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 530236
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Common practice
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 10:25 UTC 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[5]: Common practice
by MOS6510 on Wed 8th Aug 2012 10:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Common practice"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

So by your logic you didn't write this, in fact you do not exist at all

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Common practice
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 10:56 in reply to "RE[5]: Common practice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So by your logic you didn't write this, in fact you do not exist at all


I wrote the comment. I did not invent the words, the grammar, and punctuation that make up the comment. I should not be able to patent these parts just because I put them together in this comment.

Edited 2012-08-08 10:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Common practice
by akrosdbay on Wed 8th Aug 2012 10:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Common practice"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

How naive do you have to be to believe that Samsung exists in a Vacuum? Do you think Samsung can make Laptops without Intel/AMD/NVidia or Microsoft tech? Or viable smart phones without Google or Microsoft OS and Services.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Common practice
by akrosdbay on Wed 8th Aug 2012 10:46 in reply to "RE[4]: Common practice"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09


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.


If you believe that I have bad news for you about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!

You have taken complete leave of your senses Thom and behaving like a ignorant child is not helping people see any point you are trying to make.

Apple's touch screen still outclasses anything in the market even after 5 years. Why can't any of the competitors get the same responsiveness form them? Even Samsung that manufactures panels for Apple has inferior touch screens on their products. By your rationale Samsung invented it so it should have the same product but it is not. Why does the iPhone/iPad/Macbook panels made by Samsung etc have better PPI than Samsung's own phones/Laptops? Apple invented the tech Samsung is contracted to manufacture it. They can't put it in their products because they didn't invent it.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: Common practice
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 10:54 in reply to "RE[5]: Common practice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple's touch screen


Built by LG, developed over decades by academia, small companies, and large companies like LG, Sharp, Samsung, and so on. Not Apple.

Why can't any of the competitors get the same responsiveness form them?


Ignoring the fact that this is clearly not true (take a look at any Windows Phone or Android phones post-ICS and JB), it's because Apple's software is better. Not because they invented it.

By your rationale Samsung invented it so it should have the same product but it is not.


I did not claim anything like that.

Apple invented the tech Samsung is contracted to manufacture it.


Proof?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Common practice
by imhotepx on Wed 8th Aug 2012 11:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Common practice"
imhotepx Member since:
2012-08-08

Hi Thom,

I think you need to be more objective. Just because Apple did not manufacture all the bits does not mean they did not design or invent any of it.

To give you two examples, Fingerworks the company that Apple acquired in 2005 invented multi touch technology dating back to 1999, obviously later implemented in the iPhone and subsequently elsewhere.

Apple was a founding member of ARM which is now what everyone uses. Apple partnered with Acorn for that. In fact they used it in the Newton which I still have - neat device even today!

Even when you look back at the first Macintosh UI, there was a great deal of innovation there. Yes they saw the Xerox star in action, but what they built n the Lisa and Mac was a clean room implementation with many innovations, such as overlapping windows, drop down menus, windows that could have their content updated live. And you'll love this one, the drag and drop of moving and copying files was an Apple invention as well. Xerox did not have that. There are others but you get my point.

I use all types of gear, because I'm a tech geek, I have iphones ipads galaxies and google tablets, it's all good. But if I were in Apple's shoes, I sure as hell would be peeved when I see some of the copying Samsung specifically have done. I think it is pretty blatant, but that is my opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: Common practice
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 11:08 in reply to "RE[5]: Common practice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You are actually saying exactly what I mean: that there is no vacuum in which Apple created the iPhone. That's the whole point. The technology world is like a language, where every individual speaker adds to the language, and over time, it evolves. We would think someone crazy if he were to patent words and grammar that make up the language and start suing people for constructing different sentences using these words and grammar. If he were allowed to do this, it would cause massive damage to a language and the arts.

Yet, that's exactly what Apple and Microsoft are doing, and we have people cheering them on for it. It boggles the mind.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Common practice
by zima on Wed 15th Aug 2012 01:58 in reply to "RE[5]: Common practice"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Fingerworks the company that Apple acquired in 2005 invented multi touch technology dating back to 1999

No, they developed implementation of technologies dating back several decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch#History

Apple was a founding member of ARM which is now what everyone uses. Apple partnered with Acorn for that.

Again, you rewrite history. Apple was among the founders of ARM Ltd the company (not only with Acorn, also VLSI) - but ARM the architecture already existed for half a decade, developed only by ~Acorn. What the joint venture provided was capital and new market.

Even when you look back at the first Macintosh UI, there was a great deal of innovation there. Yes they saw the Xerox star in action, but what they built n the Lisa and Mac was a clean room implementation with many innovations

And you'll love this one: Xerox sued Apple in the 90s (at the time when Apple tried to argue that "look and feel" was copyrightable, in their lawsuit against Microsoft; BTW, Apple utterly lost back then, like they'll hopefully do now)

Reply Parent Score: 2