The Great Smartphone War

[ploxiln]

This article simplifies things to the point of being wrong.

"Patented features such as “rubber-banding,” in which a screen image bounces slightly when a user tries to scroll past the bottom, were identical. Same with “pinch to zoom,” which allows users to manipulate image size by pinching the thumb and forefinger together on the screen."

Jeff Han was doing pinch-to-zoom well before the iPhone was unveiled. I suspect that anyone that had access to a low-latency multi-touch screen would come up with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqXPD7EHDto

"Under way since 2004, the effort constituted one of the biggest gambles in the history of the company: a cell phone with full Internet, e-mail functions, plus a host of unprecedented features."

Actually, there were many smartphones with all the iPhone's features, and more, at the time it was first released. The original iPhone didn't have apps, it didn't have MMS, etc. What it did have was a fully-capable browser, and a well-done low-latency multi-touch interface. In any case, it really wasn't about "features". Quality of implementation, yeah, features, no.

This article is just going to give lots of lay-people the wrong impression about the history of the iPhone.

[snowwrestler]

People always bring up Jeff Han as a means of questioning Apple's multitouch patents. His famous TED demo was in 2006. Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005, a commercial multitouch company that was founded in 1998 based on research from earlier in that decade.

[marv36]

It also makes it sound like Samsung created an operating system from scratch. I'd say large parts of this story are fiction.

[vitaminj]

A few comments are saying that the author is too harsh on Samsung, but I get the impression that he actually admires Samsung's unscrupulous, unethical though ultimately canny business practices - in a similar way that one would admire a drug dealer's ultra-efficient distribution system.

After all, the Samsung presented in this article enters into new markets via wholesale IP theft. It then uses a suite of legal instruments to stall for time in order to build internal technical capabilities and intellectual capital. Samsung could stop here, but chooses instead to actually innovate and improve on the products using the knowledge and experience base it has accrued copying the product in the first place. It's a pretty shrewd, albeit completely unethical business strategy.

[sliverstorm]

It's also a song & dance we have seen before. Many Japanese companies played that game in the post-war era.

[r0h1n]

Sure, Samsung comes across as an utterly immoral and venal company in this piece. Unless you object to the specifics of any of the allegations (which seem based mostly on court papers), you can't fault the writer for being "biased". There are innumerable ways to skin the "smartphone wars" story, and Kurt Eichenwald has chosen one. Instead of some standard Apple-did-this/Google-did-this/Samsung-did-this story, he's chosen to focus it mostly on Samsung.

Another reason why Samsung's behavior might seem egregious to many American/western HNers is because their economies have historically moved past the stage where such wanton copying & corruption was acceptable. Doesn't mean American companies haven't been guilty of equally venal - at times far worse - practices. But it would help to view Korean/Chinese companies trying to "catch up" on the global stage through relevant context.

Again, I'm not justifying what Samsung does here, just saying if they hadn't done much of what the article lays out, we might not have had such a competitive and disruptive smartphone/consumer electronics sector globally.

[sremani]

Let us not also forget that Samsung was one of the main suppliers for iPhone and to an extent still is. The real loss is not for Apple in here, they are just worried they could not monopolize the smartphone but the real victims are the Motorolas and HTCs which did not lets say "push the boundaries", and Palm and Microsoft which had a fresh take on Mobile OS. To say that Samsung is cornerstone for today's diverse market is a bit disingenuous, there would have been other players.

[vfclists]

Samsung seems to be a very 'American' company. Is there anything they do that a lot of big American companies don't do?

Their only crime seems to be being big enough to beat an American company at its own game. If Apple wants to compete it need to do better than competing on 'rounded corners'. Lets face it the iPhone's cachet is rooted more in media hype than any meaningful reality.

[jscheng]

You seem to miss the article's points entirely.

It's not just in America. Samsung has been caught with the same shenanigans in China and in Taiwan. The author is right about Samsung - it is the world's most dirty, unethical, and corrupt corporation, by far.

[robg]

Has anyone had a good experience licensing to and/or working with Samsung? Any good experiences that turned bad?

[WildUtah]

Apple Computer Corporation has made hundreds of billions with Samsung as their main supplier of screens and CPUs for their most profitable product -- the iPhone. So there's at least one company that has had a great experience working with Samsung.

[czhiddy]

I've heard my chip designer friend mention in passing that the "Chinese wall" between the Samsung fab group and the Samsung design groups is occasionally porous.

[plink]

Even at the consumer level: go purchase a new Samsung TV and read their data-mining TOS.

[g8oz]

A very biased article - the only facts emphasized are the ones that support the Samsung is an IP thief narrative.

[Shivetya]

Considering what was available before the iPhone debut, what was known in the pipeline, and the comments made by some competitors about starting over, its not hard to side with Apple. Given it took how long after the iPhone came out for Samsung to copy it? Yeah, I said copy. Smart phones before it were anything but.

[sillysaurus3]

Which reading would you recommend?

[gress]

It's only 'bias' if you don't want to see it as true.

[q2]

I read on the web that Steve Jobs wanted to go for full fledged war on Android ...etc, no matter of costs involved. But that was back when he was alive and both Android and ios are in fancy. It was an emotional burst. Steve Jobs was known for changing mind, if different options arise on horizon. So if he is alive, he may take different turn in this episode, rather than just fighting and fighting in the courts.

But since it is well publicized that Steve wanted to battle Android at any cost, Apple's current leadership may not have space to back down because if they back down, share holders, press, loyal fans may feel as going against Steve's last wishes...etc.

As article shows, Tim cook tried to caution multiple times, even when Steve was alive. In that sense, it is "reluctant war" on behalf of Tim cook and my guess is, he wants to settle the distraction/media glare and move on.

I read somewhere that Steve wanted Tim cook to make decisions not as what Steve would do ...etc but based on current reality. Ordered penalty is just a drop in Apple's revenue. But the constant media focus, important supplier relationship with Samsung, Tim Cook's own reluctance (despite public utterances), antipathy to patent fights in tech world means there will be gradual burial of this issue over time and focus on battle through new products/improvements.

I guess Steve also would do the same. He settled with Microsoft in the beginning to avoid distraction and focus on new products. There will be short term backlash but if they are right on roadmap, people see that as masterstroke ...etc.

Note: This is my view/guess as an outsider based on what I read about Steve Jobs, Apple ...etc.

[IBM]

It's a repeated meme that Apple should "stop litigating and get back to innovating" as if the organization is incapable of doing both. I disagree that Apple should back down. Tim Cook's advice was given at a time when Apple was more dependent on Samsung as a supplier, and being in charge of operations that was his concern. Since then Apple has diversified away from Samsung (and continues to do so). It is most definitely not in Apple's best interest to let Samsung continue as they have throughout their history, in terms of IP infringement, without a cost. The alternative is to become a victim like the many other companies mentioned in the article.

[subdane]

"Tim Cook, cautioned against being too aggressive. Samsung was one of Apple’s biggest suppliers of processors, display screens, and other items. Alienating it might put Apple in the position of losing parts it needed for its products." The thing that always boggled me was the dysfunctional relationship - Apple being dependent on Samsung as a supplier while also having to sue them. Of course, Apple had already been through this with Microsoft... and Google. Coopetition much?

[tdsamardzhiev]

Stupid war between two stupid 99%-marketing-based junk-producing companies. I really hope both lose the "war".

[BorisMelnik]

side note: the readability on vanity fair's blog is surprisingly awesome! also didn't see any ads at all.

[praetorian84]

The lawyers feel like the only ones winning out of patent disputes.

[hahainternet]

This is a terrible article that glosses over Apple's history of exactly the same sorts of actions including even taking the name of their product without proper authority.

The Reality Distortion Field of 'ooh shiny' strikes again.

[Decade]

There's a major difference between when a revolutionary new product has the same name as a defunct product line (Linksys iPhone, which got revived specifically to cash in on Apple iPhone) or a local failing product line (Proview Shenzhen's iPad), and when Samsung produces rip-off products that have confusing similarities to Apple's successful product lines.

Apple certainly is a terrible company, and I think many of their patents should not be patentable, but this is one area where I think Samsung is in the wrong.

The most annoying part for me is that Samsung is winning with inferior quality. The Samsung devices that I've seen have annoying bugs and low build quality, and Samsung keeps stuffing Touchwiz onto their Android devices, and their own UX development always seems gimmicky. But, hey, it worked for Microsoft.

[jolohaga]

Can't expect Apple to take it sitting down, regardless of the prevailing prejudice.

[amaks]

imagine all that money they spent on lawsuits to be spent on research and charity?

[melling]

Imagine all the time wasted here that could be spent on research, charity, and product development.

[rayiner]

> http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579242...

Apple spent like $60 million on the Samsung litigation. Its a drop in the bucket compared to how much they spend on R&D (50-60 times as much).

[jolohaga]

The worthless iPhone argument

[o0-0o]

The pattern this article shines a light on is that American companies continue to innovate - while other countries can only follow. Imagine if no one copied each other and spent all that time and treasure on innovation.

[freehunter]

Yeah, we'd all be better reinventing the wheel rather than improving on what already exists.