
Samsung internal doc: 125 iphone pic competitive analysis - nilsbunger
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/102317767?access_key=key-o1nfmlft8am5nw1qlpr
======
kenjackson
This actually looks like good competitive analysis more than anything, IMHO.
In some sense I expect most companies to do something similar. I'd hope that
Ford walks through Toyota, BMW, Honda cars with a fine tooth comb
understanding all of design trade-offs and places where they can improve.

I want companies to be comfortable looking at and improving over their
competitors, rather than being in constant fear of being sued.

~~~
nilsbunger
Without the bottom directives, I'd agree it's good competitive analysis,
especially if similar documents exist for multiple vendors' phones.

But the bottom directives turn it into a PRD (requirements doc), and the
directives themselves call for steps that make the devices much more similar.

~~~
vm
Excellent point - Samsung looked at the iPhone design as the definitive
source, rather than deconstructing use cases or consumer needs.

Even the icons and color themes are the same on many screens. That by itself
shows that Samsung copied Apple in _prior_ product reviews as well. Kinda
funny that they still had so many design discrepancies...

~~~
nilsbunger
Yes, that's a good way to put it. And a "good" competitive analysis would also
analyze Apple's weaknesses, and seek to exploit them. (e.g. turn-by-turn nav,
google mail integration, better multitasking, whatever)

~~~
vidarh
Not if your product is lagging so clearly on ridiculously basic stuff that you
get a far better ROI on just fixing the glaringly obvious deficiencies you
have compared to the market leader.

------
lusr
Incredibly deceptive title. It's a UX review. What did you expect Samsung to
do, sit around and wait for customers to complain or be proactive in ensuring
a high quality UX? What exactly is wrong with using the market leader to
establish how great your UX is in your competing product?

~~~
duskwuff
A typical UX review would be evaluating an interface on its own merits, not by
comparing and contrasting everything to the way a competitor implements it
(and recommending that everything be changed to look and behave more like the
competitor).

~~~
vidarh
That sounds like an incredibly idiotic waste of resources when faced with a
dominant market leader. Every place I've worked we'd consider how we stacked
up with the market leader _first_ , because that's what we'd be compared to.

~~~
duskwuff
You don't become #1 by playing catch-up.

------
rendezvouscp
Of note, on page 131: “Strong impression that iPhone’s icon concept was
copied” “Directions for Improvement: … Remove a feeling that iPhone’s menu
icons are copied by differentiating design.”

Even the evaluator determined that the layout of the home screen was too
similar to iOS.

------
nilsbunger
It's a fascinating doc. Is there a point where you cross the line from
"inspiration" to methodically duplicating every last detail? Or should it not
matter?

~~~
biggfoot
It is a competitor analysis document. Lot of products do this. Much of the
feedback in that sheet is just honest comparison and improvement suggestions.

~~~
cmelbye
It's not just an analysis. They systematically compared every aspect of the
phones where the iPhone had the advantage, and then provided a directive on
how their phone should be modified so it was more like the iPhone. That's not
merely analysis, it's concrete directives.

~~~
biggfoot
Your comment suggests that Samsung went out of its way to ape the iPhone
because it wanted to ape the iPhone. If you had some other brand in their
place as a market leader then it would have been that brand's phone in place
of iPhone

And NO I don't think they are aping it. Such analysis is everyday stuff ...

------
esolyt
Basically Samsung is comparing their product with a strong competitor's
product and emphasizes its shortcomings. I wouldn't call this a document
showing they copied iPhone.

~~~
cmelbye
Did you miss the part where below every shortcoming they issued a directive to
change their product to be more like the iPhone? This isn't merely a
comparison.

~~~
gjm11
1\. Product explodes when red button is pressed. FooCorp's products do not
explode. Suggested improvement: fix our product so it doesn't explode.

2\. This menu is really confusing because it has lots of entries in an
arbitrary order. FooCorp's product has simpler, better structured menus.
Suggested improvement: rationalize and simplify menu structure.

3\. This dialog box is full of ugly scaled-up bitmap graphics. The
corresponding thing in FooCorp's product does not. Suggested improvement:
either provide carefully created bitmaps of the right size, or use vector
graphics that scale nicely.

O NOES THEY COPIED FOOCORP AT EVERY POINT THE LOUSY PIRATES

Nonsense, right? But most of Samsung's document is like this. They've gone
through their product and their leading competitor's, looking for places where
the competitor provides a better user experience, and suggested ways to make
their product better. Often that amounts to "do the same as the iPhone"
because what happened is that they did something silly and Apple didn't.
Which, sure, is good for Apple and bad for Samsung, but it's got nothing to do
with patent infringement.

(And perhaps what they actually ended up doing really was just copying the
iPhone everywhere. But _this document_ doesn't say "copy the iPhone
everywhere". It mostly says "here are lots of places where we did a bad job
and Apple did a better one; learn from them", and there is nothing wrong with
that.)

------
biggfoot
IMO nothing illegal or underhand here. Most products do this. If I'm not
mistaken many products release detailed descriptions to competitors under some
kind of NDA too.

------
CamperBob2
Anybody got a downloadable .PDF link? Scribd can get bent.

~~~
damncabbage
There's a "Download" button at the bottom of the screen. No account needed;
just click it and it downloads the PDF.

~~~
CamperBob2
Hmm. Thanks -- the link in the article looks very different now. Yesterday,
the document had various ads inserted in it, and was framed by "Download"
links and various other buttons that demanded a Facebook or Twitter login.

I'm not seeing any of that now, just the button you mentioned, which works.

------
jayfuerstenberg
The only potential problem with this document (from a legal perspective) is
that it only references the iPhone.

Samsung should have shown other devices as well.

~~~
tomp
What if there were other reviews referencing other phones as well?

I imagine they would be much shorter, though...

------
andybak
It must be noted that many of the recommendations were NOT followed. (I owned
an S1 and an S2)

------
saddino
We could save ourselves a lot of back-and-forth commenting by understanding
that it doesn't matter whether this (or any) document on its own is damning or
a smoking-gun. What matters is the totality of the evidence. That's what the
Jury will consider. Saying "this just looks like a competitiveness analysis"
is missing the overarching point. And the same will hold true for evidence
introduced by Samsung.

------
olalonde
Two things I'm wondering about:

\- The document states it is highly confidential. Was it leaked? Otherwise,
why does it state it is confidential?

\- Samsung is a Korean company. Why is their internal document written in
English rather than Korean? Is it common for multinationals to operate in
English despite their country of origin?

~~~
Happer
\- I'm not familiar with American law, but I presume the document has the
status confidential, until it is allowed as evidence by the court.

\- read page 133. It shows a signed Certificate of Translation.

~~~
redcap
Bear in mind that the term "confidential" only applies inside the company -
that company needs to ensure its security is good enough.

However, when it comes to a court case you have document discovery and I
presume this "confidential" document turned up. The judge gets to decide
whether it can be used as evidence, and I presume the only thing he or she
considers is whether it is relevant to the case - the "confidential" part is
irrelevant.

------
kenster07
I don't believe the UI was copied, but that is not the relevant issue.

The LOOK OF AN ICON is not worthy of a patent. This sort of UI is not worthy
of a patent. So, case dismissed, imo.

------
roblopes
I'm confused, Samsung is being sued for copying iPhone when Samsung uses
Android? So did Apple copy Android..... Is this the real question?

~~~
biggfoot
Apple has beef about the UI which is deceptively similar on the first few
models released by Samsung

~~~
slurgfest
What was 'deceptive' about it? Was Samsung trying to get people to confuse its
phones with iPhones and buy them by mistake?

edit: it is a serious question - why does the word 'deceptive' apply? Can this
not be another Android vs. Apple thing (I do not own either kind of phone)?

~~~
Someone
An argument could be that Samsung was trying to get people to buy their phones
as a way to look like an iPhone owner without having to pay more for a real
iPhone than you paid for the 'clone'.

Another argument could be that, by selling inferior wares that look like
Apple's stuff, consumers would start to think that Apple's phones are
inferior. For example, you meet your friend and spot him with this black
phone. In casual talk, he mentions that it isn't as good as it looks. A month
later, you are looking for a new phone, and someone shows you an iPhone. Not
having looked closely at your friend's phone, you may be steered away from
buying an iPhone.

A third argument is that Apple spends a lot of effort and money to make their
devices appear hip/cool/attractive. A clone-maker benefits from Apple's work.
He does not need to advertise its wares as much as someone who makes original
wares would.

Neither of these arguments are new; they are also used when people sell e.g.
Bolex watches that look like those of that other brand.

~~~
tomp
I don't see how the first two arguments could apply to this case, where UI is
discussed. Products being confused is a result of their (dis)similar external
appearance, not their UI.

------
ericcholis
Anybody else bothered by the constant use of i-Phone rather than the actual
branded name, iPhone?

