For instance, equating a room with the Earth doesn't work for me, that's different situations with different potential outcomes with different options. The bad thing in a room thought experiment, as presented, is simply a bad example if there are only two options allowed.

Now, if we're talking about a situation you are describing, where the outcome is not damaging to the people involved, except for maybe their sanity, then I can somewhat agree with what you're saying.

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#239

Post by MaysonL » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 8:46 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #156

sbov wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypocrisy is the antithesis of the golden rule, which is why I tend to have a problem with it. It's not anything that automatically refutes someones arguments, it just tells me that when it comes to that subject, they're an asshole. And when someone is being an asshole, I just don't care about their arguments.

>And when someone is being an asshole, I just don't care about their arguments. But that's too bad. Better to do what a hypocrite proposes if it's the right thing, than to ignore it because of what he does. Here's a nice article on the topic: There are many reasons a charge of hypocrisy might be reactionary and counter-productive. First of all, the hypocrisy mindset pays too much attention to people's personal lives…

And this counterfactual example has what, exactly, to do with real life?

Re: Apple accused of ripping off famous Swiss clock design

#240

Post by phaus » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 8:50 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #230

roc wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd go so far as to say that phones compete with watches and physical clocks. I personally can't stand to wear a watch, and I almost always have an electronic device on my person. I don't even own a traditional clock anymore.