
The Samsung Galaxy S III: The First Smartphone Designed Entirely By Lawyers - barredo
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05/04/the-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-the-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/
======
heliodor
I'd have to disagree about it being an ugly design. What was ugly was the hack
of putting squares around every icon, when those icons were designed to live
on their own, not in a square. That's what was ugly. I'm happy to see the
squares gone and the design conform to the standard Android design guidelines.
The dock of icons going away is also good. If I'm looking in the applications
list it's because I'm looking for something that wasn't on the home screens,
so why show me part of the home screen? Makes no sense.

I'm neutral on the lack of four-way symmetry and I'd have to agree that the
avoidance of black is sad, though light-colored phones look great too (as
Apple itself shows).

~~~
lloeki
Indeed, and actually, I like it (and I'm not one prone to like Android handset
design). Especially in that shot with the three generations side by side. The
first two mimic an iPhone 3G and an iPhone 4, and it shows, while the SIII
really stands on its own (that's coming from someone who downright LOVES the
iPhone 4 design). I wish they would have let go the metal on the side and went
for a bit straighter lines on the long sides to make it feel more balanced,
but really, it's fine.

~~~
MBCook
I agree. I'm and iPhone user and I don't think the S3 looks bad at all. It
actually looks kind of nice. More importantly it's distinct. It doesn't look
like a fake iPhone.

Now I've never touched one.aybe in hand all that tapering feels weird. But it
seems like a large improvement over the "pretend I'm an iPhone" look of the
previous models.

------
Xuzz
The community design is an "and", not an "or". The Galaxy Tab model which had
issues with this in Germany, if you look at it, has _all_ , not just one, of
those characteristics. The "Apple thinks it owns the rectangle" meme is nice,
but untrue.

Nilay Patel, in the Verge article linked by Android Community:

 _Now, some of these are a little ridiculous when taken individually — is
Apple going to sue every digital photo frame maker that puts equal size black
borders around the screen as well? — but in the end, the main question for the
court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way
that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying._

(Edit: is this wrong? If not, why downvote?)

~~~
stephengillie
_but in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not
Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse
consumers about what they're buying._

How can consumers be confused about what they're buying? Even if their
software appears similar, one device has a large Apple logo on the back and is
sold almost entirely through a different retail chain.

~~~
oskarth
You'd be surprised what consumers can mistake a product for. In many people's
eyes, iPhone == smartphone. It'd be a relatively simple mistake to make if you
are a elderly non-techie.

~~~
zobzu
Then they should read what's written on the box because its pretty damn clear.
I mean going by that kind of thinking, one can mistake vodka and water. In
fact its probably a LOT easier to mistake vodka and water than an iPhone 4 and
a Galaxy S2.

Vodka, water, same color. iPhone, Galaxy S.. not even the same color. Just a
vaguely similar shape. Heh.

~~~
sbuk
That's the whole point! The S and the SII weren't 'vaguely similar' to the
iPhone, they were almost identical.

~~~
zobzu
That's very much incorrect. The SII doesn't remotely look than an iPhone 4,
except both are squared... different COLOR, different SIZE, different
BUTTONS...

~~~
sbuk
Both are offered in black and white. Although the SII was bigger the aesthetic
is practically identical. You can say that you disagree, but to suggest my
statement is very much incorrect is off the mark.

------
jsz0
Interesting theory but I'm not convinced the nuances of the Samsung/Apple case
support it. I'm also not sold that Apple has had enough success with the legal
actions against Samsung to spur such a major hardware design change especially
when Samsung is simultaneously announcing a Siri clone that uses a highly
derivative UI. You would have to believe Samsung is a total mess to accept
they forgot to tell the software guys about the change in strategy. Just don't
buy it.

I think the changes have a lot more to do with Samsung making a shift towards
acting like the big player they are. Samsung _is_ the Android market at this
point. It's less about Apple and more about HTC, Sony, Google/Motorola, etc. I
think you can see this in the significant software changes they introduced and
the larger display. They are making a play to basically own the Android
market. It is an effort to design a device that stands out instead of blending
in. I think Samsung wants people to understand at a glance this device is not
just another generic handset. It's Samsung Android -- not Google Android. So
physically it has to have at least a slightly unconventional look as well.
That being said I think they failed terribly by adopting this sort of tacky
early 00s ascetic. It's the uncanny valley of retro design. We're not far
enough removed from early 00s to want a device that reminds us of that era
yet. Weird textured plastic, overuse of the blue/purple tint, etc. Once glance
at it and somehow I'm reminded of the first popular wave of sub-1MP camera
phones in the United States.

The other issue is the size of the device. The Galaxy S was still within the
realm of the mainstream. Not too small, not too big. They are walking away
from a big portion of the market by skipping both the small and medium sized
market. They now have big and they have huge with the Note. Larger devices are
a nice option but the mainstream option has to be a bit more reasonable. For a
significant number of people this device is just going to be physically
uncomfortable to use I suspect.

~~~
miahi
With legal actions, Apple managed to delay the sale of some of Samsung's
devices in Europe for months, immediately after release. Given the rapid
releases we see these days, that means a lot of money lost.

For the size, take a look at the Samsung Galaxy family. You have a lot of
products for any size and taste. Yes, not all of them are full-featured, but
you have to take into account battery size.

~~~
chris_wot
That's a dangerous tack to be taking. Samsung is big enough to patent a lot of
things and do precisely the same thing to Apple.

------
moe
Honestly. The hardware is fine. The problem with android is still the
_software_ and only the software.

I'll take my handset in pink polka dots if it can finally scroll smoothly
everywhere and not constantly annoy me with bugs in almost every single basic
feature.

Instead they keep on shoving out bigger screens, faster CPU's every year - and
the only UX issue ever being addressed is the camera finally snapping pics in
reasonable time.

~~~
blinkingled
Performance / UI fluidity issues - that hasn't been true since long time now,
especially so since ICS. Only hardcore apple enthusiasts and the ignorant keep
repeating that (and Windows viruses) ;)

~~~
thought_alarm
Samsung made $10 billion over the last two quarters selling devices with
outdated 2.x Android software. And last time I checked my carriers, none of
their myriad of Samsung devices came with ICS.

Clearly ICS and smooth scrolling is not important to the carriers or their
typical customers. Consequently, ICS is not important to Samsung.

It's not ignorant to say that Andriod scrolls poorly. It's just that scrolling
performance isn't a priority when you're already pulling in $5 billion a
quarter.

~~~
w1ntermute
> And last time I checked my carriers, none of their myriad of Samsung devices
> came with ICS

I don't know which carriers you checked, but the Samsung Galaxy Nexus (which
runs stock ICS) has been on the market for several months now. In the US, it's
available from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint.

~~~
Locke1689
No it's not. In the US it's available from Verizon and Sprint as the LTE
version (not completely compatible with the HSPA version) and there is no
device available from AT&T or T-Mobile. You can buy an unlocked device
directly from Google, but there is no subsidized version available for AT&T or
T-Mobile customers.

I bought my HSPA version unlocked in the Netherlands.

------
Rudism
When I started reading the article, I was expecting to scroll down and see
photos of some kind of rhombus-shaped, barbed, Frankenstein monstrosity. I was
sorely disappointed. It seems like the author is defining non-ugliness as
"looks like an iPhone." There's nothing so offensive about this phone's
appearance that deserves the animosity expressed in the article.

~~~
vectorpush
I don't believe the author truly considers the design ugly. The animosity in
the article really appears to be pointed towards Apple. The ugly design
comments seem to me like a bulwark against those who might claim the author is
an Apple hater for criticizing Apple's exclusive rights to symmetrical black
rectangles.

------
tikhonj
Maybe it was designed by lawyers, but looking at the pictures, I actually like
the shape and general look of the hardware. The software doesn't look as nice,
especially the app menu with garish blue background, but the beauty of Android
is that I can make it look however I like.

So it may have been designed by lawyers, but it isn't the worse off for it.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I completely agree. In fact, I like it much more than the previous versions
that were trying way too hard to look like an iPhone. If I want to buy an
iPhone, I will choose to buy one. Whether Samsung was trying to confuse
customers or not (I wasn't there, so I can't say), I think they will be better
off forging their own style (even if they are being forced to).

~~~
stordoff
Deliberate or not, their previous designs were basically carbon copies of the
iPhone (My Galaxy Ace currently has an iPhone case on it...). The small
changes made here at least make the phone different, and personally I think it
looks better for it.

------
dakrisht
It's one of the ugliest phone's I've ever seen. Terrible engineering. Sure,
the guts are great, but aesthetically it looks awful. Also can't believe that
Apple has a patent on a damn square. Unbelievable.

~~~
joejohnson
Apple doesn't have a patent on the square. Or the rectangle. Did you not read
the article? Infringing phones were phones with _all_ of those listed
characteristics; not just one or a few of those characteristics. The "Apple
owns the rectangle" myth is just that: a myth perpetuated by those who fail to
understand IP litigation.

~~~
zobzu
It's pretty clear they'd sue again if it was rectangular tho. Because the
other characteristics are similar anyway and can't really be made in an
extremely different way.

I'm pretty much certain Samsung is aware that most people prefer the SGS2
(intl') form factor over the roundish one.

That being said for a rounded one I would have wished they made it nicer. The
HTC one is nicer for example.

------
nextparadigms
Being able to patent something like "the top shouldn't be equal to the bottom,
and only we can do that" is ridiculous. The patent system is a mess.

~~~
taligent
That's why you can't patent something just like that.

If you aren't going to actually learn and understand design patents then of
course you are going to think it is ridiculous.

~~~
drivebyacct2
You seem to be rather short and dismissive of individuals' comments on
patents, design patents and their context in this and the Oracle v Google
case. For those of us that don't understand, an explanation would go a lot
further than snark.

~~~
rayiner
Think of how you would feel in a thread if someone started ranting about
PowerPC and Apple machines even though they use Intel CPU's now. That's where
the snark comes from when people start ranting about patents in a story that
has nothing to do with patents.

tl;dr version: Apple didn't patent rectangles. They're claiming the
combination of the various features of the iPhone (rectangular shape, even
black border, rounded corners, rounded rectangle icons, etc) as trade dress.
Trade dress protection isn't a patent, it's part of trademark. It's based on
the idea that you can recognize say a product by its look not just the logo on
the box. I personally think trade dress protection tends to be too broad, but
it's a whole different set of issues from patents.

------
joering2
wow, kudos to Samsung design team -- they had really think this one through to
comply with all the rules AND come up with a good looking product.

Whats really is interesting here is that I read somewhere that each single
iPhone is made of up to 60% Samsung components, solutions, patents, etc. How
come then APPL is so bold with all those lawsuits? I know its a lot of money,
but at some point Samsung could simply say "no more" and stop selling its
technology to Apple, making it at least hard for them to keep up with the
world demand.

~~~
taligent
It's because business isn't a kindergarden playground.

You don't just say "no more" to your biggest customer who is prepaying
billions of dollars which you can then use to invest in new technologies. The
same technologies which you can use across your product lines not just
smartphones.

~~~
joering2
I know all this but with Samsung having such a strong position on the market,
isnt it a time to "kill" the competition? And Apple being so cocky they just
help Samsung to make up their mind. I mean, yeah its not a kindergarten they
dont have to provide Apple with their components. I would think Apple may want
to be "nicer" to them not to get cut off from parts to build their products.
Last thing they need right now, is money. They need to keep products flowing
into the market.

~~~
ameasure
Apple isn't getting 50-70% profit margins on its iphones without market power.

------
maytc
Why is it even possible to patent design which gives zero functionality in the
first place...

~~~
Xlythe
It's more of a trademark, isn't it? Like how you wouldn't want your company's
logo plastered over a competitor's product, you don't want your competitor to
copy its design and sell it right beside yours. It's a lesser evil, but by how
much? It feels like they're just trying to confuse consumers.

I think the Apple vs Samsung case is silly (Both companies are releasing high
quality products, it's not like the consumer is buying a junk knockoff) but
there's validity in trademarking design.

------
waiwai933
I wonder what type of innovation would we see if only lawyers who were deathly
scared of patent suits designed phones? After all, I think this isn't
terrible, and I like it as a fresh take after seeing all the iPhone look-
alikes.

Of course, my cynical side says that we'd either get no phones at all or
they'd be oddly shaped polygons that hurt you whenever you try to use it. But
still, maybe having attorneys in the room would encourage more creativity...

------
georgemcbay
tbh, I actually like the new design better than the old one.

Given this side-by-side

[http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/not-...](http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/not-rounded-icons_thumb.jpg)

I would choose the design on the right in a heartbeat. The only problem I have
with the right-side phone is the busy/light wallpaper makes the icons and text
a bit hard to read, but give that phone a black wallpaper like the one on the
left has (and this is an easy user-tunable parameter) and problem solved.

~~~
nextparadigms
That's the Galaxy S, not Galaxy S2.

[http://gadgetmania.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Samsung-
Ga...](http://gadgetmania.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Samsung-Galaxy-S-vs-
Galaxy-S2-is-it-worth-upgrading.jpg)

I still find their design way too iterative. Galaxy S, Nexus S, Galaxy S2,
Galaxy Nexus, and now Galaxy S3 - they aren't that different from one another,
and they should be. I was disappointed the Nexus S was a rehash of the Galaxy
S in hardware, and again I was disappointed the Galaxy Nexus seemed like an
iteration of Galaxy S2. I really hope Google doesn't let Samsung design their
Nexus phone next time.

~~~
zmmmmm
> Galaxy Nexus seemed like an iteration of Galaxy S2

Really? To me the Galaxy Nexus has one of the most distinctive designs on the
market - it's pure black, unmarked front with subtle curves on every surface
are quite unusual.

------
j_col
All I think about when I look at that phone is that it is yet another bland
slab phone running Android. That form factor is really holding back handset
design in my opinion, and I had high hopes that Samsung was going to do
something really innovative with this device when they released that teaser
video about how they were going to stand out from the crowd, but sadly not
with this.

Whatever about the input from the legal department into the design, to me all
this phone does in confirm that Samsung is very conservative when it comes to
design (and before anyone jumps on my back about specs, I'm strictly talking
about form here, not function).

~~~
gbog
> Samsung is very conservative when it comes to design

You might not have heard of the galaxy note then, or tell me your own
definition of conservative.

~~~
j_col
What, you mean their re-invention of the PDA?

------
thought_alarm
And yet, the white glass face still manages to evoke the iPhone 4, which is
exactly what the carriers are looking for. It should be another blockbuster
quarter for Samsung.

The carriers love Samsung, but they'll eventually turn. It always happens,
it's just a matter of when. There are only so many $5 billion quarters that a
manufacturer can earn before the manufacturer gets too cocky and the carriers
pull the plug.

But it's fun to watch.

Keep an eye on the devices on display at your local carrier stores and take
note of which manufacturers are featured more prominently. When the Samsung
devices start to disappear, you'll know exactly what's happening.

------
taitems
This screenshot seems to disagree, at least on the software front:
<http://twitpic.com/9gurwj>

------
dkrich
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've read in a while. So because the
phone has some differences to an Apple trademark (which may or may not hold up
in court) it is safe to assume that Samsung's designers intentionally designed
around the iPhone because the iPhone's design is just so badass?

Now certainly there had to be consideration of existing patents and
trademarks. I can assure the author that Apple's designers and lawyers make
the exact same considerations in their designs.

I like the iPhone design. It's okay. I like this phone's design better, and
I'm going to be buying one when it goes on the market in June. I was about to
buy another iPhone, but decided to hold off for this one because I like the
design better. I'm not saying the iPhone is poorly designed. It's just not the
optimal design for me. I like a larger screen and a slimmer profile. I prefer
blue to black. You see, there are many, many worthy smartphone designs out
there.

------
ameasure
Patent law is nice when it ensures that innovators are compensated for their
work, but Apple has clearly been compensated. Perhaps it could benefit from an
addendum -- not enforceable when you're already making a ton of money off your
innovation.

~~~
mbreese
Why would anyone do the work to innovate if they can't make a ton of money
with patent protection? Who's to say what a "ton" of money is? How much did it
the initial work cost?

Worrying about compensation isn't a good metric for patent validity.

~~~
Karunamon

      >Why would anyone do the work to innovate..
    

This is a very weak defense of the patent system. Innovation happened before
patents existed, and would continue to exist without them.

~~~
mbreese
Patents have been around for centuries and they exist to provide incentive for
people to advance society. Sure innovation might continue without them, but
likely at a much slower rate.

I'm not a fan of the current state of the patent system, but patents do have
their place.

~~~
slowpoke
False. Innovation would speed up by magnitudes because we'd finally be able to
do incremental development off each other's discoveries. It would foster a
society where exchange of information would be a given, instead of suing each
other over what amounts to a piece of paper.

Oh, and if you'd take a look at the history of patents, then you'd realize
that since their inception, they have done all but progressed innovation. One
of the most famous examples would be the steam engine, which - "thanks" to
Watt's patent on it - remained basically unimproved for three decades, despite
the existence of obvious solutions (which also were patented, by other
people). After the patent expired, innovation on the steam engine surged, and
its efficiency improved by factors of 10 over the following years.

~~~
mbreese
You're thinking too short term. The question isn't whether or not Watt's
patent hindered steam engines for three decades, but whether or not the steam
engine would have been developed at all in those three decades. The benefit
for society is delayed so that inventors can be compensated. The only
mechanism that is available to gov't to compensate an inventor is to grant a
temporary monopoly. That was the market can decide on the value of the
invention.

Here's another example. Imagine a miracle drug was discovered to cure disease
X. $100M went into the development for this drug. Now imagine that it took 10
years of development but would have taken 30 years for public sponsored
research to develop otherwise. Now, the public gets a new drug 20 years
earlier than they otherwise would have. The pharma company gets 10 years to
recoup its $100M investment, but at the end of the patent term, there is now a
low cost generic version available.

So with public funding, the new drug appears at t+30 years. With
private/patent incentive based funding the public gets access at t+10 years
and generic/cheap access at t+20 years. I think that strikes a fair balance.

Where the patent system starts to break down is when the monopoly length is
grossly over the amount of time it would take an independent person to also
develop the invention (software for example moves too quickly for this to be
effective).

~~~
slowpoke
> _software for example moves too quickly for this to be effective_.

It's not just software. Progress as a whole is moving way too fast to justify
ANY temporal monopolies over inventions. The curve of technological
advancement is probably roughly exponential. The more we discover, the faster
we can discover more things. We're sacrificing the _advancement of the
entirety of mankind_ for the profit of a few corporations.

> _The only mechanism that is available to gov't to compensate an inventor is
> to grant a temporary monopoly._

Utterly wrong. A lot of research (including the worst example, the pharma
industry) is funded directly or indirectly by the government, full or in part.
Quite a lot of research is done by universities in cooperation with the
industry. It's nonsense to imply that patents are the only viable solutions.
They aren't, and they are probably the worst solution anybody could come up
with. They are a crutch and an impediment to mankind as a whole.

On your miracle drug: highly contrived example. Most pharma research _is_ , at
least in good part, funded by the public through the government. In addition,
a very large part of the cost of a drug is _marketing_. Yes, that's right -
the pharma industry spends billions on ads.

In addition, this model is fundamentally flawed. It's a lot more profitable to
develop treatments (for symptoms etc) than it is to develop cures. I'd wager
that without this nonsensical system, we could already have a solution to AIDS
and severely reduced the lethality of cancer.

Also, I do not care how many billions went into the development of a drug. A
human life is infinitely worth more than that. I get sick when I see
corporations whining about their "intellectual property getting stolen" when
developing countries decide to produce generic clones to _save human lives_ ,
like recently the case in India.

Again, I simply reject the notion that there needs to (and in fact, that there
_can_ ) be any sort of artificial monopolies or other forms of ownership over
inventions and technologies. By getting rid of this paradoxical and, frankly,
unethical system, we would gain a monumental speed-up in technological
progress. I postulate we could be colonizing the solar system by now if we'd
never allowed this system to emerge.

As a final note, it's funny how you accuse me of thinking in the short term -
that couldn't be any more wrong. If anything, I fight for the prolonged future
of humanity, decades and centuries from now. The patent system is _utterly
unsustainable_ in light of this.

People will eventually look back at this system and ask themselves how we
could ever allow ownership over abstract concepts. They will shake their heads
at the notion of intellectual property while freely accessing, using and
improving upon the shared heritage of all mankind. I hope this day isn't far
away - it can't come fast enough.

------
phmagic
The article hints at a trend which isn't really happening: Apple's patents are
hindering innovation in the Android space.

My terrible experience with Android stems from the lack of coordination
between software and hardware.

------
flotblot
It looks good to me. If it were designed by lawyers, unless they were
designers, I think it would look like crap. The corners are still rounded and
I think the other changes aren't that bad.

------
nimbleNima
Considering the fact that the GSI and GSII were allegedly unoriginal, to what
extent did Samsung actually sell its soul, if it didn't bother cultivating it
to begin with?

------
vilya
This article has more tracking cookies embedded than any other site I've ever
seen - by a factor of 2, at least. Consider yourself warned.

~~~
Bxstraz
warned of ads. got it.

------
wtvanhest
Even Apple's lawyers design great phones!

(I'm an android owner but couldn't resist)

------
raghavsethi
Really interesting viewpoint.

------
its_so_on
Hey, this is a very entertaining story! I'd love to blog about this too, but
what would really help is a photoshop of a "samsung" phone fitting the
article's description while actually being ugly, so I don't look like an idiot
when I do.

At a minimum it shouldn't look better than the previous samsung models next to
it.

Thanks for any help!

------
epo
And all the fandroid hostility is precisely because this ugly device doesn't
look like an iPhone. Smartphones were mostly ugly before Apple came into the
market, now Apple have set the aesthetic standard and all the wannabes can do
is copy it. Now the fandroids wet their panties bacause the plagiarists are
sued for plagiarism.

EDIT erroneous reference to microphone icon removed

~~~
radley
You mean the microphone icon that's been Voice Search for a year before
Apple's Siri came out?

[http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2010/08/just-speak-it-
intro...](http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2010/08/just-speak-it-introducing-
voice-actions.html)

