Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Sep 2012 19:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 537091
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
I saw that article when it first came out and I was surprised Apple never went after them, especially since they went so far as to put an Apple trademark on it as well.
But you know very well that what I'm referring to is a different thing altogether. What you linked to was some third-rate overt clone of an already released product. What Samsung's tablet hybrid looks like -- at least to me -- is perhaps where Apple had planned to take the MacBook Air for its next big revision. In fact, owning a "tablet hybrid" for the past week has made me wonder why Apple didn't do this long ago, perhaps with the second iteration of the iPad.
Either way, I applaud Samsung's brass balls in this instance; taking a questionable verdict and throwing it out the window, flipping Apple off with a device that takes Apple's own design cues and puts them to work in a way that makes every iDevice out there seem a decade old.