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).
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.
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?)
Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. [...] Apple's claim is that the iPhone's box and design scream "Apple" to consumers just as strongly as the word "iPhone."
Consequences matter, the intent and spirit of the law matter — lobbying, laws, case law, patents and injunctions are decided by humans — which is why it's important to counteract the claim you quote, that this is about protecting customers from being confused about what they're buying.
Trade dress law is well-established, and Apple itself has a history of successfully pursuing trade dress claims in the Northern District of California. In 2000 the company sued both eMachines and a company called Future Power for knocking off the iMac's trade dress, winning injunctions in both cases and eventually getting extremely restrictive settlements that effectively removed the infringing products from the marketplace.
Article about the case: http://zdnetasia.com/apple-stops-sales-of-imac-knockoffs-130...
Here is what makes community designs a step up from other roadblocks against competitors: http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/The_Community_Design_and_y...
This is closer to flipping the Pepsi logo upside-down and selling cola, then bitching about how unfair the patent and trademark system is.
A closer analog would be selling, say, a cola in a 12 oz. blue, red and white can with white lettering: http://goo.gl/q5k8n
This case mirrors the eMachines case where they were selling something that looked pretty similar to an iMac.
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.
Vodka, water, same color. iPhone, Galaxy S.. not even the same color. Just a vaguely similar shape. Heh.
Also outside of the US (and pretty sure in the US as well) the same retail chains will sell all types of tablets including iPads.
I don't believe design patents hinge on whether the consumer would be confused; that's for trademarks. Design patents are for protecting the aesthetic idea, just like regular patents are for protecting a technological idea.
That combination of features is not unique.
The JooJoo does not include three of these items: the "square icons" on the home screen, the dock of, again, "square icons", and the "metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface". Thus, this doesn't apply (at all) to the JooJoo.
On the other hand, the original Galaxy S phone did seem to apply to each one on the list: http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19ap... — metallic border, check; rounded square icons, check; dock of round squares, check; rounded rectangle shape, check; equal sides of black borders, check; dominated by screen, check.
A good example for mobile devices would be the jeans, bags, sun glasses etc. Where resemblance to fashionable brand matters however the logo or tag matters the most.
All that said, I am fine with my Rasberry PI and Linux.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I bought my HSPA version unlocked in the Netherlands.
The Galaxy S II and its differing variants in the US all still run Android 2.3, with only promises that they might eventually get an update.
To _notice_? Maybe not, but perhaps the price difference vs the iPhone was more important than the smooth scrolling?
That's plain out wrong. I'm on a Galaxy Nexus with ICS.
Scrolling and responsiveness are still major issues.
In 2012 I expect my phone to respond instantly and scroll smoothly, in all but the most extra-ordinary situations. iOS demonstrates how it's done.
On Android ICS my touches still incur a random lag that prevents me from tapping "by muscle memory" like on an iOS device. And I did spend multiple days removing all bloat, running the absolute minimum of background apps (JuiceDefender and a tool for the LED).
Likewise most apps can't even scroll a text list smoothly for whatever reason (lack of hardware acceleration perhaps, but as a user I shouldn't even have to think about this).
If you know any Android device that will survive a head-to-head comparison with an iOS device then I'd be curious to hear about it. I've bought the last two supposed high-end androids (Galaxy S, now Galaxy Nexus) and while there has been a noticeable improvement (largely due to the ridiculous CPUs that we get now) the overall situation is still a joke.
When I read such claims I can't help but wonder, have you even used an iOS device recently?
It's a night/day difference for the constant touch-lag alone. On iOS the screen "sticks" to your finger, on android it runs noticeably behind and even the simplest screens choke.
I can't remember having ever experienced an unexplained "hiccup" on iOS. An app may take a second to open/close/switch. When something loads then there might even be a brief pause. But these are very rare and expected.
That's a fundamental difference to android where random, unpredictable chokes are the norm.
I am going to assume that your aren't trolling and just aren't familiar with what you are talking about. I was using a 3rd gen iPad just a couple of days ago where the keyboard choked for a good second when I opened the browser and tried to type right away.
iOS has advantages when it comes to speed for sure. One of the big things is the user can't screw it up like they can on Android, I've seen many Android phones that are the equivalent of Internet Explorer with 15 toolbars. Android has true multitasking and unfortunately that means that you have to be aware of the apps that you install aren't crappilly coded and running in the background eating CPU and RAM.
Here's a screenshot I took of your video at second 7:
Note where your finger is in that shot. It has already lost contact with the screen after the swiping motion. Meanwhile the screen hasn't even begun transitioning.
This may not bother you. But let's not pretend the latency doesn't exist when it fills enough frames in a low-quality youtube video to take a blur-free screenshot.
Edit: The issue is also documented here; http://gigaom.com/mobile/video-android-touch-lag-and-a-possi...
The screenshot is not from a mis-swipe. Your phone did react - it just took long enough for me to press pause (on a video that was playing realtime!) and take a screenshot.
you can tell the difference when I'm switching in the app drawer
Well, at least we're making progress and you're acknowledging the problem now.
Finally Gigaom is an Apple news site/blog not exactly the place one would go to get unbiased news/reports.
Grasping straws now?
The issue is widely documented (the GigaOM article contains sources). And the video is pretty self-evident anyway, unless you want to allege them of faking it.
"I can't lodge a single complaint about the One X's performance, though — this phone screams, and it has the benchmark scores to back it up. I used the phone as my primary device for a full week and can't recall a single incidence of lag or stutter anywhere in the user interface. That's saying something, because Android phones that initially appear to be fast have a tendency to "bog down" over time and during certain operations like app updates and account syncs, but not the One X — it was smooth sailing at all times."
My nexus one with animations disabled is sluggish. Mainly dragging maps is embarrassing.
on the other hand, the 3gs of the time is also laggy. And it's not even on ios4
It's not the hardware power. It's bad coding. even gmaps fails at standard nonblocking coding for fluid interface.
So it may have been designed by lawyers, but it isn't the worse off for it.
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.
If you aren't going to actually learn and understand design patents then of course you are going to think it is ridiculous.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think it really works like that. Apple doesn't show up at the Samsung Shop every day and ask to buy the next day's components for their factory. They have long term contracts, a year or more in advance, often including huge co-investments in the factory toolings which will be involved in manufacturing them. Of course I don't know the details but I doubt Apple or the courts would look too kindly on Samsung suddenly declining to fulfil their multi-billion-dollar, multi-year supply contracts because they wanted to help their own competing products.
Samsung is very much wearing "golden handcuffs" in this situation.
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.
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...
Given this side-by-side
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.
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.
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.
For some reason every picture of a Galaxy S (I | II | III) phone always shows the app drawer open. That is a surface that most users seldom interact with.
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).
You might not have heard of the galaxy note then, or tell me your own definition of conservative.
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.
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.
Worrying about compensation isn't a good metric for patent validity.
>Why would anyone do the work to innovate..
I'm not a fan of the current state of the patent system, but patents do have their place.
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.
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).
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.
My terrible experience with Android stems from the lack of coordination between software and hardware.
(I'm an android owner but couldn't resist)
At a minimum it shouldn't look better than the previous samsung models next to it.
Thanks for any help!
EDIT erroneous reference to microphone icon removed