“In its case against Samsung Electronics in the Netherlands, Apple is demanding an extensive ban on all Galaxy series smartphones and tablets, including a complete recall of stock by European distributors and resellers. Apple’s complaint against Samsung in The Hague district court is much more comprehensive than previously thought. It’s not only broader in its legal scope than a separate, ongoing Apple complaint against Samsung in Germany, but an injunction could have a ‘huge impact’ on the entire European market for smartphones and tablets, according to Alastair Edwards, principal analyst at Canalys.” That’s how far Apple is willing to go. They are willing to screw over countless resellers – some big, some small, one-shop affairs – because they don’t like competition. I wonder how the Grubers of this world are going to spin this one. Hey Steve, I’ve got another extremely successful Android phone maker for you to sue.
I bought a samsung galaxy phone sosumi!
The iPad can at least be considered inspiring:
http://www.cultofmac.com/what-tablets-looked-like-before-the-ipad-p…
umm cultofmac
Where is Archos? Where is PenPointOS (1991)? Where is the DynaBook (1968)? Where is the Knight Ridder?
Want me to go on?
Edited 2011-08-18 20:42 UTC
Sure, if you think any tablet on that list did inspire this generation of tablets as you seem to think the iPad didn’t.
That’s not what I said. *sigh*.
Of course the iPad inspired current tablets. All I’m saying is that countless tablets before the iPad inspired the iPad – something Apple fanatics refuse to admit.
I checked those tablets and the Penpoint and DynaBook don’t look like an iPad at all. The Archos a little bit, while the Knight Rider comes pretty close.
The current generation of Android tablets are pretty close to near identical to the iPad.
*bangs head on desk*
I give up.
Applefans only fallow what great leader steve jobs tells them
I don’t know what your thinking off, but I’m referring only to the exterior look of the tablet. The iPad obviously caused other vendors to create tablets and model them after the iPad. Your list shows there are more ways to design a tablet, which most vendors didn’t do save for some who came up with a tablet/netbook hybrid.
I’m not aware that every Apple device owner thinks Apple invented the tablet or its look, I guess they all do think Apple brought this market to live.
Or was it simply an evolution of technology, which Apple was the first to implement? Improved ARM processors which didn’t suck which generate minimum heat and new manufacturing processes likely made the new generation possible.
Furthermore, when Multi-touch came to fruition (which wasn’t something Apple invented btw), removing all but one or two buttons because obvious, and when you look at usability, placing it on the bottom makes sense (because you shouldn’t need to stretch over the screen to go back a page). Changing the way the OS works and interacts with the user also becomes obvious.
Smartphones would have evolved in that direction anyway honestly. But, had any other manufacturer released such a product, they wouldn’t have succeeded because they don’t have the fan base.
Furthermore, you are totally forgetting about ebook readers, which had a similar design.
Apple might deserve some credit, but I believe if they didn’t exist, the market might have gone in that direction anyway.
I think this is the key to Apple’s success. Apple had millions of iPod users when they released the iPhone, along with its additions (i.e. phone, Safari, apps, games, etc). When Apple released the iPad, it could do everything the iPhone could do, except make phone calls, plus its additions (books, Pages, Keynote, etc). I might have missed some things because I have neither an iPhone, nor and iPad, but I am still rocking my 20GB 3G iPod.
If Apple had tried releasing a phone before the iPod made them a consumer level hit, it wouldn’t have garnered nearly as much fame, even if it was made of solid gold and granted wishes. Prior to the iPod, Macs were still everywhere but at home for most people. Schools had them, artists and designers had them, musicians, and so on, but the one with a Mac on his desk at home without some specific reason he needed a Mac was a rarity. Now, people buy Macs because they like the look of them, out of pure fanboyism. I’m not saying they’re bad machines, just that you could replace a MacBook with a wooden block and people would still buy it for the Apple logo.
Apple reserves $80 billions as due credit for their innovation.
Is that not counting at all anymore!?
Are they sure that their IP worth more than their brand image?
I’ve my doubt.
I was asking a multimedia version(color LCD) of iRex iLiad back in 2006. And when Apple finally introduced iPad I was thankful that someone has finally did it – a lightweight hyper low power device*. My problem with iPad is only the OS – it’s not adapted in any meaningful way(iOS5 should be changing some of those issues).
Apple again shook-up the market, but they did not introduce anything ideologically new.
* – Since ULPs may refer to Intel’s Atom crap.
See my comment on jennymc, it appears it is applicable to a number of iFanatics
Don’t give up Thom. Stay unrelenting with your BS. You do know that the Knight Ridder wasn’t a real product right? Just like this isn’t a real product http://youtu.be/6Cf7IL_eZ38
But wait…you did know that right?
This was a real product: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/
You are looking at photos of an actual prototype in an article dated six months before the Ipad was announced.
SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE IPAD WAS ANNOUNCED.
Correction, the iPad is a clone / copy / fake of the Knight Ridder. 🙂 Remember the Knight Ridder came 17 year before the iPad.
Well, even a blind man can see (or feel) that Samsung and its ilk ripped off the iPad with their designs. Question is, should they be sued for it?
Actually I would say that both Samsung and Apple ripped off Knight Ridder, since they built it first. But I’m sure you don’t want to hear that.
Knight Ridder built it? Where was it sold? What did it cost? What was its marketshare? It was a fake, a demo, just like many other demos of the day. Present facts or go home.
What, like Apple facts, aka create-your-own-evidence?
Square with round-corners is not a new design, period.
Of course, when Apple rips off other designs it is called “paying homage” or “re-inventing existing designs” or it’s just outright denied. When someone creates something vaguely Apple-like it’s a horrible rip-off and a crime almost comparable to genocide.
blahblahblah
http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/03/samsungpictureframe.jpg
And these are all different
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/category/televisions/21344.aspx?path=70…
You really think a large touchscreen with a battery is a great invention that a 6 year old couldn’t have thought of?
Not “even”, but “mostly”.
And the question is what make these man blind in the first place?
According to Apple, they have a patent (community design or whatever) on a rectangle shape. So they should then sue every LCD makes, TV manufacturer, every car maker, every PC casing manufacturer, keyboard manufacturers, etc… oh the windows in my house are also rectangular, so they should also be put in the pot.
This is absolutely absurd!!! Apple is now (and maybe even worse) than the Microsoft from the 90’s.
Obviously not, since pretty much every other tablet that came before the iPad was rectangle in design, so there’s gotta be more to it than that. Do you even know the nature of the patent(s)?
Wow ! Did I just read that well, or is there a typo ?
Now, how about adding that “iPhone inspired Galaxy S phone” as well ?
How about also “App Store app inspired Android Market app” ?
Besides that, I don’t recall hearing from Apple executives that they invented the smartphone or the tablets. But They have been successful reinventing them so that it would not just be for nerds, but also compelling for average Joe.
I can’t think the same for Google on Android, they really just look like playing catchup from the beginning. Market share (> iPhone) is coming from its willingness to not compete on the hardware side (initially before last Monday), and giving for free (or close to) so that existing major manufacturers switch to it, replacing Windows Mobile OS and Symbian underneath the interface (remember how hard it has been for Google to inially convince them to come aboard, until it became obvious they had to do it or else, becoming irrellevant like Nokia).
All the openness has just been for PR, to please nerds but you could see how nervous they got if you take Android as is (open source), asking you to not load Google Apps if doing so (Maps, Market, Gmail, etc).
Thats some neat propaganda you posted there. So… tell me. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridde…
which was never built
The point is that the design was right there. All Apple had to do was tell a hardware maker: “make me something like this”
So now we wait until someone asks to build a flying car I guess.
Oh, come on. This topic and discussion is about desing, not the inside workings of the tablets/phones. So yes, if today you created a prototype for a flying car, then in 5-10-whatever years when the technology is ready, anyone could create a model based on your design (as long as the laws of physics allow it).
If they did, the creators of The Jetsons would have just as much of a case as Apple does against Samsung. Oh, and speaking of tech companies stealing ideas from science fiction:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/08/how-star-trek-artists-ima…
How can Apple steal stuff that hasn’t been made yet? Star Trek is set way in to the future. Steve himself said Apple can’t break the laws of physics, yet.
I’d explain it to you, but most people have difficulty understanding statements made in the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional tense.
Except Star Trek is not something from the future. It’s a modern-day fiction show. Which means that modern-day designers worked on it, and came up with the tablet design.
(And in a better way, I think, since ST’s tablets can apparently be thrown around without breaking. Metal and glass sure are aesthetically pleasing, but not such a good idea on a device that you carry around… Oh, well, guess someone will someday figure out that plastic is not only suitable for cheap stuff)
Edited 2011-08-22 10:04 UTC
Everything is unbreakable if you can retake the shot. :-p
But what is a Star Trek tablet? It’s a prop, it doesn’t even work or is able to play Angry Birds.
So it’s not even in the same segment as a tablet computer. One is a prop in a studio, the other a consumer device. Not sure if Star Trek could sue Apple for the iPad’s look.
It’s not like people will watch Star Trek less, because they already have an iPad. Perhaps, a very big perhaps with snow in top, some people buy an iPad because they are Star Trek fans so Apple is making money thanks to Star Trek?
Well, the basis of this prior art discussion is that Apple is suing people over the basic tablet design, not so much over “real” product characteristics. So if a rectangular touch-sensitive shape with rounded corners is patentable, I think Star Trek designers could reasonably claim that they have prior art for Apple’s “community design”.
Just my 2 cents, though.
Edited 2011-08-22 11:14 UTC
I think prior art only works if both products are the same thing, like both being tablets, props, or something else. There are black picture frames, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that’s prior art when talking about tablets.
The Star Trek tablet is a nice one though, because it’s not a real tablet, but does pretend to be. Not sure what they call it in the series.
More important, what is Mr. Spock looking at when he peers in to that tube that emits blue light? Might be prior art to the Bluetooth technology.
PADD, if I remember correctly…
It depends, can you use it to hack a phone ?
Edited 2011-08-22 11:19 UTC
PADD??? Well, that does undermine my argument a little bit.
I don’t think Mr. Spock could do that, IIRC he never did anything with his blue light emitting tube save for making observations. Not sure the device was much use anyway, as I also seem to recall he used the word “unknown” quite often at the start of each episode.
Well, for the sake of an awful joke that really gets old… There certainly are tracks of use of the “pad” word in the past to describe a rectangular shape with rounded coners, long before the technology for tablet computers existed
But I digress.
This was posted from another OSNews article…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridde…
Also, when you say “before IPad and after IPad” you could replace IPad with “Black Eyed Peas”, “Lady Gaga”, or “2007”…. it doesn’t mean anything.
I think etch a sketch should take apple to court over community design in EU. They obviously have prior art on this.
From what I’ve heard now is that the Knight Rider never came to the market. The iPad did and this is when The Others started planning theirs.
They didn’t do this after the Knight Rider or any other ancient tablet, not even after the Microsoft tablet PCs. So the release of the iPad is a significant point in time and influenced what came after it.
But again I personally don’t mind other tablets looking like the iPad.
I also don’t consider “etch a sketch” a tablet computer. They are fun though!
Why is it that when anything else looks the same, it’s no big deal, but as soon as someone makes another product with the same look as an Apple product, everyones up in arms?
Compare any TV, toaster, toilet, washing machine, tumbledryer, shoes, car, laptop – *they’re* ALL the freaking same. Minor variations over a similar design, and some don’t even look any different. It’s natural, logical and perfectly legal.
Edited 2011-08-18 22:08 UTC
So there is no other form factor for a media streaming device either cause its so obvious right?
http://images.apple.com/appletv/images/specs_dimensions20100901.jpg
I mean who does Apple think they are? Why should they be the only one that can use designs they build?
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/08a9f.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/5a755.jpg
My old Linksys wag-200g adsl modem is also a square with rounded corners (apparently that’s now a “design”)…
I’m pretty sure it came well before apple tv, linksys should totaly sue
Edited 2011-08-19 07:36 UTC
if your Linksys was a media streamer and had optical and Ethernet on the back you’d have a case, but since thats not the case…
No. He definitely had the “case” before the Apple TV/Mac Mini.
Apple’s action of merely swapping the innards does not make the enclosure an original Apple design.
Edited 2011-08-20 05:46 UTC
Not sure how it is in other EU places but here in the UK, tere is no competition anyway. I hope apple rips it apart so there actually IS competition when they have to rethink their con-shops.
We have several brandnames all under one holding company, its stupid. Price locked, price fixed. All run by the same few company.
There’s nothing left for Apple, they’ve disabled every function and feature they can to “be different” Now they’re just another annoying company that can’t control it’s anti-consumer greed.
Yeah pretty much sums up how I feel about them. I can’t believe HP has gone and rolled over as well. I like their laptops and was thinking the company was on track to a revival. Obviously short term blindness (A Western Capitalism Affliction) seems to have taken another victim.
And we wonder why we are falling off a cliff in slow motion??
Dear Apple, stop being such techno PRICKS and allow consumers the freedom to choose what they want without your behind the scenes manipulations.
This is only getting Messier.
To me it looks like Apple’s strategy is to block any product that might possibly beat them. I believe this is not about patents, it’s about power, dominance and fear of competition. To me it looks like patents are just their pathetic excuse to simply block competition because they are scared.
Apple demands an extensive ban on these devices, covering manufacturing, stocking, importing, distributing, trading or selling by Samsung Korea and its Dutch subsidiaries, which include Samsung Logistics BV and Samsung Overseas BV.
Well that will surely drive iPhone sales up.
To me, this shows that Apple is afraid of losing dominance simply because Samsung has been extremely successful and the iPhone followers will buy everything that’s sleek and shiny and made by Apple. They have no idea what kind of company they are supporting. Oh well, ignorance is bliss….let them be happy.
I will never buy a product that’s made by Apple, no exceptions.
Edited 2011-08-19 09:37 UTC
Correct me if I am wrong but Samsung has the ability to manufacture every part of the tablet, except maybe for the glass panel, and that is the “threat” Apples sees.
Well Acorn did make a few (but not sell) tablet like computer in 1995 called the NewPad
http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/Computers/NC.html
What about some sort of Apple police going from home to home and confiscating Samsung phones ?
Fuck you Apple! I used to think MS was evil (and they were) but you dwarf them.