Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 06:23 UTC
Legal "The 2010 report, translated from Korean, goes feature by feature, evaluating how Samsung's phone stacks up against the iPhone. Authored by Samsung's product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone." Pretty damning. We still need to know a few things: how many of these were actually implemented? How common are these types of comparisons (i.e., does Apple have them)? Are these protected by patents and the like? And, but that's largely irrelevant and mostly of interest to me because I'm a translator myself, who translated the document, and how well has he or she done the job?
Thread beginning with comment 530208
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Common practice
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Common practice"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Uh, without Samsung's R&D budget, there would be no iPhone.

Edited 2012-08-08 07:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Common practice
by MOS6510 on Wed 8th Aug 2012 07:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Common practice"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Then we should thank Samsung that the iPhone changed what we expect from our phones in 2007.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Common practice
by HangLoose on Wed 8th Aug 2012 09:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Common practice"
HangLoose Member since:
2007-09-03

I dont know what you were using back then but I thank Nokia for giving me Maemo based devices.

This generalization of what everyone thinks/expects is very broad and makes me think that you subscribe to the fantasy/delusion that Steve Jobs created the iPhone out of thin air. No outside inspiration, no copying of others and so on.

It still stands the fact that companies do this all... the... time...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Common practice
by akrosdbay on Wed 8th Aug 2012 10:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Common practice"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

Bullshit! Apple would have just found some one else to get parts from. Samsung just happens to have the volume Apple wants. Many companies provide components that Apple needs. In fact Samsung can't make enough so Apple has multiple vendors providing the same things. Like the display panels from LG and Sharp.


Here is Apple's vendor list
http://images.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/pdf/Apple_Supplier_L...

Everything Samsung provides for Apple is procurable from someone else. Samsung didn't invent NAND Flash, nor do they have the best chip Fabs. That would be IBM and Intel.


So cut the utter bullshit Samsung love.

Edited 2012-08-08 10:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Common practice
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 10:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Common practice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So cut the utter bullshit Samsung love.


Without its third parties, Apple would not have been able to build the iPhone. Not a single hardware part, and not a single software part, was invented by Apple. It was either acquired, ordered to be built by someone else, or just plain stolen (Apple parlance) and appropriated.

Not a single thing in the iPhone was invented by Apple. Not a single thing. Hence, it is ridiculous for Apple to complain AT ALL.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Common practice
by kaiwai on Wed 8th Aug 2012 14:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Common practice"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh, without Samsung's R&D budget, there would be no iPhone.


Pray tell with all the R&D they couldn't be screwed providing an Android 4.0 update for their Galaxy S range let a lone a crapware free version of Android 4.0 for Galaxy SII. R&D numbers don't mean a hill of beans if there is f--k all to show for it when it comes to material output - Microsoft being the best example of pointless crap being the focus of their R&D rather than real ideas that lead to real products and in turn real profits.

Edited 2012-08-08 14:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Common practice
by Tony Swash on Wed 8th Aug 2012 17:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Common practice"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Uh, without Samsung's R&D budget, there would be no iPhone.


Pedantry excusing unethical and anti-innovative product cloning.

What will be the result if Apple wins? Samsung, and other companies, will have to produce original designs for their products. You seem to think this is shocking and awful

What will be the result if Samsung wins? Samsung will be able to basically clone any device Apple creates. You seem to think this would be a triumph for innovation.

This case is about the future not the past. The people who are almost certainly working the hardest to come up with an iPhone or iPad killer are Apple, in the same way they worked the hardest to produce a (successful) iPod killer.

I simply fail see how it can be beneficial for innovation if a company struggles to produce a disruptive product (which is what Apple did with the iPod, iPhone and iPad and which I expect them to do again in the next few years) if their efforts are rewarded with instant cloning by the likes of Samsung.

You have read the Samsung document and leaving aside your cheap and evasive smears about translation, especially since Samsung has not complained about it, what do think of it as it stands. Does it look like a road map for innovation to you? Is that the sort of tech industry you think would be good for either innovation or consumers?

Reply Parent Score: 0