
Apple Never Designed the iPad - They Undesigned it - mrsebastian
http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/apple-never-designed-the-ipad-they-undesigned-it/
======
danilocampos
I want these people who are running around saying there's no other way to
design Samsung's stuff to explain to me one thing.

Why, of all the devices on earth, does Samsung's tablet exactly mimic Apple's
USB connector?

I've got a Galaxy Tab sitting right next to me, here. The design isn't just
similar, the dimensions are nearly identical.

Explain it to me. Please. If you can offer a compelling case for why Samsung
isn't a shameless industrial design thief that can also account for their USB
connector, I will be very impressed. It is, to me, the smoking gun. Don't tell
me it's the _only way to design a low-profile USB connector._ It's the only
way when Apple does it – everyone else has been doing fine with USB mini and
micro.

Samsung: <http://i.imgur.com/eyqGw.jpg>

Apple: <http://i.imgur.com/nh0eI.jpg>

_Everyone else_ : <http://i.imgur.com/vpPhZ.jpg>

Oh, and for thoroughness, how Amazon designed a beautiful USB micro cable that
looked nothing at all like Apple's: [http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Replacement-
Display-Generation-...](http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Replacement-Display-
Generation-Kindles/dp/B003M5IQLU)

Maybe Apple had a time machine and traveled into the future, stealing
Samsung's wholly original USB cable design?

~~~
ljf
The cable is a PDMI cable, an industry standard developed by ANSI/CEA
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI> and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Electronics_Associatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Electronics_Association)
), my Dell Streak comes with an identical one too, as do certain Android media
players (Slacker G2).

Info on PDMI: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI> Image of Dell Streak PDMI:
<http://www.images.technologyking.co.uk/25032011/hgggg.jpg>

~~~
danilocampos
Indeed, that does address the pin configuration. What about the connector
housing and strain relief, though? Hell, Apple's strain relief _sucks_ – you
need a pack of Sugru to rescue older dock connector cables. You don't copy
that for practical reasons, right? The specimens you linked look very
different from Samsung's dubiously unique interpretation.

~~~
jonknee
The housing and strain relief are both different. It's the same type of
connector on both ends so there is no way they won't end up looking similar.

------
ianstormtaylor
This article is fraught with frustratingly-incorrect use of the word "design".
The author continually mistakes "design" for visual appearance.

"Apple never designed the iPad. They undesigned the tablet. They focused on
creating the simplest form possible. Every single decision is based on
usability, readability, comfort, and focusing your eyes on the content
itself."

That's exactly what design is: finding the problems that need to be solved and
devising a solution that solves them. One that respects usability,
readability, comfort, etc.

"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."

Wrong again.

"Again, this has nothing to do with design. The width of the margin is an
engineering problem with only one solution."

And again. It is a design decision.

"Again, none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability."

Because usability has nothing to do with design... nope.

"What has happened here is that Samsung has been forced to add design elements
that don't need to be there."

Here you mean "visual elements" not "design elements".

"Again, this has nothing to do with design. This is an engineering
constraint." (talking about the batteries)

Still wrong, it has something to do with design. This however is the only one
that gets close to its claim.

The author makes a lot of interesting points, but he clearly doesn't know what
"design" means.

~~~
Helianthus
I'm furious over the use of the 'word' "undesign." THEY'RE DESTROYING MY
LANGUAGE.

~~~
Gring
Actually, they're undesigning your language.

~~~
Helianthus
STOP IT YOU'RE HURTING AMERICA

------
carldall
The author invested quite some time to make his point, however, I disagree.

First of all, if this is the only possible way for a tablet to look, why did
all the other Microsoft tablets up to the iPad look vastly different?

Second, there're two famuos quotes:

"The obvious is always least understood."

and

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to
discover them." - Galileo Galilei

The problem here is that Apple invested a lot of time and thinking into
designing a fantastic solution to a problem. But that doesn't mean that it is
the only solution. Instead, people are now seeing the world from this point of
view, and can't fathom that there is any other solution to this problem - just
like before the iPad everybody thought that the Windows Tablet Design was the
best solution.

Does the author really believe that the iPad design is the answer to all
questions? The final? I bet there're better, more intriguing, more beautiful,
and more usable designs that yet have to be discovered.

~~~
nimblegorilla
Yeah, I thought some of the points contradicted too. At one point he says a
curved edge is better for holding, but it is "impossible" to engineer it that
way due to batteries. Then he says the Sony S tablet's curve makes it
unusable. hmmm....

I've never used the S tablet, but it does seem like it might be more
comfortable to hold in portrait mode. I almost never use my iPad lying flat on
the table and when I do it is usually an uncomfortable reading angle unless I
prop it.

~~~
tomp
His drawing of the "optimal" shape clearly shows that while the back is curved
to follow the curve of the hand, the back is still symmetrical, so when the
_Pad is placed on the table, it lies flatly on the surface, and the front of
the_ Pad is completely horizontal.

~~~
ctdonath
Two other key factors for the curved back:

\- unless you look at the device edge-on right at 90 degrees, it looks much
thinner than it in fact is

\- when placed on the table, it gives a subtle illusion of floating.

Both contribute to a subjective "wow!" response, where other practical designs
don't.

~~~
nazar
And its easier to grab it. with flat surfieces one would be forced to push it
till the edge of the surface, like when I try to pick up coins from table,
PAIN!

------
Xuzz
See, to me, Samsung does have an issue here, but it's not about the "rounded
rectangle" shape or the "reasonably thick black bezel": it's the fact they
have both of those, like the iPad, but then _also_ surround them with a
marginal silver border.

I own both the Galaxy Tab 10.1" and an iPad 2, and I actually do get confused
between the two all the time, when looking at them from above. They're about
the same thickness and reasonably similar shapes, and with the same "rounded
rectangle with a black bezel surrounded by a silver frame" I honestly have
grabbed the wrong tablet before. To contrast, I never get confused with my HP
TouchPad or my Kindle Fire (although that one is smaller).

I'd be perfectly happy if Samsung just switched to a matte black border
instead, and Apple should be too: it would, at least from what I've seen, fix
most of the confusion here between the two products.

~~~
cma
Black bezel, marginal silver border, years before the iPad, made by Samsung:
[http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/1/SAMS.jp...](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/1/SAMS.jpg)

~~~
Apple-Guy
Samsung's picture frame is no iPad:
[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/23/samsungs-digital-
pi...](http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/23/samsungs-digital-picture-
frame-was-no-ipad/)

~~~
Natsu
Design patents cover design, not function. As this article points out,
minimalist designs are highly constrained. They wouldn't be minimalist if
there were lots of other ways to do it.

------
9oliYQjP
Apple didn't give design advice to Samsung because they're arrogant. It's
because for them to argue that their patents are being infringed, they have to
point out alternative designs that could have achieved the same effect.

IP laws are screwed up, but a lot of people are jumping on this bandwagon out
of ignorance. It's like people who get mad because a brand comes down hard on
folks using their trademark. It's a legal requirement that they enforce the
trademark, otherwise they lose it.

~~~
freehunter
>they have to point out alternative designs that could have achieved the same
effect.

And this post proves that those alternative designs would make for a decidedly
unappealing tablet experience. If Apple designs their products to be the bare
minimum that looks good, they don't have the right to be surprised when other
companies come to the same conclusion.

~~~
5hoom
I don't think the onus is on Apple to suggest how Samsung could design a
_good_ alternative tablet.

------
blhack
Oh for frak's sake, Apple. This design came out before the iPad and looks
_identical_ to it. HN readers, you especially should know about this since it
was all over the front page forever:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo>

Here's an article from June 2009 that you could almost literally just swap the
word Apple and iPad into.

[http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-
protot...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/)

~~~
ricardobeat
This is what the JooJoo originally looked like (2008):
[http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3030/2689708043_3afee5af69_o....](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3030/2689708043_3afee5af69_o.jpg)

This is what a 1st gen iPod touch looked like in 2007:
[http://media.gdgt.com/img/product/1/101/ipod-touch-1st-
gen-3...](http://media.gdgt.com/img/product/1/101/ipod-touch-1st-
gen-3g8-460.jpg)

On top of that, designs aren't pulled from thin air, you can subtract at least
1-2 years from the launch date.

~~~
blhack
What's your point? The only difference between the the 2008 Crunchpad/JooJoo
and the iPad is the color black.

~~~
Terretta
I think his point is the original JooJoo design, which he provides, looked a
lot less like the iPad.

~~~
blhack
But it fulfills most of the things apple is claiming that Samsung infringed
upon _except_ the color black.

~~~
webjprgm
No, it also looks like the border is slightly raised more like the Kindle.

This is the form factor that I would have thought of naturally, before seeing
the iPad, since it's similar to the designs that existed for computers at the
time. Compare it to previous tablets/slates, laptops, Palm pilots, Newton.
Most of them have some kind of raised plastic border (and often not black but
some shade of gray).

~~~
freehunter
Problem is, the iPad was designed for finger input. Raises bezels would mean
you can't touch a segment of the edge of the screen without pressing hard
enough to force your finger into that triangle. Any designer working with
finger input would recognize that and design a screen flush with the bezel.

With previous devices, they were generally designed with a stylus in mind
(Palm, Newton, slates, etc). A flush bezel, while not required, is a no-
brainer when you think about it.

~~~
Terretta
> _"... is a no-brainer when you think about it."_

Then it's not really a _no_ brainer, is it? :)

------
JulianMorrison
This article is probably falling for the cognitive bias (whose name I forget),
where what actually happened looks inevitable in retrospect, but looked much
more undecided in prospect.

Contrast all the other tablet PCs and so forth which have had a tendency to be
sharp-cornered and bulky with asymmetric elements like buttons. The idea of
having no favored orientation, for example, is innovative. Most historical
tablets had one way up, and it was SVGA landscape.

~~~
rincewind
It is called "creeping determinism" or simply hindsight bias.

<http://www.gladwell.com/2003/2003_03_10_a_dots.html>

------
ctdonath
Apple need be careful what they insist others do - it may be done, and well,
and Apple prohibited from doing it too. Example:

 _the color of the margin should be the same as the background color of the
content_

This after insisting on a sufficient inactive margin, and going on to say the
technology doesn't exist. The thought ends with the conclusion of a one-inch-
ish black margin.

But wait: what if a tablet DID run its display area to the edge? just with the
understanding among developers that any user activity within a specified
margin would be ignored, either for lack of sensors or programed disuse.
Bingo: Apple's odd requirements of no margin (per se) and no black is
satisfied and surpassed by a superior user experience of relevant, dynamic
borders; anything from automatic color matching to extending a background
image to the edges or even putting useful dynamic information & imagery in the
margin may/would be preferred to a space-occupying dead black zone. ...then
Samsung patents the idea, leaving Apple with, well, a dead black space-
occupying margin.

Methinks the term "malicious obedience" applies. Careful what you ask for...

~~~
X-Istence
Apple never suggested that the margin should be the same as the background
colour of the content. The author of the article is stating that would be even
better.

~~~
ctdonath
I didn't suggest Apple suggested that.

I'm noting that the author stated that color matched borders would be even
better, but then abandoned the idea. I'm suggesting running with it in a
manner which would benefit, instead of hinder, Samsung with an edge over Apple
with a "what goes around comes around", "malicious obedience" unexpected
consequence.

~~~
X-Istence
"Apple need be careful what they insist others do - it may be done, and well,
and Apple prohibited from doing it too. Example:"

And then you use an example. From that sentence, quoted above, it sure does
sound like you were suggesting that Apple insisted Samsung do this...

------
bluekeybox
> since a tablet has to work with any content, the only color that is both
> neutral and more subdued than any other...is black.

As well as white, silver, beige, or any of the hundreds possible distinct
shades of gray. Throughout 1980-90s, computer monitors were beige, and that
was considered to be a classy, neutral, subdued color that works with any
content, just like black is considered today. I'm not saying beige is better;
I'm just saying that this whole thing that black is "the only possible color"
is annoying. Apple themselves make a white iPad as well as covers in different
colors, so clearly black is not the only game in town.

Oh, and I've held Sony Tablet S, and it works just fine in portrait
orientation; as a matter of fact Sony's tablet is easier to hold with one hand
in portrait mode than iPad is. What a bunch of whiners.

------
webjprgm
They could have made the margins with a raised border, like the Kindle, and
still had a black border, rectangular with rounded corners, flat back tablet
that didn't look quite so much like an iPad.

They could have put their logo in a shallow etching on that margin.

The margin could be plastic, rubber, or any other material more comfortable
for grip and/or better for protecting the screen.

They also could easily have the thumb margin on only 1 side, provided their
software allows the user to flip the device upside down to switch between
left-handed and right-handed users.

They could have put the speakers as a visible part of the top or bottom
margin.

They could have the margin be a screen that does not have touch capabilities
and is there simply to extend the background color all the way to the edge.

They could design a new battery that would fit around the outer rim of the
tablet internally so that the middle of the device could be thinner. This
would be technically difficult and expensive though.

Also, simplicity is very obvious when you see it, but before you see it you
might not think of reducing things down quite that far. Case in point: Apple's
device is not as simple as the one the author at baekdal.com designed because
Apple's has a home button, a lock button, and volume buttons. Those are not
necessary, but Apple designed them into the iPad.

------
Pewpewarrows
I'll just leave this here for everyone saying that iPad-like designs never
existed before the iPad:

[http://gdeluxe.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-03455...](http://gdeluxe.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-034552.jpg)

~~~
Legion
There's plenty of use of the color black, rectangular shapes, rounded corners,
and centered screens in the "before iPad" group.

~~~
vecter
And they all run Windows with a stylus. No capacitive touch screen, no custom
app-based OS. It's a qualitative difference.

~~~
D_Drake
Incorrect. Once capacitive screens that could detect a finger were invented,
they were immediately incorporated into tablet PCs. Many tablets incorporated
an active digitizer underneath a resistive one, allowing both fingers and
styli. As for a custom app-based OS, look no further than any tablet running
Windows Mobile, like the HTC Shift X9500.

<http://pastebin.com/6NKYY3Bf>

~~~
drdaeman
Mis-pasted wrong link?

------
icebraining
What I like about the rounded corners debate is the Job's quote/story:

 _Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are
everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of
them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed
out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere
you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with
him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find._

So, are they everywhere, or are they innovative? ;)

[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt)

------
bornon5
I'm not convinced that rounded corners are anything more than a trend right
now.

Aesthetically, many beautiful objects have sharp corners - tables, windows,
and computer screens, not to mention the universal reading tablet, a.k.a. the
piece of paper. Our eyes haven't had a problem staying focused inside these
rectangles.

The big draw for rounded corners is comfort. But we've been using sharp
rectangular folders, binders, magazines, etc. for decades without complaint.

Apple used the rounded corner to great effect, and for now it seems like the
only possible design choice. But some point, someone is going to produce an
elegant matboard-thin computer tablet with "sharp" corners that don't cut your
fingers, and suddenly the rounded corner will seem like a childish relic of
the naughts.

~~~
r00fus
Obligatory folklore.org [1]... design is often how to incorporate what we
already know and see in the digital world... regarding your comment about
folders, if you do a google image search for "folder" you'll find most of them
are rounded. In drawer at home, most of the folders have rounded edges where
possible (ie, not at the hinge of the folder due to increased tear potential).

' Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are
everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of
them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed
out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere
you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with
him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find. '

[1]
[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt)

------
pazimzadeh
The author must think that design is adding random colors and textures,
because he keeps saying things like:

"none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability"

"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."

------
Androsynth
Am I the only person who doesn't care? Apple produced a well designed piece of
hardware. It is superior to other designs, so therefore I would like my
tablets to have that design, regardless of what the actual OS is or what
company built it.

On a side note, HN is usually strongly against patents. The argument is that
it is all about execution and patents only retard innovation. Why is everyone
up in arms when it is Apple getting copied? They innovated and now the rest of
the market is absorbing that design into their products, _because it is
superior_. This is _good_ , for everyone.

------
jinushaun
Well argued rebuttal of Apple's claim about Samsung copying its tablet design.
Although I disagree on color. Before the iPhone, and after, electronic devices
have been all sorts of color. For example, the Kindle debuted in off white.
Moto Razrs came in pink. Black is not the only logical solution.

As the Nokia Lumia 800 has shown, there is still a lot of room for design in
smartphones that don't resemble the iPhone as well. Samsung has no excuse.

~~~
bergie
There is probably a reason why most TVs come in black - it makes the colors
and the picture to stand out more.

Go and take a look at the flat-screen TV section of any electronics store. All
of them look pretty much alike, and actually also very much like iPad. The
main difference is size, and iPad's rounded corners which are nicer to have in
a device that you hold in your hands.

You can even compare Nokia's circa 2005 Internet Tablet, the 770 with an iPad.
Same black color, bottom corners are rounded. Sure, it still has some more
buttons and a resistive screen, but it even came with a "smart cover" (turn
the hard cover around, and the magnets in it will put the device to sleep)
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/4554791832/>

~~~
ken
The article goes even further and makes the claim that "every TV has a black
frame", implying that Samsung had no choice for their tablets, and shows a
mock-up of a tablet with a red frame for comparison.

In fact, Samsung makes TVs with red frames, which they brag is a feature:

[http://ars.samsung.com/customer/usa/jsp/faqs/faqs_view_us.js...](http://ars.samsung.com/customer/usa/jsp/faqs/faqs_view_us.jsp?SITE_ID=1&PG_ID=0&AT_ID=130181&PROD_SUB_ID=0&PROD_ID=133)
[http://www.pause.com/wp-
content/gallery/08-07-23-samsung/08-...](http://www.pause.com/wp-
content/gallery/08-07-23-samsung/08-07-23-samsung-ps-50a750.jpg)

So designers at Samsung are perfectly aware you can make the bezel other
colors.

~~~
verroq
A strip of red is hardly a red frame.

------
devenson
The appearance of TV's have converged upon the current form of minimalism and
simplicity given the current technology available--all screen, small black
border. Isn't this simply what's happening in the tablet market?

Why must the courts protect consumers from potential confusion among competing
tablets but not among competing but similar looking TV's?

Seems like an abuse of the legal system, which has soured me to Apple's
products.

~~~
tlholaday
Do you have any evidence that the European design laws were intended to
protect against consumer confusion? All the evidence I have seen is that the
laws were intended to protect designers of a product sold in country A from
copycats in country B. That way you can start on a small scale in Denmark
(say), and if it catches on, ramp up and sell throughout the EU.

------
Artagra
Very interesting. I agree with a lot of what the author says, and I think that
aspects of Apple's case against Samsung are spurious, to say the least.
However, I also see one major flaw in his argument.

If this design is obvious, why then do all tablets made trior to the iPad look
nothing like the iPad? (Windows Tablets, Apple Newton, Specialist Medical
Tablets, Grid Tablet, etc etc)

[http://www.cultofmac.com/109373/what-tablets-looked-like-
bef...](http://www.cultofmac.com/109373/what-tablets-looked-like-before-the-
ipad-proves-how-revolutionary-apples-tablet-really-was/)

------
Tyrannosaurs
There are fair points here but in terms of the bezel having to be black -
neither my Kindle (grey) nor the screen surround of my Macbook (brushed
silver) are black and they're both completely usable.

------
samtregar2
That's amazing - this site managed to come up with CSS that prevents the font
from getting bigger even when I ctrl-+ the page. Thanks for making it
impossible for me to read, asshats.

~~~
robin_reala
Upgrade from IE - it doesn’t resize fonts specified in pixels in text resize
mode.

~~~
samtregar2
You wound me sir. I use Chrome on Linux. Linux user since v1.2.3!

~~~
robin_reala
I take it all back!

------
bane
In my opinion, the _real_ problem is not who copied who. Reading through these
comments it's clear both companies are standing on the shoulders of giants
(and in some cases of each other).

The real problem I'm seeing in most of these comments is that there's a stark
denial that somebody, anybody, could possibly design and build a tablet that's
as good (or better) than Apple's flagship product because after all, isn't
Apple's design by definition the best?

------
happle
Am I the only one who hates design patents?

Wait, you're telling me you created a screen with rounded edges? There's
probably over a 1,000 people who conceptually designed iPod/iPad type devices
since the late 90s on.

None of this is new. It's absurd to claim it's original.

------
idspispopd
The logic of this article is flawed and deliberately trying to deceive. This
is an article which assumes that the designer will value identical design
problems as Apple. Hence they incorrectly argue that since Apple's design is
simple, it's automatic to come to a similar design. It's trivial to argue that
it's not only possible to solve the problems differently, but that other
designers (e.g. HTC) have valued different design problems which result in a
different looking tablet, that while similar(mostly for technical reasons), is
different enough to escape scrutiny.

Not unlike the joke of the expert who knows where the place the chalk 'x' on
the broken machine.(<http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/where.asp>) Apple's
choice of favouring certain design problems over others is the result of their
own research and how they want their users to experience their device. Valuing
different problems produces different results, e.g. if Apple were adamant that
the device should be held with one hand the design might approximate an
artists palette or have a dedicated strap.

It's up to the lawyers from here, however Apple has been having success in
demonstrating that the few differences between the devices are confusingly
similar. Samsung's case is weakened by copying, not only the look and feel of
the applications, but also the packaging, and even the 30 pin connector which
rather than being an elegant solution it's a compatibility choice inherited
from other iDevices.

To me, as a consumer, while my opinion is worthless in the matter: I feel it's
a high profile knock off and something I'd expect to find in the chinese
markets. Also it's association with Android damages the Android brand,
allowing people to assume that Android is a rough counterfeit.

------
Turing_Machine
Our eyes don't "see the world as a rectangle". The reason that newspapers,
etc. are rectangular has more to do with efficient space packing (and linear
text, as the author mentions) than the inherent capabilities of the eye.

~~~
Turing_Machine
[https://www.google.com/search?q=goldmann+visual+field&tb...](https://www.google.com/search?q=goldmann+visual+field&tbm=isch)

Not very rectangular. :-)

------
john2x
My favorite quote, and my motto when making anything

> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
> there is nothing left to take away.

\- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Also, that thing about the margin matching the color of the content sounds
awesome.

------
brindle
I'm a bit late to this party...

I liked the article title but the article is weak. First of all, there are
many ways to create a viable tablet. Apple's approach to enumerate the
challenges/problems associated with the new form factor and then to solve them
not come up with an ad hoc hack and to protect their unique patentable
solutions.

At the same time, other companies were creating netbooks because they were to
lazy to figure out how to design a fully functional computer and cram it into
a notebook form factor.

Probably one of the key breakthroughs was their realization that it didn't
need to be a full computer. Seems so obvious now doesn't it? Also that they
needed to augment the current state of the touch based UI. All very obvious in
retrospect.

If there is prior art then it will remove some of the violations. If you are
going to post stuff like this, do the necessary research on when the iPad IP
was patented.

Its appalling to see companies blatantly copying better technology and then
selling it. They should respect it, either license the technology, develop
their own or work on something that Apple hasn't done yet and isn't in the
process of doing.

------
jasongullickson
" _Optimally speaking, the color of the margin should be the same as the
background color of the content. That way, the margin would be there but not
attract your attention. But that is not actually possible with today's
technology._ "

What?

There are several comments here which ring with the similar, "this is the only
way it could be" tone that is morally disturbing (although always pleasing to
hear from the competition...).

(edit: spelling)

------
fuzzythinker
"Thickness: The batteries make it impossible to create the optional shape for
gripping. Instead, the back is shaped to be slightly thicker to fit the
batteries, while keeping the edge as thin as possible. Flat back: It simply
doesn't work."

These 2 assertions are basically the same, and were made with next to no
basis. Had they actually used the Sony tablet? How do they know that it "It
simply doesn't work."? I haven't used the Sony tablet before, but I did use
the REB2100 color ebook which is similar to the Sony design where the
batteries are in one edge instead of being flat on the back. It is much easier
to hold than the ipad. I will argue that a tablet with an edge heavy side like
the Sony, if it isn't currently easy to hold with 2 hands for gaming or other
applications due to sharp edges, can be redesigned more like the 1st gen
macbook air where user can hold the heavy edge comfortably by either a single
hand or both hands.

------
alexwolfe
Every designer I know will tell you it take much longer and requires much more
difficulty to make something complicated look very very simple.

Most peoples reaction to something designed very well is: "oh of course you do
it like that, how would you do it anyway else".

But this is naive thinking, there are plenty of ways to design and most are
not simple. The beauty of the iPad is that people understand it at a glance,
that is incredibly profound. I think it is really unfortunate that the writer
of this article took the stance that they undesigned it, simply wrong. They
intelligently designed every aspect of this device which is exactly what his
diagrams point out.

Apple's computers, tablets, phone, iPod, all look very unique and were
certainly designed not undesigned. All of these objects are man made and
inherently require design for them to take shape.

------
protomyth
I would normally give a company the benefit of the doubt, but after the
SGH-i607 (Blackjack)[1] I just assume Samsung is a copy type company for
design.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-i607>

------
TechNewb
The author is not giving Apple credit for the design it deserves. Why did no
other tablets look like the iPad before the iPad then?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias>

I don't remember any of the Windows based tablets looking this way. Or even
the Newton, not even the Dynabook looked like the iPad.

Edit: And the author overlooks the fact that multi orientation is a unique
design feature onto itself.

------
roadnottaken
It is not so simple. Tablet computers before the iPad did not look anything
like the iPad:

[http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-
th...](http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-the-ipad/)

in _hindsight_ , it seems like the only completely obvious way to design a
tablet, but that fact in itself is the mark of great design.

~~~
tikhonj
That picture, which is shown much too often, is a perfect illustration only of
selection bias.

Going through past tablets and choosing the ones that were not black
rectangles proves nothing except that _some_ tablets did not look like the
ipad. Some tablets _now_ also don't look like the ipad.

~~~
sbuk
It's also a perfect illustration of why this and Samsung's arguments to the
contrary are invalid.

------
sbuk
Perhaps the articles author should employ a morphological chart to properly
investigate the many different design solutions available to Samsung and
everybody else before declaring Apple's design the definitive one:
<http://wikid.eu/index.php/Morphological_chart>

------
jopt
The author seems to argue that only unsuccessful design is entitled to
protection.

~~~
freehunter
No, just that only non-obvious design should be entitled to protection. A
thumb-width, neutrally colored bezel, a rectangle screen, and non-lethal
corners are obvious. Apple's suggestions are to specifically engineer a device
that looks unlike an Apple product, rather than designing a device in the
obvious way.

Apple wants to corner the market on simple design. Imagine if your coffee cup
couldn't be designed to be round, have a handle that goes from the top to the
bottom, or have an opening on the top to drink from.

~~~
sbuk
>>Apple wants to corner the market on simple design. Imagine if your coffee
cup couldn't be designed to be round, have a handle that goes from the top to
the bottom, or have an opening on the top to drink from.

I don't understand this point of view at all. It's seems loaded and emotive.
I'll ask you this; why can other hardware manufacturers make tablet devices
that are aesthetically appealing to consumers that aren't using a near
identical visual language.

~~~
freehunter
Can you link me to one? I'm having a hard time finding a tablet that does not
look like an iPad. The HP Touchpad, the Playbook, Motorola Xoom, even the
Kindle Fire looks like a 7" iPad. The Nook Tablet is about the only one, and
it's just a silver iPad with a notch cut out of the corner for some reason.
Eee Transformer? iPad with an optional keyboard.

The Acer Iconia has a silver lining around the bezel. That and the Nook are
about as "different" as I'm seeing. They're all 7" or 10" TV screens. No one
is screaming that their TVs or monitors all look the same, but they're all
black boxes with a screen.

~~~
sbuk
Sure; any of these at the bottom of the picture - [http://gdeluxe.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-03455...](http://gdeluxe.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-034552.jpg)

~~~
freehunter
The Sony tablet was pointed out in this article as a poor design that was over
engineered. I pointed out the Nook Tablet as one exception. The rest (beyond
the clamshell designs) all look similar to the iPad. Basically you're saying
companies should have to design their tablets with two screens because a one
screen black box is too similar to the iPad?

~~~
sbuk
No. I am saying that all the examples and the ones that you mention, perhaps
except the HP TouchPad, are different enough not to be plagiarising from
Apple, unlike Samsung's devices, which are flagrant rip offs of Apple design's
_for a tablet_. For instance the radius of the corner could reasonably be
anything between <5mm - >25mm, changing the aesthetic substantially. The bezel
could have a different finish; acid etched for instance, it could be a
different size or had an inlaid trim. Using a morphological chart you could
discover many more options <http://wikid.eu/index.php/Morphological_chart>,
some good, some of them not so good. Quite simple really. Of course you are
entitled to disagree with my opinion, however to claim that other devices
merely "all look similar to the iPad" is not really understanding what design
is, just like the articles author. 'Design obviousness' to me is an indication
of a successful design. It is also a bias of hindsight. It's tantamount to
stating that anyone can produce an Andy Warhol piece.

>>The Sony tablet was pointed out in this article as a poor design that was
over engineered.

The article is neither factual or authoritative. It is opinion and
supposition.

------
kingsidharth
Three of my favorite design quotes:

"Best design is least design."

"Best design is invisible."

"Give less a chance."

~~~
sbuk
<http://tenprinciplesofgooddesign.com/> from Dieter Rams. Jonathan Ive's and
by extension Apple's approach to design expressed in 10 simple statements.

------
iopuy
I didn't just read the article, I unread it.

------
commieneko
Design by simplification is hard. And surprisingly not intuitive. Look at a
Picasso and realize it took hundreds of years of western art before something
so "simple" could be appreciated.

It's made even harder because engineers and business managers often insist on
extra functionality or visual clutter.

(Often there are good usability or marketing reasons for this, but too often
it's simply the desire to be "part of the process".)

Now you do give up something with simplicity. In art you force the user to
supply context and sometimes even interpretation; in software design this can
actually be a plus. One of the things you give up in software, and hardware,
design is novelty. When you boil a solution down to its essence there's often
not room for differentiation. You have to change either the constraints,
smaller batteries, for example, or change user expectations.

This makes competing against something so "undesigned" very difficult without
trying to completely re-conceptualize a product.

This is what Apple did with the iPhone. Now it helped them in that the basic
"smart phone" was so utterly, indescribably awful before they entered the
market. I imagine the process Jobs went through involved looking at the
current market and deciding that there was no way to fix any of that. So they
started from scratch. A big deal was realizing that they weren't simply making
a phone with some connectivity features and a bigger display, but they were
designing a small, portable communication platform that needed to have
absolutely minimal impact on, well, portability. They looked at the problem
and built just enough to solve the basics and provide a minimal amount of
hardware and software to support the ideas. Anything added needs to have
minimal impact on the basics.

Now they didn't get it perfect, by any means. But they did a good, credible
job. Good enough that if you are a competitor you are going to have a hard
time solving the same problems, with the same constraints, and not come up
with something that a layman would have a hard time distinguishing from the
original.

Now I'm against software patents myself, and think hardware patents should be
much more difficult to get and keep. But legal issues aside, if you want to
compete against the iPhone and iPad, and not seem like an also-ran, you are
going to have to come up with a different interaction paradigm. A device built
into spectacles with a heads up display and vision tracking? Something totally
audio based; Siri anyone? I can see the attraction to a phone with _no_
display or buttons at all.

I don't know the solution(s) myself, this is not an area I'm interested in
developing in.

But I'll probably want to own whatever the next "Steve Jobs" comes up with. A
Samsung iPhone/iPad knockoff? Not so much...

------
cadalac
About the corners, It's not just about comfort. When CNC machines cut
surfaces, the corners are naturally rounded, that's the main reason tablets,
smartphones and pretty much everything coming out of a factory has rounded
edges.

------
D_Drake
By those standards Apple ripped off 50% of the UMPCs ever made along with
quite a few tablet PCs and PDAs.

(Cue poorly-drawn comic of Bill Gates hurling a TC1100 through Apple's front
window.)

~~~
Apple-Guy
Ever heard of the Apple Newton PDA?

~~~
D_Drake
IBM 700T

------
funkah
> _Apple never designed the iPad. They undesigned the tablet. They focused on
> creating the simplest form possible. Every single decision is based on
> usability, readability, comfort, and focusing your eyes on the content
> itself._

IANAD, but everything I have read about design indicates that this is
precisely what design _is_. So, the premise that Apple "undesigned" the iPad
is a shaky one. That doesn't make Apple's list of demands any less silly,
though.

------
georgieporgie
This guy's argument seems to lead to, "Apple has designed the ultimate
possible tablet shape," which I don't believe in the least. Samsung obviously
copied their design concept, and didn't even _try_ to improve on it. How about
a rubberized, textured back, like the Kobo ebook reader?

------
freemarketteddy
I agree with some of the author's argument but he seems to be missing the
logical fallacy in the use of the word "undesign".

Thats equivalent to arguing that a flat screen tv is obtained by "undesigning"
a TV from the 90's and thus there is no real innovation involved!Simlarly a
laptop then was made by "undesigning" a desktop computer!

Yes an iPad is what a tablet should look and feel like but it is so obvious
because Apple pointed these seemingly "simple" things out and they absolutely
deserve credit for it.

If you go ahead and "undesign" a Boeing 747 airliner and make it work as
efficient and smooth as a bird shouldnt you deserve credit for it?

------
its_so_on
I consider Apple's design aesthetic to be the "mercedes" of phones, laptops,
etc.

I've never mistaken another car for a mercedes (I'm thinking of the e-class),
nor have I ever mistaken another laptop for a macbook, nor have I ever
mistaken another mp3 player for an ipad.

i mistook someone using a samsung tablet for them using an ipad - I thought
that's what it was, looking at them interacting with it fairly closely, etc.

I disagree with the argument in this article and elsewhere. The fact is, you
could make basically the exact same arguments for why things HAVE to look like
a MacBook or an iMac. But I've never seen anyone who cares about APPLE
products in particular, mistake another computer for a MacBook or another
computer for an iMac - have you?

When an expert does a double-take two minutes in and realizes that's not the
Apple product it looks exactly like, then a line has been crossed.

you guys can mod me down, doesn't change this fact.

~~~
karolist
Mercedes luxurious design of cars is nothing like Apple's design of tech.

Apple is BMW of computers and BMW is Apple of cars - just look at this and
honestly tell me this is beautiful and simple:

[http://l.yimg.com/dv/izp/mercedes_benz_e_class_e320_bluetec_...](http://l.yimg.com/dv/izp/mercedes_benz_e_class_e320_bluetec_sedan_2009_dashboard_dashboard.jpg)

Compare that to the 5er sedan of same year (if we go back to e60 of mid 2003
things look even worse for Mercs)

[http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/09/19-bmw...](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/09/19-bmw-5-gt-
live-frankfurt.jpg)

I'm not even talking about A6

<http://0.tqn.com/d/cars/1/0/1/P/1/09a6_interior.jpg>

This is all personal I suppose, but I take issue when people relate Apple with
Mercedes, just not the same level of attention to details between the two.

------
spwmoni
Upvoted primarily for the Shearer's potato chip plug.

------
sanj
This would be a lot more believable if all of the Tablets that came before the
iPad also looked identical to the iPad and Samsung devices.

They didn't: <http://twitpic.com/67ykpa>

~~~
brazzy
Some did: <http://www.2imgs.com/6c941c36e5>

~~~
ricardobeat
The HP Slate didn't come before the iPad, in fact it came to market 10 months
later. Neither did the Joojoo, unless you think Apple developed the iPad in
one year's time.

This doesn't look like an iPad to me: [http://www.rainbowskill.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/hp-50...](http://www.rainbowskill.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/hp-500-tablet-pc.jpg)

~~~
wmf
The HP Slate was shown three weeks before the iPad, so it couldn't be a copy
(although at that point the iPhone aesthetic was well known).

<http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/06/the-hp-slate/>

