This note is very clever. A lot of "fact" are just wrong but they are written in a very convincing manner so that nobody will check them.
"sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right"
Well Steve Jobs liked to quote something like this: "Good artists copy. Great artists steal." Jobs was clearly spreading the message that Apple liked to steal mastering the "borrowed" product making it into a product of their own. Apple made no secret about stealing design from Braun and Sony. Jobs had great respect for those companies.
And I think the same applies to Samsung. They have great respect to Apple (although today that may have changed) and mastered the iPhone into an even greater product than the iPhone.
"We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth."
Well they may be the best looking products on earth for some, but they are absolutely not the best products. Apple mouses look great and are great to obtain RSI. MacOs is looking great but I can't get as productive with it as with Windows or Linux. The Mac Mini is looking great but I can buy twice the power for the same price. Most Apple products are looking great but why not supply a standard connector? Well we know the reason for that one. And now they are called the most valuable company of today.
Yes Samsung did look very closely to Apple's products but so did Apple to other products.
We all copy!
-edit1- Brown -> Braun ;) thanks.
-edit2- I also was thinking about a tablet I once bought. This was a complete copy of the iPad. Even the box had the same white design. But Apple didn't go after that company. Why? Because it was a peace of crap. You had to break the tablet before the screen became responsive and the battery didn't last 10 minutes.
Is copying really so bad? It seems to me that, in this case at least, it's just synonymous for Samsung being heavily influenced by Apple. What's so malicious about influence? As everyone has heard a billion times by now, Jobs himself was a huge proponent of "stealing" the good ideas of others (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU). It's not as if Samsung tried to confuse consumers by impersonating Apple products or anything.
Capitalism is competitive. If you do something profitable, people will try to beat you, and they'll piggyback on your research to do so. Tough cookie. Your goal as a company should be to build a competitive advantage by (a) capitalizing the fact that you're the first mover, and (b) building moats that are tough for the competition to cross. Unfortunately for Apple, aesthetics just isn't that big of a moat.
And, unfortunately for the world, the government is providing big businesses that are too lazy, incompetent, and/or ill-equipped to do the above with an underserved competitive advantage in the form of a broken patent system.
What about that part where Samsung was basically like "Oh, Apple's icons look like this using this light effect. We should definitely make our icons look like that too."
What part of that is innovative and advancing technology? No, they just wanted to piggyback off of Apple's success and make money that way. Which I don't think is fair.
Just ask any app developer who enjoys success. The Chinese clones eat away at revenue and potential markets. It degrades the experience for everyone when one party leeches rather than innovates.
I always say that Microsoft came up with their own UI that looks and works great. There isn't only one solution to this.
Unfortunately Samsung began this fight by having the South Korean government block the iPhone from being sold in South Korea until Samsung could develop their competitor. Therefore Apple lost out in South Korea by being the first mover -- Samsung could just copy the iPhone and save on a lot of time and R&D costs.
Would it be in line with those values for Apple to pay royalties to Google for "stealing" the omnibar in the new version of Safari? What about the numerous similarities that Apple's new maps app will undoubtedly have to Google Maps? Or is it only important when other companies do it?
If Google had patented the omnibar, or something about Maps, then sure. Of course, Google didn't, or they'd be suing so fast your head would spin. Say what you will about the US patent system, it's the playing field we're on. I would be first to line up against the USPTO (and I'm named on several bullshit patents, some, yes, from my time at Apple), but until that day, we play by the rules or we pay out.
Well actually Google didn't invent the omnibar nor computer based mapping.
Also there is a difference between copying a single feature like the omnibar and copying every single element of a product e.g. UI, hardware design, packaging, dock connector etc. Samsung was much more blatant about it. It's akin to the difference between stealing elements from a Louis Vuitton bag versus creating a complete knockoff.
I don't think the concept is hard to understand. And clearly the jury gets it as well.
Hopefully we can do better than taking a quote out of context, interpreting it literally and drawing false contradictions.
When one takes a whole idea and distills it into a short phrase like this, it ends up sounding short and sweet but information is inevitably lost. It is fallacious to attempt to unpack it and interpret it under different context.
That stealing which is good is at the conceptual level.
When someone has a document that shows a hundred different things which are developed over years of research copied blatantly without investing a minute, something needs to be done really.
I think it was wrong for Samsung to blatantly copy the iPhone. But it's also wrong for apple to refuse to license certain design patents, when they are clearly superior.
I think a lot of the gestures and interactions that Apple has patents over are so fundamental to touch screen device interaction, that not having them is crippling. It's like if Apple patented the mouse or the keyboard and monopolized the market.
The slavish cloning of Apple devices and software and subsequent commoditization of the non-Apple market pushed RIM and windows phones into unrecoverable positions. Windows and Rim played by the rules and lost, google and samsung cheated and won. Not fair. I think these patent battles are pretty much a side-show and won't significantly affect android market share. We'll see though.
Now on a more macro scale, is this a net win for the industry and consumers? The mobile market has consolidated into two camps very similar to how the computer market consolidated. Apple with it's full vertical integration and limited devices aimed squarely at high-end consumers. And Google taking the place of Microsoft with an OS that supports a large range of high-end to low-end hardware produced by outside manufacturers and much more open software ecosystem.
I would argue that this kind of consolidation was inevitable, because it would be too much work for software developers to target a truly diversified mobile device market, each with their own proprietary APIs and quirks.
It's too bad that OS developers never created a standard for universal API's for common tasks. Instead we got an endless onslaught of abstraction platforms like Java, the web and flash. When what we really need is OS-level support/standards for portable code. It doesn't really make sense that a game I write in C for one OS needs to be endlessly fucked about with to get it to run on another OS.
For the first time yesterday, I heard regular (non-techie) folks mentioning they didn't want to buy an iPhone because of Apple's behavior. People are starting to smell something's wrong with all this, and I think the lawsuits are nothing but bad PR for Apple.
The great part about consumer is that they can say things like that all they want, but when the newest, coolest gadget rolls off the assembly line, they're buying one. Consumers don't know what they want, they have to be told what they want.
I find the choice of words somewhat patronizing, as well. Yes, Apple, I know stealing isn't right. I also know to look both ways before crossing the street, and I eat my vegetables, too.
To reduce something as complex as this case to simply "stealing" is absurd and shows the level of disconnect at that company right now.
Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure, simple, stupid copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new and great.
On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed.
Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it.
For me the morale right or wrong is the following:
make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value.
copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others.
Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.
When Apple copied from Xerox PARC, was the UI part of an already successful, profitable mass-market product? No, they stole a research idea and ran with it (though it's just as likely to have been patented). But when Apple has a successful product that everyone is buying, and Samsung makes a product that looks and acts like it, I think they were definitely trying to cause confusion and take market share. If you fly to Europe with a fake Rolex and get caught (they do have customs officers trained to look for and detect fakes), they don't just confiscate the fake or turn you away, you get prosecuted. Morally, I'm not sure why that should apply to luxury goods and not anything with a distinctive look and feel.
It´s essentially all in the mostly miss-understood Picasso phrase "Good artists copy, great artists steal.". Although the phrase confusing most people more than it helps.
It´s got the basics though that has guided the moral compass of creatives:
If you take inspiration from me and turn it into something mind-blowing, it´s ok. I´m flattered to be a part of it.
If you just plain copy my stuff to make money with it, it´s not ok.
Is it good for the industry in the short term? I'd say No. Is it the best thing that could have happened to the tech industry in the long term? Yes, I think so.
Android and most devices started as a direct response to iOS. All the major players saw that iOS was disrupting the market and there was no time left to invent something on their own, so they simply built a clone.
From a business point of view the right decision, Microsoft invented a new UI and new devices with Nokia, but it seems they failed, since they were late to the market and to succeed they would have needed a really disruptive idea themselves.
Google had the team and skills to invent something that could disrupt iOS, but they decided to copy it instead and in the process wasted all the brain power of the team that probably has the best chance of finding the next paradigm. What a waste of talent to use all those great people for building a clone.
I really don't understand how 'pinch to zoom' can be patentable.
Imagine showing a touch-screen tablet to a group of people who had never seen one before. If you said, "Look, here's how to pan an image. How would you zoom?" then surely a significant percentage would give you the 'pinch' answer within 10 seconds. Wouldn't that clearly demonstrate that the 'invention' was too obvious to be patented?
I think Apple should just stick with innovation and pioneering great new products that made them insanely huge as a company. It would also serve them better than the lawsuits, there are always new markets to be created!
[+] [-] printer|13 years ago|reply
"sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right" Well Steve Jobs liked to quote something like this: "Good artists copy. Great artists steal." Jobs was clearly spreading the message that Apple liked to steal mastering the "borrowed" product making it into a product of their own. Apple made no secret about stealing design from Braun and Sony. Jobs had great respect for those companies. And I think the same applies to Samsung. They have great respect to Apple (although today that may have changed) and mastered the iPhone into an even greater product than the iPhone.
"We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth." Well they may be the best looking products on earth for some, but they are absolutely not the best products. Apple mouses look great and are great to obtain RSI. MacOs is looking great but I can't get as productive with it as with Windows or Linux. The Mac Mini is looking great but I can buy twice the power for the same price. Most Apple products are looking great but why not supply a standard connector? Well we know the reason for that one. And now they are called the most valuable company of today.
Yes Samsung did look very closely to Apple's products but so did Apple to other products.
We all copy!
-edit1- Brown -> Braun ;) thanks.
-edit2- I also was thinking about a tablet I once bought. This was a complete copy of the iPad. Even the box had the same white design. But Apple didn't go after that company. Why? Because it was a peace of crap. You had to break the tablet before the screen became responsive and the battery didn't last 10 minutes.
[+] [-] mcantelon|13 years ago|reply
I'm guessing you mean Braun and, yes, Apple is very obviously influenced by the aesthetic Braun popularized.
[+] [-] csallen|13 years ago|reply
Capitalism is competitive. If you do something profitable, people will try to beat you, and they'll piggyback on your research to do so. Tough cookie. Your goal as a company should be to build a competitive advantage by (a) capitalizing the fact that you're the first mover, and (b) building moats that are tough for the competition to cross. Unfortunately for Apple, aesthetics just isn't that big of a moat.
And, unfortunately for the world, the government is providing big businesses that are too lazy, incompetent, and/or ill-equipped to do the above with an underserved competitive advantage in the form of a broken patent system.
[+] [-] gareim|13 years ago|reply
What part of that is innovative and advancing technology? No, they just wanted to piggyback off of Apple's success and make money that way. Which I don't think is fair.
Just ask any app developer who enjoys success. The Chinese clones eat away at revenue and potential markets. It degrades the experience for everyone when one party leeches rather than innovates.
I always say that Microsoft came up with their own UI that looks and works great. There isn't only one solution to this.
[+] [-] AllenKids|13 years ago|reply
You can disagree all you want, Apple does not live in your world. Fortunately you do not have to live in Apple's either.
[+] [-] v0cab|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
Maybe you should research a bit about Samsung. They have a long history of trying to impersonate competitor products e.g. Sony, Sharp, Panasonic.
[+] [-] rsanchez1|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] haberman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] entropy_|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
Also there is a difference between copying a single feature like the omnibar and copying every single element of a product e.g. UI, hardware design, packaging, dock connector etc. Samsung was much more blatant about it. It's akin to the difference between stealing elements from a Louis Vuitton bag versus creating a complete knockoff.
I don't think the concept is hard to understand. And clearly the jury gets it as well.
[+] [-] tghw|13 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU&t=12s
[+] [-] karpathy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scorpion032|13 years ago|reply
When someone has a document that shows a hundred different things which are developed over years of research copied blatantly without investing a minute, something needs to be done really.
[+] [-] mdonahoe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soup10|13 years ago|reply
I think a lot of the gestures and interactions that Apple has patents over are so fundamental to touch screen device interaction, that not having them is crippling. It's like if Apple patented the mouse or the keyboard and monopolized the market.
The slavish cloning of Apple devices and software and subsequent commoditization of the non-Apple market pushed RIM and windows phones into unrecoverable positions. Windows and Rim played by the rules and lost, google and samsung cheated and won. Not fair. I think these patent battles are pretty much a side-show and won't significantly affect android market share. We'll see though.
Now on a more macro scale, is this a net win for the industry and consumers? The mobile market has consolidated into two camps very similar to how the computer market consolidated. Apple with it's full vertical integration and limited devices aimed squarely at high-end consumers. And Google taking the place of Microsoft with an OS that supports a large range of high-end to low-end hardware produced by outside manufacturers and much more open software ecosystem.
I would argue that this kind of consolidation was inevitable, because it would be too much work for software developers to target a truly diversified mobile device market, each with their own proprietary APIs and quirks.
It's too bad that OS developers never created a standard for universal API's for common tasks. Instead we got an endless onslaught of abstraction platforms like Java, the web and flash. When what we really need is OS-level support/standards for portable code. It doesn't really make sense that a game I write in C for one OS needs to be endlessly fucked about with to get it to run on another OS.
[+] [-] edtechdev|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadesandcolour|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dusing|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] systems|13 years ago|reply
are copyright and patent infringement, the same as stealing, i find the choice of words ... alarming
stealing should be kept related to tangible goods
[+] [-] beedogs|13 years ago|reply
To reduce something as complex as this case to simply "stealing" is absurd and shows the level of disconnect at that company right now.
[+] [-] thomasf1|13 years ago|reply
Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure, simple, stupid copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new and great.
On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed.
Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it.
For me the morale right or wrong is the following:
make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value.
copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others.
Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.
[+] [-] 205guy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomasf1|13 years ago|reply
It´s got the basics though that has guided the moral compass of creatives:
If you take inspiration from me and turn it into something mind-blowing, it´s ok. I´m flattered to be a part of it.
If you just plain copy my stuff to make money with it, it´s not ok.
[+] [-] thomasilk|13 years ago|reply
Android and most devices started as a direct response to iOS. All the major players saw that iOS was disrupting the market and there was no time left to invent something on their own, so they simply built a clone.
From a business point of view the right decision, Microsoft invented a new UI and new devices with Nokia, but it seems they failed, since they were late to the market and to succeed they would have needed a really disruptive idea themselves.
Google had the team and skills to invent something that could disrupt iOS, but they decided to copy it instead and in the process wasted all the brain power of the team that probably has the best chance of finding the next paradigm. What a waste of talent to use all those great people for building a clone.
[+] [-] MarkMc|13 years ago|reply
Imagine showing a touch-screen tablet to a group of people who had never seen one before. If you said, "Look, here's how to pan an image. How would you zoom?" then surely a significant percentage would give you the 'pinch' answer within 10 seconds. Wouldn't that clearly demonstrate that the 'invention' was too obvious to be patented?
[+] [-] shaydoc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hobbyhacker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antirez|13 years ago|reply