Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung's Comparison of Galaxy S To iPhone

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the bring-back-keyboards dept.

The Courts 383

david.emery writes "In a document from the ongoing Samsung/Apple trial, provided in both English translation and Korean original, Samsung engineers provided a detailed comparison of user interface features in their phone against the iPhone. In almost all cases, the recommendation was to adopt the iPhone's approach. Among other observations, this shows how much work goes into defining the Apple iPhone user experience." Ars has an article on the evidence offered by Apple so far.

cancel ×

383 comments

The long-term problem for Apple. (1)

wiredog (43288) | about 2 years ago | (#40918545)

What if the iPhone really is that innovative in the smartphone arena that only Apple can provide smartphones? Then they have a monopoly, and the DoJ tends to get upset with monopolies that appear to be unreasonably restraining consumer choice raising prices, or both.

Just ask Microsoft. They, arguably, have never recovered from the antitrust suit. Does Apple want to go down that path?

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (4, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | about 2 years ago | (#40918595)

There are few if any issues w/Apple having monopoly in phones.

The issue comes up when Apple (or any other Microsoft) uses their monopoly in one area to leverage their position in another (think "shutting off the air supply to Netscape").

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918663)

I'm no lawyer (thank god), but I think various kinds of anti-competitive behavior specific to that market are a no-go, as well.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (2)

ACluk90 (2618091) | about 2 years ago | (#40918669)

This would be a huge problem for Apple, considering how much they earn through 3rd party apps being sold through the app-store. These approx. 30% would then almost certainedly be lowered, considering that this number is just insane.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (-1, Troll)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 2 years ago | (#40918875)

You are an idiot. 30% is not an insane percentage given that Apple takes care of hosting, distribution and all finances involved in a purchase. (They don't pay your taxes for you.) All you have to pay for is marketing.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (5, Insightful)

Stiletto (12066) | about 2 years ago | (#40919063)

If 30% for "hosting, distribution and all finances" is such a great deal, surely they would have nothing to fear by allowing competing services to perform these difficult and expensive tasks. I mean, very few companies on the planet have yet mastered the intricate technological challenges of inexpensively hosting downloads.

30% (plus $100/yr, don't forget) is an insane amount for the minuscule amount of "service" Apple provides.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#40919155)

It really is an absolute steal at 30%, given that the bulk of the software pricing on the app store and on the iTunes music and movie stores are low value amounts.

30% cut to handle payment services for your customers, including card processing and verification, refunds, fees to banks and credit card companies, gift cards, customer service, helpdesk etc? Yes please.

That alone is worth the 30% cut; the hosting and distribution is just a free bonus.

I assume that the 30% that Google charges on their store is also "insane"? Or is that perfectly fine because it's not Apple?

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (3, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | about 2 years ago | (#40919389)

30% cut to handle payment services for your customers, including card processing and verification, refunds, fees to banks and credit card companies, gift cards, customer service, helpdesk etc? Yes please. That alone is worth the 30% cut

On the contrary, 30% for payment processing is a huge markup - contrast with PayPal's Merchant Fees. [paypal.com] As a developer, which would you rather pay?

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#40919511)

For a $0.99 game or app, Apple's 30% is cheaper than PayPal's 2.9% + 30, and also covers hosting and distribution and a little bit of advertising. For a $10 app, Apple's deal starts to look a lot less attractive...

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (3)

scot4875 (542869) | about 2 years ago | (#40919431)

It is a steal, if you're comparing it to traditional brick-and-mortar distribution.

Except we're not. Comparing it to most other digital distribution stores (mainly MP3s and games), this 30% app-store cut is *huge*.

Everything you list that they (and by "they" I mean all app stores) do is completely automated. Yes, that stuff would be a huge pain in the ass for an individual to handle it themselves, but once it's been automated it's not a substantial amount of work for *anybody*. And besides that, if you're using (for instance) Google Checkout to sell stuff, they take a 10% cut, and it pays for all the stuff you mentioned. E-bay takes a small cut on sales. But for app store purchases, where you're just hosting (maybe) a few MB? 30%. For micropayment/in-app-purchase type things that is essentially shifting a few dozen bits around? 30%.

There's no reason it should be so high. For $1 purchases, yes, it might need to be around 30% just to recoup the transaction fees. But for sales of anything over $1, there should be better rates. And the fact that every app store is currently 30% reeks of collusion to me -- if this were really a free market, there should be some competition.

Personally, I don't like the thought of 30% of all profits from the entire software industry being funneled into a few major players -- and Apple and Amazon are the worst, with not only 30% cuts but also yearly fees. How is, say, a 10-year-old interested in programming supposed to be able to afford the fees just to be able to tinker with their phone and give their stuff to a few of their friends? Beg mom and dad for the money and then go through the rigamarole of signing up for a developer account? I guess fuck 'em; we want kids buying shit, not learning how to make their own.

--Jeremy

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 2 years ago | (#40919795)

Google allows you to install stuff from other sources. Developers are more than welcome to sell their files directly to customers if they find it expensive. Bet you didn't factor that little nugget of info into your argument did you?

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919177)

I've made over $5000 from the apple stores, while android brings in around $650.

Apple does more than host, they put me directly into the search path of millions of devices linked to people who don't mind paying.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919417)

I've made over $12900 from the android stores, while apple brings in around $560.

Google does more than host, they put me directly into the search path of millions of devices linked to people who don't mind paying.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919635)

You had me up until that last word...

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919271)

It is exactly the same amount as Google charges for apps in the Play store. I see how you conveniently left that out.

Shill much, asshole?

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#40919369)

Oh, but you are not forced to sell exclusively though Google play.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919395)

and if you don't how do you as an independent app writer get discovered?

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#40919765)

You can sell through Amazon or any other entity that decides to open an app store, or even sell yourself in your own website, which works well sometimes (see minecraft for reference).

Unknown sources (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40919385)

It is exactly the same amount as Google charges for apps in the Play store.

Unlike iOS devices, Android devices have alternatives to the Play Store. Google charges 0% for applications distributed through "unknown sources" such as Amazon Appstore, SlideME, Soc.io, or the developer's own web site. The key difference is that the user doesn't need to exploit a security vulnerability in the operating system to install third-party app stores on Android devices.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919125)

Yeah! How dare software developers get a better deal than musicians? They should only be getting pennies on the dollar for every copy sold!

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 years ago | (#40918833)

Well they've certainly done that time and again in their marketplace.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918885)

Said as we all read this site on Firefox for iOS. No, wait.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918971)

Sort of like Apple and it's beginning's of rumblings about tablets?

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (2)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 2 years ago | (#40919653)

1) They don't have a monopoly in phones, they have much less than 50% of the market

2) They don't have a monopoly in smart phones, they have much less than 50% of the market

3) They don't have a monopoly in smart phones in the USA, they have much less than 50% of the market

They currently have a large part of the Tablet market....

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (4, Insightful)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#40918597)

I don't think that will happen. There are plenty of implementations that apple doesn't think infringe. The phone market isn't like the PC market was at all. The numbers are open to interpretation, but apple isn't the number one phone manufacturer and the don't have number one market share. A monopoly isn't a hazard for apple

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918633)

Jus' when you was gettin' yo head around trade dress, we be throwin' design patents up in the mix. They actually a pretty simple relationship between the two -- if dey trade dress all about the product design relationship to the consuma, a design patent is all aboutta design of da product itself.

Tink about it like dis: if you designed a new sail phone with a fresh design, you getta design patent. Once you be selling it and yo customers associate dat design with yo product, you be protected by trade dress. Oh, and design patents expire jus' like every other patent, while trade dress last as long as the item be in commerce. The classic example is the Coke bottle, which carries a distinctive decorative shape -- it was given a design patent that eventually expired, but it still protected under trade dress because consumers associate that shape with Coca-Cola, yo. Bitches 'n' Blow, yo.

Definition of a patent (1)

Quila (201335) | about 2 years ago | (#40918713)

A government grant of monopoly. Then they expire, and the monopoly is over. If the government does not like such monopolies, then it should stop issuing patents.

Patents are temporary (3, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 years ago | (#40919185)

A government grant of monopoly. Then they expire, and the monopoly is over. If the government does not like such monopolies, then it should stop issuing patents.

The government doesn't mind monopolies and in some cases monopolies are actually useful. Patents are granted because a *temporary* monopoly is a lesser evil than the Free Rider problem [wikipedia.org] . Some monopolies are hard to avoid (utilities) and some are regulated. The problem is when monopolies start to abuse their power in ways that hurt consumers or the economy in general. Standard Oil was broken up because having a single unregulated company in controlling the nation's energy supply was demonstrably dangerous. You can argue that patents are too long or issued for frivolous "inventions" but they exist for a very good reason. Monopolies as such aren't the problem - unchecked monopolies sometimes are and that is when the government worries about them.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (4, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#40918719)

Two problems with what you've said:
1) A monopoly on smartphones is not a monopoly at all, since dumbphones still account for the majority of the market. Companies have tried to sue Apple in the past for having a monopoly on the Mac market and using it to their advantage, but they've always been dismissed since Macs are merely a part of the larger PC market, and a rather small part at that.

2) Having a monopoly is not necessarily a problem. It's when a monopoly acts in an anti-competitive manner that there are problems.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919697)

Two problems with what you've said:
1) A monopoly on smartphones is not a monopoly at all, since dumbphones still account for the majority of the market. Companies have tried to sue Apple in the past for having a monopoly on the Mac market and using it to their advantage, but they've always been dismissed since Macs are merely a part of the larger PC market, and a rather small part at that.

2) Having a monopoly is not necessarily a problem. It's when a monopoly acts in an anti-competitive manner that there are problems.

How can one sue Apple for having a monopoly on Macs? Isn't that a bit like suing Ford for having a monopoly on the Ford Focus?

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919787)

It is a bit like suing ford because they won't allow you to replace the engine.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#40918761)

Well, Google's approach is to ask the government to force Apple to license their patents out.

I wonder if Google knows what a patent means - exclusive use is part of the terms for granting a patent, IIRC.

Apple isn't that powerful (2)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 years ago | (#40918965)

What if the iPhone really is that innovative in the smartphone arena that only Apple can provide smartphones?

Unlikely. There is a difference between providing a similar product and slavishly copying one. I don't pretend to know the details of this case but if Samsung simply copied everything Apple did then they deserve the consequences. Apple's way is hardly the only way.

Then they have a monopoly, and the DoJ tends to get upset with monopolies that appear to be unreasonably restraining consumer choice raising prices, or both.

Apple lacks the market power in phones to do either and all it would take for a mass migration away from Apple would be one bad or inferior product. Android based phones collectively outsell iOS based phones and there is no indication that this lawsuit is going to change that. Arguably the telecoms are closer to being monopolies - they certainly are an oligopoly right now - and they have NO interest in letting Apple gain control. That's why they rather enthusiastically push Android phones - it creates an alternative and keeps Apple in check.

Just ask Microsoft. They, arguably, have never recovered from the antitrust suit. Does Apple want to go down that path?

The antitrust suit resulted in a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. It changed little about how they behave and certainly made no appreciable dent in their monopoly. What has been killing Microsoft is that the world is moving to something other than the PC. Microsoft has never figured out how achieve the same kind of dominance that Windows and Office achieved on a different platform. Not for lack of trying - games, mobile, search, etc. They've tried a lot of stuff and some is even profitable but nothing like Windows and Office. Furthermore they now have to compete with a resurgent Apple and linux on the PC. They aren't going away anytime soon but Microsoft is unlikely to achieve its previous high perch ever again.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918993)

What if the iPhone really is that innovative in the smartphone arena that only Apple can provide smartphones?

That's a hypothetical we need not consider, since smartphones were in fact produced before Apple got in the game, and those models could certainly be brought back into production without running afoul of the iPhone's iNnovations.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919025)

Enough with the apple circle-jerk already. It's so pathetic.

Re:The long-term problem for Apple. (3, Insightful)

teg (97890) | about 2 years ago | (#40919465)

What if the iPhone really is that innovative in the smartphone arena that only Apple can provide smartphones? Then they have a monopoly, and the DoJ tends to get upset with monopolies that appear to be unreasonably restraining consumer choice raising prices, or both.

Just ask Microsoft. They, arguably, have never recovered from the antitrust suit. Does Apple want to go down that path?

Apple didn't invent the smartphone, and I doubt they claim to. There were plenty of smartphones before the iphone - Nokia had e.g. N95 [wikipedia.org] (and other N-series) and their Communicator [wikipedia.org] , Blackberry had many [wikipedia.org] phones, Sony Ericsson had their P900 series [wikipedia.org] , HTC had Windows mobile phones [gsmarena.com] . They behaved in different ways, and had many interesting styles. So obviously, there are many other ways than iPhone and iPhone OS to look and behave.

Samsung just put an awful lot of work into looking and behaving the same. Where the legal limit for copying goes I don't know, but Samsung wasn't exactly trying a brand new design they had been working on and polishing for the last five years... it seems as if they even copied marketing materials [appleinsider.com] . And even today, there are many different ways. E.g. the Nokia Lumia 900 [techradar.com] - it is a full screen touch mobile, but has its own design and user interface. I certainly wouldn't buy one - Microsoft has already said that they are obsolete [arstechnica.com] - but they have put (different) thoughts into design and behaviour.

Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 2 years ago | (#40918553)

The comparison of phones/tablets available prior to the iPhone/iPad and those that came out after both were unveiled show that Samsung is definitely in the wrong as far as design styles go.

Whether this should be something someone can patent is another argument that I'm not going to get into here.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (3, Funny)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#40918621)

Whether this should be something someone can patent is another argument that I'm not going to get into here.

How dare you gloss over this! Coming up with an uninterrupted rectangular surface with evenly-rounded corners and a bezel is some of the greatest innovation of all time.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918737)

Samsung also changed a number of the stock Android icons into rounded square-type Apple knockoff icons. Compare the Phone icon from the Galaxy SII (green square with rounded corners, white phone handset inside) to the one on the iPhone (green square with rounded corners, white phone handset inside), and then compare it to the stock Android version on the Galaxy Nexus (blue phone handset, transparent background). Ditto for the music icon. Ditto for the settings icon. Ditto for the etc. etc. etc.

This was especially irritating because I hate the "big square with rounded corners" style of icon design that Apple made popular. A good icon needs a recognizable silhouette, dammit. Get it through your heads, phone manufacturers: Google got the interface right. Stop peeing in the coffee before serving it to the customers.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919577)

Did you look on all those "ditto for the etc."? Only similarity between Apple's and Samsung's settings icon, for example, is "they both have gears in it". I mean I can't tell which one's which at all [talkandroid.com] ! Ditto for IM icon, "they both have speech bubble in it".

This one [talkandroid.com] is just "err, what?". And, AFAIK, Apple's icon designer still testified _all_ those alleged icons are copies.

So yeah, "They've got green phone receiver for accept call, clearly we deserve those $2.5e9, your honor"

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (3)

SilenceBE (1439827) | about 2 years ago | (#40918821)

Coming up with an uninterrupted rectangular surface with evenly-rounded corners and a bezel is some of the greatest innovation of all time.

Thank you for this because I wanted to reply to the guy above you, that the problem is that the discussion seems to be always dumbed down or ridculized by talking about the "rectangle and round corners". If I follow the court-case in more detail, it seems a lot broader then a "rectangle with round corners".

And even then I'm not convinced that you can even patent a "rectangle with round corners", but then again I'm rather sure you are aware of that fact. I think your reaction is a classic way of not getting a discussion about the other arguments.

I didn't even had the time to reply, the rectangle argument was there at the speed of light. And don't say it is funny because after hundreds of time, the humor is wearing of.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (5, Interesting)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#40918937)

Except that is exactly what their design patent is asserting is their 'invention'.

Claims
We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described.

And their drawings are just scribblings of a rectangular form factor with rounded corners and a bezel.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (5, Informative)

kidgenius (704962) | about 2 years ago | (#40918731)

I wouldn't say so. Samsung presented evidence of phones that were in development before the iphone was announced that looked very similar to the iphone. They came out afterwards, but were in development beforehand.

Also, from an icons standpoint, they said Meizu didn't infringe, but Samsung did. The meizu calendar icon looks WAY more like the iphone icon than the samsung one that Apple highlighted.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (3, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#40918921)

I wouldn't say so. Samsung presented evidence of phones that were in development before the iphone was announced that looked very similar to the iphone.

I'm sure Apple had the iphone under development before it was announced. Samsung being a supplier for the iPhone would have access to these designs during the development stage.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (3, Insightful)

kidgenius (704962) | about 2 years ago | (#40918961)

Not necessarily. It entirely depends on what parts samsung was supplying. If it's memory chips and flash, they would have no idea that a large touchscreen would be in use. It's quite likely that the stuff samsung supplied were COTS components and Apple signed a contract for X thousand pieces at a cost of Y.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (5, Interesting)

falcon5768 (629591) | about 2 years ago | (#40919307)

But if you actually knew anything about the case, you would know that they in fact provided the screen. So it was well known internally it was a touchscreen phone. Likewise the phones in development "before" thing is a myth created by Samsung to hid the real meat of the issue, those phones that were developed "before" the iPhone were designed DIFFERENTLY until the iPhone. Basically they all had entirely different designs that changed once the iPhone was previewed.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919751)

[citation needed]. AFAIK, Samsung provided screens for some of latter generations of iPhones and iPads, like new iPad's retina (iPhone 4S's display is by LG, for example)

Anyways, yes, guessing exterior design and kind of widget by an order for flash, RAM, CPU and LCD is something I'd like to see done.

They really had the incentive to do it considering all the reviews predicted first iPhone to be a flop.

I see you're living true to your signature.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919121)

looks WAY more like the

Looks MUCH more like. Not "way".

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#40919561)

One more thing.

I assume you are referring to the Samsung F700 whose development and announcement timeline is currently being debunked by several sites. The F700 wasn't publicly announced until February 7, 2007. The development timeline wasn't disclosed, but there were direct comparisons to the iPhone during the original announcement.

Unfortunately for Samsung, the F700 only copied the look of the chassis and not the UI. The pictures shown on a Gizmodo article dated Feb 8, 2007 shows some screen shots, and they are not even close to the iPhone UI. It looks like Samsung got wind of what the chassis would look like from case manufacturers just like AppleInsider and other Apple rumor sites, and built a smartphone with the exterior looks of the iPhone.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919655)

Yes, Samsung ripped off Nokia's designs (they have admitted that before the iPhone they concentrated mainly on RIM and Nokia). The N95 looks a lot like an iPhone too if you ignore the thickness and the keyboard, just like the F770. Problem is, before the iPhone, a phone without a keyboard or a stylus was completely unfeasible because nobody else had a decent UI to make such a device usable (and don't talk about the Prada, their solution to those problems was an alphanumeric on-screen keypad that covered 3/4 of the screen).

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 2 years ago | (#40918925)

This is a simplistic and incorrect view.

Before the iPhone, most phones didn't have a large touchscreen, but that doesn't mean that everyone copied Apple or that others shouldn't be allowed to compete. Both Samsung and LG had an iPhone-like design before the iPhone. Patents should only be awarded for novel, non-obvious designs. The design was always obvious, which is why a large touchscreen had been used in sci-fi and mock-ups in the past. The problem is that the technology wasn't there. You needed a beefy mobile processor to power the display, and good battery life.

In 2006, there was a convergence in cheaper displays, better mobile processors and better batteries that you can three companies who had the same design. Apple by far did the best of marketing it. The technology still wasn't cheap, which is why the LG Prada and iPhone were both $600 (subsidized). The Prada was marketed as a luxury item, where as Apple appealed to the masses (even if they all couldn't afford it yet).

But LG won a design award in 2005 for what Apple claims they should have sole ownership of, when they didn't demo it publicly or release it until 2006. Samsung has documentation they had theirs in 2005 as well.

The fact that the design became popular and common when the technology finally supported it doesn't mean Apple is right. Perpetuating that lie is harmful to competition.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (0)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 2 years ago | (#40919231)

I love that presenting facts in a rational manner gets you modded Troll. "-1 Troll" is not a disagree button. It is sad that irrational hatred in this feud will trump fair competition and reality. We shouldn't allow fanboys to determine the fate of the mobile market, because this will have very long lasting impact.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | about 2 years ago | (#40919179)

I disagree. What you're not seeing is the complete list of devices that Samsung released before and after the announcement of the iPhone. There were devices before the iPhone that looked iPhone-ish, but Apple isn't going to show you those. And there have been a lot of devices after the iPhone that don't look anything like an iPhone, but Apple isn't going to show you those either. The only thing that is certain is that Samsung has released a lot of different devices over the years, and some of them have looked iPhone-ish. Because Apple makes only one style of device, they naturally assume that Samsung must have ripped them off when, in fact, it's just not true.

Or put another way, imagine if I started a car company and decided that I wanted all of my cars to look exactly like a 2005 Nissan Altima because I'd decided that was the height of style and function. Then later, I sued Nissan for ripping off my design. In court, I put forth "evidence", slides showing various models of Nissans--the Sentra, the 200SX, maybe even some old Altimas that used a different design, then slides showing the 2006 Nissan Altima, 2007 Nissan Altima, 2008 Nissan Altima, etc. To a layperson, it would look very much like Nissan ripped off my design, when in fact at best, we came up with the designs independently (and at worst, Nissan could compellingly argue that I ripped off their design).

Unfortunately, Samsung won't be able to show the jury some of the evidence of this happening, as a result of Judge Koh's ruling earlier. I still hope they are able to win this case, because otherwise, whether you like or hate Apple, you can bet that there are going to be a lot more cases coming forward dealing with design patents. Every company out there is going to see "rip-offs" of their products and sue, no matter how incidental it is to the actual workings of the product.

It's also unfortunate, because if Apple wins, it's going to also severely limit companies' ability to innovate in the future. Until very, very recently, it wasn't unusual for companies to regularly take the best ideas from other companies and people, mix them up in new ways, improve on features that were weak, and release new products to advance the industry. Apple has benefited from this themselves: they didn't invent the GUI; they got the idea from another company, improved it, and drove GUI operating system technology forward while also making it popular. They didn't invent MP3 players; they took the best of what was out there, splashed their own design and software ideas on it, and completely revived their company.

But now, god forbid someone else uses some of their ideas--ideas that they got from other places--to try to push the technology forward even further. And if I were an Apple fan, that level of protectionism would greatly concern me. To me, it says clearly that Apple is afraid that Samsung can (and quite possibly is) out-Appling Apple when it comes to design and functionality.

I mean, let's be brutally honest. How many people are going to go in a store wanting an iPhone, get confused, and come out with a Galaxy instead? Nobody. I can almost guarantee you that no one has ever gotten home and thought, "Hey waaaait a minute... This isn't an iPhone!" I will admit that there are some slick features that the iPhone and Galaxy phones share that I really like, but when I got my Galaxy Nexus, it wasn't because it was an iPhone rip-off. If I wanted an iPhone, I would have bought an iPhone, I had one prior to the Galaxy Nexus. I deliberately bought an Android phone because of features such as widgets on my phone's home screens, the ability to use third-party software that isn't in the Google Play store, the bigger screen and an aspect ratio that I like better, etc.

Of course, there are rumors now [arstechnica.com] that the next generation of iPhone will have a taller screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Does Apple consider that a rip-off of the current Samsung phones that use that aspect ratio? Now that the precedent will be set, are they okay for Samsung rushing to court and sue them for stealing their ideas and trying to get injunctions to stop Apple from selling any more iPhones? Probably not. Likewise, I think the whole "but these phones vaguely look and work kind of like our phones!" argument is specious, and I hope that the jury sees it for what it is.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (5, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#40919593)

As I understand it, the fact that Samsung is denied the right to present the evidence is because their legal team was so dumb fuck stupid not to present the evidence in the legal phase where evidence is supposed to be presented. Call it a technicality if you must. Nevertheless, the judge is 100% right to suppress said evidence on the grounds it wasn't presented on time.

Legal proceedings are very precise. Samsung lawyers seems to be very stupid on that one.

There will be an appeal anyways, so who cares?

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | about 2 years ago | (#40919689)

Except it's not VAGUE. Everyone brings up previous phones, but they had vastly different UI from iPhone. One iPhone came out then Samsung is copying icons, behaviors, etc. even Google substantially changed Android to "act" like iPhone in many of the small things.

Fundamentally, your engineers can't take notes on somebody else's product and those same ones do implementation. They picked similar colors for icons (the previous phones has vastly different ones) they even copied the style of the BOX. Samsung totally KIRF'd it.

Re:Damning Evidence in the Ars Article (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 2 years ago | (#40919781)

"I mean, let's be brutally honest. How many people are going to go in a store wanting an iPhone, get confused, and come out with a Galaxy instead?"

I don't know about iPhone, but there was an incident where it supposedly happened with iPad.

Never mind the fact that iPad packaging doesn't have the word "Tab" or "Tablet" anywhere, doesn't have the word "Samsung" anywhere, doesn't have the word "Galaxy" anywhere, and similarly, nowhere on the Tab 10.1 packaging does "Pad" appear, not does anything related to Apple appear... To some degree, what is being put on trial here is American stupidity. Some users are too stupid to understand that there is more than just Apple in the market. Samsung did nothing to deceive users in this regard - the Galaxy Tab series are pretty clearly marked with the "Galaxy" branding and as being Samsung devices.

What Samsung's lawyers need to do is show both Galaxy Tab and iPad playing a widescreen video - the difference between the two devices and importance of aspect ratio becomes obvious there.

I like the Galaxy S UI better than iPhone (0)

caseih (160668) | about 2 years ago | (#40918563)

While the interfaces look and work similarly, somehow Samsung's implentation, combined with some of the more nice things about android like a proper back button (though android uses it inconsistently), is superior to the iOS experience, at least for me. I guess it's only fair. Apple has stolen plenty of their ideas for the UI from others and enhanced and extended them. Seems only fair that others should do the same to Apple's implementation.

Of course (4, Interesting)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#40918579)

It's only normal to look at someone else's product and say "hey, that's a good idea, let's implement that too!". Question is, were there PATENTS that covered this and that and was there a patent infringement in such cases? Moving a "Loading..." text from top right to middle of the screen doesn't, for example, look like "patent infringement", and if it IS a patent covering that, well then my personal opinion is that patents have really gone too far.

Re:Of course (1)

rritterson (588983) | about 2 years ago | (#40918687)

My understanding is that this was entered into evidence to show a pattern and Samsung's state of mind. As in, moving a button isn't infringement, but if they were already being so blatant, it's easier to believe they also ripped off what is patented.

Re:Of course (3, Interesting)

68kmac (471061) | about 2 years ago | (#40918689)

It's only normal to look at someone else's product and say "hey, that's a good idea, let's implement that too!".

Agreed. But the other question in this case is: Where do you draw the line? If you copy 100 details from your competitor, you are effectively plagiarizing their product.

Re:Of course (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#40918823)

So doing exactly what Steve Jobs admitted that Apple did shamelessly?

Re:Of course (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#40918697)

The patents are part of the trial, but if you too closely copy the entire look-and-feel of a product, there's a separate possible claim of infringement of "trade dress" [wikipedia.org] , which is more like trademark law than patent law. Apple's also alleging that here.

On the other hand, if you look at how generic products tend to refer to brand names, in other areas trade-dress restrictions don't seem to put too many bars in the way. Walmart gets away with selling a Dr. Pepper clone named Dr. Thunder, for example, whose packaging is clearly reminiscent of Dr. Pepper's. So I don't see why a "generic iPhone" can't come as close as "generic Dr. Pepper" does on the trade-dress claim.

Retaliatory power (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 years ago | (#40919289)

Walmart gets away with selling a Dr. Pepper clone named Dr. Thunder, for example, whose packaging is clearly reminiscent of Dr. Pepper's. So I don't see why a "generic iPhone" can't come as close as "generic Dr. Pepper" does on the trade-dress claim.

Walmart gets away with it because Walmart can hurt the makers of Dr Pepper. Walmart could drop their entire product line with little effect to the bottom line of Walmart since it is a tiny fraction of their business. Losing Walmart as a customer would hurt the makers of Dr Pepper much worse since Walmart accounts for a rather significant portion of their business. Sure Dr. Pepper's maker could sue Walmart and might even win but it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

Apple on the other hand cannot hurt Samsung in the same way. Samsung has potentially much to gain by copying Apple and they know it will be harder for Apple to retaliate since Apple's only real option is a lawsuit. Certainly risky but nothing like the situation above with Walmart.

Re:Of course (5, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#40918705)

Remember, this is a design patent case.

It's not just rounded rectangles and a black bezel. It's rounded rectangles, a black bezel, this AND that AND other things.

Note the the "AND" - it all has to add up to be significantly infringing. It doesn't have the same requirements as a utility [about.com] patent. Moving an icon would not likely be unique enough to get you a utility patent, but it could well be PART of a design patent.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919275)

Yeah, but on that basis if you can show NO it doesn't have that and NO it doesn't that thing either, then the design patent isn't being violated.

A violation of trademark would have been much easier for Apple to prove, but this isn't trademark.

Re:Of course (4, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | about 2 years ago | (#40919281)

The way to crush a design patent is to show that there is a functional reason you chose that design.

"We moved the message from the top to the bottom so that it would be closer to where the user's finger would be hovering after the previous interaction. Here is expert testimony that says such alignment is more effective." BAM It's not just cosmetic.

"We chose rounded corners with a flush bezel instead of the earlier chunky corners because they will catch less when they are being removed from satchels, purses, and backpack pockets. Here are focus group comments related to that decision." BAM It's not just cosmetic.

A design patent is solely for non-functional design choices. Number of petals on a flower. Color coordination. And so on.

Re:Of course (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40919421)

Exactly. I have nearly every model of phone come across my desk, and the Galaxy S is the only one I've ever picked up thinking it was an iPhone. In general, I don't mind design patents as much as software patents, because design patents are easy to work around. Software patents keep me from doing things I want.

For the end-user, this lawsuit means nothing. Samsung has already learned their lesson, and the Galaxy Nexus looks different than an iPhone. Samsung has some nice phones. Ultimately one of these two parties will pay the other one a lot of money, and the rest of the world will keep spinning as if nothing had happened.

Re:Of course (2)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | about 2 years ago | (#40918733)

This is something I've seen in just about every product, both what I've bought & what I've worked on. I'm a software developer and have mostly stuck to working for non-tech companies as an in-house developer. I've not worked on things nearly as competitive as smart phones, but all the time my bosses are looking at our competitor's software & seeing how we could apply what they did to our stuff. And we also have seen blatant ripoffs of our stuff, down to what amounts to photo-shopped screen shots, in advertisements for features "Coming Soon". Now at my present company we stress that our software is superior to our competitors(our "customers" use our software, but it's not what we "sell"), but we also make sure that the whole experience is what matters. We make sure that the services we offer are of the highest quality and that's how we beat our competitors. Just because the current Mustang & Camaro look a lot alike, doesn't mean when you drive them that you'll have the same experience. I find others copying our stuff and use copying others both funny & flattering. Isn't imitation the highest form of flattery?

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918865)

Isn't imitation the highest form of flattery?

Not when it results in fewer sales.

Patents are mis-used (5, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#40918967)

The internal combustion engine is a perfect example. The internal combustion engine COULD NOT have been patented. The diesel engine was. One particular way of making an internal combustion engine. But with the patent for a diesel engine, a skilled craftsman had all he needed to make a fully functional diesel engine.

The reason there are so many different types of engine is that they were designed to avoid having to license a patent. This worked very well. It created innovation AND if you wanted to produce an existing engine in your own factory you just paid a relatively low fee.

But Apple wants to patent ideas. No a blue print but a concept. Not even the concept of an internal combustion engine but the concept of an engine. And the patents they submit provide nothing that a skilled craftsman can use to build a device. At most, they can give an engineer an problem to solve where the problem is "how do I actually build the product the patent theorizes".

That is not how patents are supposed to work. The idea for an engine is after all far older then actual engines but all the engineers who made engines would have to pay for the license to use the idea of some long dead guy if Apple had its way.

Go look through Apples patents, every single one of them. I bet less then a single percent contains the plans with which a skilled craftsman in the field can build a working product without having to design something himself.

Imagine if Apple was in medicine, they would patent a cure for cancer. The patent has nothing in it but "It would make us a lot of money if we could cure cancer, now someone else actually invent it and pay us".

Not how it is supposed to go. If you really did discover a cure for cancer, you deserve a patent and people would happily pay you for it. But NOT just for the idea that curing cancer would be nice.

Sadly the amoral Americans have decided the patent office needs to turn a profit and you don't turn a profit by turning customers away. So the patent office and grants every payment and the taxpayers pay for courtsystem to try to sort it all out.

Conclusion: Americans are a problem.

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#40919031)

It's only normal to look at someone else's product and say "hey, that's a good idea, let's implement that too!".

I was leaning toward Apple being a bit too overzealous on their claims until I read the Ars article. It's difficult to ignore the abrupt physical design changes that came after the iPhone release. And the similarity of the interface. The interface was so similar there was an internal suggestion at Samsung to make the icons more different because they themselves thought it looked like a ripoff. That's pretty damning just by itself. Even if they didn't set out to infringe, they've clearly recognized they did end up with a confusingly similar design. In this game, intent isn't the only thing that will get you in trouble. There's no leeway for "honest mistakes" in patent violation, especially when you realize your mistake and continue to do it anyway.

I also had to think about the "obvious" / "optimal design" problem. There's just so many ways to efficiently design a toaster. Slot for bread, lever to pull down, dial to adjust time. If someone has a patent that covers those basics, you'd have a really hard time designing a competing product that didn't infringe. I get that. But samsung has been in the business for years before Apple, they've had plenty of time to bring various designs to market. Then Apple comes along with what we'll presume is a truckload of market research and engineering resources, and right-off-the-blocks has a design that's very different than 95% of the existing products available in the market. If at that point a competitor suddenly changes their designs on a direct collision course with yours, it's very hard to swallow that your new design wasn't at least a major influence on your recent design changes.

And if you pull designs out of your drafting cabinet that you've been working on for years that look like the new release, but you had never patented them or brought them to market.... you snooze you lose. The point here is improving the products available in the market, and it will not reward you for sitting on good designs. Get it to market or go home.

I think if a new player enters the market with a revolutionary design, you're not entitled to copy it just because it's turning out to be a much more optimal design. If it was "obvious" then you should have done it already. If you didn't, either you're slow, stupid, or it wasn't really that obvious then, even if now in retrospect it looks very obvious. In any event, you shouldn't be entitled to copy it just for the "optimal/obvious" reason. The one that was quick, clever and bold enough to bring the "optimal" design to market before you ought to get a reward for their effort, innovation, and providing the market with a superior product.

Some of what Apple is arguing is iffy, and a few things are downright silly. But now that they're in court they're going to play all their cards, whether they be strong or weak. May as well. Let the court uphold the strong ones, strike down the weak ones, and hash out who gets what out of the middleground. This is pretty standard practice in any big case like this. Bring all your cards to the table and turn over as many as you can mange to. So even though some of these things seem silly, I can see why they're doing it. You'll get better odds on review of your iffy things if they've already struck down some of the silly things and gotten the cutoff for "silly" more clearly defined. So it's necessary.

Re:Of course (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#40919123)

its a design patent

samsung's icons are very similar with the iphone in a few cases, almost exact. if Moto, HTC and others can make skins that don't look like the iphone then samsung can as well

Re:Of course (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#40919631)

It's only normal to look at someone else's product and say "hey, that's a good idea, let's implement that too!".

But when Microsoft does it it's sleazy and dishonist?

Scribd document taken down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918637)

Anyone have a mirror?

Re:Scribd document taken down (5, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#40918691)

Re:Scribd document taken down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918983)

Looking at it, some of it's just plan sad.

Remember when everyone RAGED because the iPhone couldn't copy and paste? According to this, Samsung needed to look at the iPhone to decide they ought to copy and paste too.

Re:Scribd document taken down (4, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | about 2 years ago | (#40919049)

I read through it. There are some "let's copy the iPhone" things, but so much of it clearly shows that Samsung just didn't care about the software. Decisions that, even in a vacuum, make no sense. Here are some that I can remember:

  • Icons (such as notes) don't look like the application that gets launched.
  • Requiring you to use multiple applications to sync your data with the computer (one for calendar, one for contacts, one for music, one for...)
  • Multiple places where the keyboard covers up part of the dialog box the user is supposed to be using.
  • Requiring multiple steps to return to your call in progress.
  • Opening email doesn't check for email. You have to open a menu and hit the sync button.
  • You're allowed to put multiple copies of a program on the same launcher screen.

There are quite a few places in the document that boil down to "The iPhone does this neat little visual trick, we need a neat little visual trick". There are a couple of places (I can't remember them off the top of my head) where it looks like they actually removed something useful to be more iPhone like. Without some of the slides, it would have read like a "what the hell were you thinking" memo.

It's going to be a tough thing for Samsung to argue against.

Chevy & Ford (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918665)

Ford suing Chevrolet on copying it's design for an automobile, submitting emails/notes from Chevrolet engineers who are analyzing/comparing their new car with Ford's:

1. It has four wheels w/ rubber tires.
2. There is a driver's station with locking mechanism, steering wheel, gear shift, brake pedal, and accelerator.
3. There are seats for the driver and passengers.
4. There are 2 to 4 doors for driver and passenger entrance/egress.
5. There is some bulk storage area (trunk, etc).
6. There are at least 2 headlights, tail lights, and turn indicators.
.
.
.
So, obviously, Chevy "stole" Ford's design!

Re:Chevy & Ford (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918787)

You're a retard.

Re:Chevy & Ford (1)

Quila (201335) | about 2 years ago | (#40918859)

Ford has quite a few design patents, and has successfully taken legal action against those who they thought were infringing on them.

Re:Chevy & Ford (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919215)

Spot on. This childish bullshit about patenting such simplistic designs needs to stop.

I fear the whole system (not just patent, but economic, political, financial, and social) is so corrupt and broken though, that it won't happen until everything collapses.

Re:Chevy & Ford (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919663)

Spot on my ass. It is a lame straw man that all the retards throw out.
If it was based on "generic rectangle with rounded corners" only then they would be
suing every manufacturer about every phone. They aren't doing that are they?
In you example of Kia cam out with a new car the looked amazingly like
a mustang - (not just 4 wheels & 2 doors) then ford would sue in a heartbeat.
And just because they didn;t make every car look like a mustang doesn't mean
diddly squat.

asians have no creativity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918749)

did u actually expect a bunch of human calculators to come up with good design?

Apples future problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918897)

Who is going to build or invent Apples new screens in the future? Sharp? Yeah Sharp is almost bankrupt, laying off people, they will not have much to spend on R&D. All the new tech for screens is going to be coming from Samsung. Apple just puts parts together they don't make or invent the parts. They are biting the hand that feeds them.

Re:Apples future problem (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 2 years ago | (#40918997)

Well, with $110 billion in cash, Apple can upfront the money for a factory for Sharp, get exclusivity for a period, and discounts after that. If Apple is providing the financing, Sharp can be as insolvent as the American government.

Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (4, Insightful)

logicassasin (318009) | about 2 years ago | (#40918899)

I know it may be taboo to throw a competitor's device into the fray (and possibly opening up yourself to litigation from them), but seeing as how the LG Prada (LG KE850) had already won a design award months before the extremely similar looking iPhone had even been announced I would imagine that Samsung would jump at the opportunity to show prior art for some of Apple's "design patents" just to get them eliminated.

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919011)

They can't even bring in their own phone design (F700) for evidence, so there's no way they'll be able to get the Prada into the case.

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919145)

They could have...had they filed the evidence during disclosure. But they didn't. Which implies they either didn't know about it or, more likely, they thought it wouldn't help their legal case. And, by not submitting it on time, they are using its exclusion to fuel conspiracy theories amongst ihaters. A win-win.

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (3, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#40919361)

They submitted the evidence too late, so it was excluded. It had nothing to do with the importance or worth of the evidence itself. Apple actually had some of their evidence excluded for the exact same reason, though that's not getting as much press.

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 2 years ago | (#40919073)

They'd love to, but apparently the judge likes telling Samsung what evidence they can't present. Refer to the Groklaw article [groklaw.net] linked to from /. a day or two ago.

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919711)

actually, the judge likes telling both sides to follow the rules. moron.

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919229)

Design wise, it doesn't resemble the original iphone all that much, but the iphone 4 on the other hand looks like a larger clone of that phone. Have I mentioned that it came in white as well?

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (4, Interesting)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#40919279)

Slight problem: the Prada was referenced in the '677 patent [uspto.gov] . I.e. The patent was awarded with full awareness of the LG Prada phone, meaning that the LG phone must have been different enough so as not to invalidate the claims of Apple's design patent.

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#40919493)

Slight problem: the Prada was referenced in the '677 patent [uspto.gov]. I.e. The patent was awarded with full awareness of the LG Prada phone, meaning that the LG phone must have been different enough so as not to invalidate the claims of Apple's design patent.

So that would mean that anybody could make an exact copy of the LG Prada phone, and Apple could not sue them (well of course you can sue for anything, but they couldn't possibly win). And of course LG could sue. Or you could pay LG some money for the right to make an exact copy of the LG Prada, and you would be safe.

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919327)

You mean except for Apple's patents from 2005 showing the iPhone form? You can make up your own version of history all you want, but it's not going to make it true.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/30/apple_strikes_back_at_samsung_with_2005_iphone_prototype_design.html

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (1)

Hellasboy (120979) | about 2 years ago | (#40919333)

Then the question becomes, why didn't they reference the LG Prada when designing their phone and make design decisions based on Apple's iPhone? This makes it look worse for Samsung in this lawsuit.

Re:Has Samsung ever brought up the LG Prada??? (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#40919491)

LG Prada was crap and based on crappy Brew OS. the nice thing about the iphone was that it was the first phone that was based on a real computer OS

Umpteen zillion ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40918969)

In trying to view the scribd document, I temporarily enabled JavaScript once, twice, three times... at that point the NoScript menu was so long it filled the screen top-to-bottom, and I had to scroll to pick it again. I gave up at that point.

Is it really *that* hard to not have so many layers of JavaScript stuffed in there that you can't getting the page to render in one or two tries? Sheesh.

PDF not loading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40919219)

The pdf at the following link

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/44

is no longer loading just FYI everyone.

Not a fair comparison (-1, Offtopic)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#40919455)

I can customize the UI interface on my Galaxy S phone to match how I like it, iPhone you can't. Also, different Phone Venders will add their own customization and crap that totally changes the UI, at not fault to Samsung. If you want a simply to use phone for Grandma, and it needs to stay consistent, than I can see the value of the iPhone, otherwise I'll take any Android phone over an iPhone anyday. I hate the Proprietary that comes with Apple Products. The iPhone doesn't use standard charges, no easy battery replacement, no memory card. It's an idiot proof phone.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...