241–250 of 260 posts
If Apple refuses to acknowledge its error, and refuses to fix (however it's required to), then it'll be a big f'ing deal, for anyone other than the anti-Apple zealots.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Ish.
If the person is a domain expert (or probably just 'more likely than you to know about it') and you are not and you have other reasons, past experience perhaps, then trusting their advice with little analysis (beyond eg 'was it a joke') is pragmatic. One can't analyse everything there is simply not enough time.
At some point you must trust others or suffer. It's about balance n'est ce pas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This clock is a "slavish copy" of the Swiss clock, down to the weight of each element and the presence of the red hand. You can't possibly say it's an 'homage' any more than running the Mona Lisa through a color Xerox would be. Edit: It appears to be merely "almost" identical to the Swiss clock and instead is a slavish copy of the Austrian clock, given the weight of the minute hash marks.
The point is, Apple makes no bones about it being a carbon copy. If you asked them, they would throw their hands up in frustration and say, that is the entire point . They absolutely intended for anyone who see's this clock to immediately recognize they were paying tribute to the original. Traditionally, designers have appreciated these little nods of respect. I'm not sure what happened with SBB, but I'm sure it will…
s/were paying tribute to/copied.
Surely the point is that an ethical business seeks license from those they choose to copy before doing so. It is not at all respectful to copy verbatim without seeking any form of warrant or approval.
On an unrelated note, I wish there was a wall clock with the real Swiss stop-to-go[1] action... Edit: and [2] would make for a great 11.5" laptop sticker [1] http://www.3quarks.com/en/StationClock/index.html [2] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/SBB-CFF-FFS.sv...
You can get master clocks and slave clocks on eBay, antique or not, with lots of character or not. But they're a pain, since you need to connect the slave to the master with a cable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
In particular, if a person's behavior or circumstances conflict with the advice, it becomes important to evaluate why that conflict exists. Is the advice fundamentally sound and there's something wrong with the advice-giver, or is the problem with the advice itself? There may be some subtle implementation detail that you overlook in your theoretical "ignore the person" evaluation, which is actually a fatal flaw with the advice (for example, it may require an unrealistic amount of discipline to undertake.)
Likewise, if a person's advice and their behavior/circumstances match up, it's important to evaluate whether the advice is actually effective. Did this person see this result because of the advice, or because of something else? It's possible the advice is fundamentally sound; likewise, it's possible the advice is a mistaken conclusion based on coincidence. If the person giving the advice is known to be insightful, self-examining, etc. that suggests a greater likelihood of the advice being valuable.
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.
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…
Therefore Apple didn't copy.
QED
Wouldn't surprise me if they follow that line in court actually -.-
I'm predicting a payout personally. I also think the second hand looks stupid, but that's just me I guess.
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.
That escalated quickly.