Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Jan 2012 18:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 502153
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-18
I'm still baffled at why cell phone aesthetics matter so damn much. These are NOT cars with a variety of unique, infinite curves and contours. There are only so many ways to design a candybar "brick" cell phone. And news flash: they all pretty much look the same from a reasonable distance.
I really don't believe that anyone here or on the street who knows what an iPhone is/looks like would actually confuse it for this Samsung offering. Though similar in body shape/glossy finish, the peripherals are placed and shaped differently: samsung's camera lenses are squared (not iPhone circular)...oh right, and the Samsung device actually *has* an LED flash...oh, and the iPhone's action button is circular versus Samsung's being squared. The software is essentially the same as previous "offending" software in other Apple/Samsung suits, so that's a moot point. Strictly speaking on hardware, it has a similar shape...but not much else.
Besides... If this is Samsung's way of giving Apple the middle finger, I wholeheartedly support its snarky validity. Apple's incessant "design copying" accusations are so effing hypocritical (http://tinyurl.com/82acupy). Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Edited 2012-01-04 20:27 UTC