Hold on to your panties, because this should come as a surprise: I’m actually agreeing that Samsung is copying Apple. The Korean company just released a new entry-level Android smartphone, and it’s called the Samsung Galaxy Ace Plus. While Apple’s previous complaints regarding Samsung’s supposed copying were obviously nonsense, this Galaxy Ace Plus, on the other hand… It’s almost as if Samsung is giving Apple the finger by copying the iPhone 3G(S) almost verbatim.
Previous Samsung phones and tablets were drastically different from Apple’s devices, making Apple’s claims to the contrary a bit hollow to those with no special affinity for any one company. This time around, however, there’s no denying the obvious: the Galaxy Ace Plus is an almost 1:1 copy of the iPhone 3G and 3GS.
Image courtesy of CultOfMac
The story I’m linking to is a bit funny, since it’s acting as if this is the first time Apple and its fanatics are accusing Samsung of copying the 3G(S) – even though basically all Apple’s complaints deal with the 3G(S). The fact that the Galaxy Ace Plus looks so much like the 3GS just demonstrates how wrong they were when it comes to calling, say, the Galaxy SII a 3GS rip-off.
In all seriousness, this time around, the likeness is so striking you can’t really ignore it. I wonder how Samsung ever thought this was a good idea – especially now that Apple is busier filing lawsuits than unveiling products. This might surprise you, but in this case, I would say Apple is well within its right to sue Samsung.
I’d love to know Samsung’s thought process here. Unbelievable.
The most remarkable thing, for me, is the girl in their Apple-eqsue commercial. It seems like they deliberately not only copy Apple, but also want it to be known to the world. They could have easily picked another girl, even a girl that looks like the Apple one, but why pick the same one?
When they are under legal fire by Apple you should think they don’t want to give Apple’s lawyers any extra arguments/prove that they are copying Apple stuff.
So, MOS6510, I guess we… Agree… On this Galaxy Ace Plus 3GS…?
I feel like someone glitched the matrix.
Perhaps 2012 is the year we agree more. And why not, the world is about to end anyway. :-p
Perhaps to drive home a point. They’re both selling tablet shaped Turing machines with touch screens, cameras, wifi, etc. Anything you can do with one you can do with another.
So… Should she be banned from appearing in any other commercial just because she was in an Apple commercial?
Otherwise, this device is a real iPhone3Gs copy.
She shouldn’t be banned of course, but what are the odds of her appearing in the Samsung commercial? It seems she was picked because she was in the Apple ad.
They could have picked any other girl, I’m sure there are a lot more out there.
If Samsung is accused of copying Apple they shouldn’t have casted this girl, because she hasn’t got anything to do with their or Apple’s products design and technical wise, but she did appear in an Apple commercial.
OMG is Touchstone copying 20th Century Fox? Because I’m sure that Johnny Depp got the role in Ed Wood with a dig fat “I was in Edward Scissorhands” on his resume… It’s one thing copying an ad/product/design/packaging/whatever and totally another using experienced actors.
Edited 2012-01-05 10:51 UTC
One company makes an ad for a tablet, featuring a girl.
Another company, accused of copying the first company, makes an ad for a tablet, featuring the same girl.
A little girl, you call an experienced actor. It’s not like she has many lines or actually acts. They could have picked any girl and there are many girls registered at casting bureaus. They didn’t, they picked this girl.
You know Johnny Depp. Do you know what the girl’s name is? Probably not, like most people do not.
Does she draw crowds like Johnny does? No, she doesn’t.
Does Mr. Depp play a strange pirate for multiple movie studios? No, he doesn’t.
Reality check – Samsung does not pick actors for their ads. Samsung does not make the ads. Ad agencies do that.
The outline of the workflow for an ad/PR campaign looks like this:
– A company decides to start a new ad campaign
– A company finds an ad agency
– The ad agency has meetings and pitches ideas to the company
– the company selects one idea and commissions the material to be created
– the ad agency then does what they do best – creative stuff; without interference from the company
– the ad agency then presents the finished material for sign off
(That’s how I did it at a big US IT company. That is how most operate.)
Only nutters like you that noticed that it’s the same girl(Did you even notice, or did you read about it on some other nutter’s site?). Like you point out she’s very much irrelevant, because she’s not a “star”.
I’m sure that Samsung’s marketing reps that approved the ad made no connections to Apple’s ad as I did, and most normal people would.
I read it on this nutty site.
So perhaps I’m nuts for reading stuff on this site and perhaps you’re just born rude.
Did I miss something? What article mentioned that?
And oh yes, this site is a total nutter fest. I’m not excluded from that list of nutters though.
My rudeness is acquired.
Still doesn’t change fact that there is very high probability that Samsung didn’t hire that girl.
Edited 2012-01-05 12:43 UTC
In the case of Samsung – when you abandon your customers as with the case of refusing to provide a ICS update for Galaxy S owners then what is left to restore your name other than to copy your closest competitor that has a high retention and repeat purchase rate. Around 1-2 years ago I was pretty neutral on Samsung to the point of indifference but the decisions they’ve made over the last several years has pretty much convinced me to avoid their company like the plague – they’ve well and truly shown that their douchbag ways that beat the douchbaggy of Apple, Microsoft and Oracle combined in some cases, especially when it comes to backing their own products for the long term via software and firmware updates/upgrades.
Edited 2012-01-05 02:00 UTC
Except they might be now because of the backlash when the original story broke.
What you’ve done is raise two completely unrelated point and try to correlate them.
Samsung won’t have done this because of any lost reputation due to the GalaxyS-gate of 2011. More likely they’ve done this because Apple have been behaving like school bullies trying to pinch lunch money. However I still think this is a stupid move by Samsung – whatever their motives – as it totally undermines their arguments that they’re not out to copy Apple but in fact their products are a natural design.
I think you’re being a bit melodramatic there. Samsung are no worse than most handset manufacturers for post sale support. While I’m not saying that’s “right”, it’s certainly a bit righteous to single them out specifically.
^aEUR“and you accused the parent of false correlation? Hilarious.
How so? Development, prototyping and shipping time alone would make kaiwai’s hypothesis highly improbable, where as those time scales fall within scope for my speculation.
Anyhow, your arrogant retort completely overlooks the fact that I was speculating rather than correlating (which is pretty clear if you go back and re-read my post). I never once pretended to know the reasons, I just presented a potential alternative motive, then quickly brushed it into the same group of assumptions as the other suggestions that have been posted (re: “whatever the reasons”). Kaiwai’s theory, on the other hand, was presented as fact – and hence my “false correlation” comment.
Next time please read the subtleties of language before making your accusations.
This has to be fake. Why would Samsung put the Apple logo on the back?
On the left is the iPhone 3GS, on the right the Samsung.
Whoa… no…? I’m confused… which one has Siri? And the GBs and Wifis – that’s what I want. And the apps.
Look again. I think that you may have missed that he is not talking about the one on the right or the one on the left but the one in the middle.
See how it has the Apple logo on the back but on the front you can clearly see that it says Samsung and is running Android? [/sarcasm]
The apple-logo is from the iPhone
but that said:
It IS fake!!!
They have resized the image and removed the two front buttons on the bottom to make it look like the iPhone, exactly like they did the last time. Thom has been fooled by a trolling Apple fan
Do a google image search to find non photoshopped images of the phone
Edited 2012-01-05 18:12 UTC
Oh wait, don’t use image search. It brings up the photoshopped images first. Do a normal search.
The top of the phone has the engraved stripe similar to iPhone, but that is as far as I can see the only difference from the last Samsung products that makes it slightly more iPhone-ish.
I guess Samsung thinks that “all publicity is good publicity.” After all it does get a lot of people talking about Samsung’s phones.
The back of the phone doesn’t looks so much like 3GS on real photos, e.g.: http://st.gsmarena.com/pics/12/01/ace-plus-handson/gsmarena_004.jpg
But on the whole it is indeed the most iPhone-looking Samsung phone so far.
You know, I think we should just go back to everyone in the world being stuck with the same black Western Electric Model 500. Well, all have the same reception and call quality and will be restricted to having only the phone “app”…Seriously, have we become this fucking petty?! We have dozens of amazing options available now, hundreds of thousands of apps, multiple phone companies to choose from, all of the things we never had 20 years ago and we have to start bitching that “your phone looks too much like my phone!”. Options are good. Competition is good. We’re all going to make our choices based on whatever opinions, preferences, and prejudices we have no matter what. So to everyone (and Apple): find something that’s actually important to fight for, like overpopulation, disease prevention, or education.
All worthy causes, but I’m afraid they are too far from what Apple stands for
Apple and education have strong ties though. iTunes U, the eMac, back to school stuff. Their next announcement is rumoured to be about education.
Of course, they want to educate kids to be good Apple citizens :p
I was thinking that perhaps it’s time for Samsung to change its logo for some other fruit’s silhouette.
Just an idea.
Edited 2012-01-04 19:18 UTC
They should make their logo more colorful (rainbow-colored samsung letters, for example) ^_^
Ace plus is a true copy, bring this as an evidence to the trial and all other products are no longer infringing apple’s design. Smart move!
The absurdity move might just work
Well, if your going to be accused of copying when your not then why not just copy anyway and the hell to them?
Last time something like this happened against the Galaxy S Photoshop was thought to be used.
But since we dont know for sure we’ll have to rely on CultOfMac’s unbiased opinion then.
Edited 2012-01-04 20:19 UTC
No, they’re not really the same size but, in all fairness, the difference is not as big as in the iPad / Galxy Tab case.
According to http://www.apple.com/iphone/iphone-3gs/specs.html and http://www.theverge.com/products/galaxy-ace-plus/4468#product-specs…
iPhone 3GS: 2.4 x 4.5 x 0.48 inches
Galaxy Ace Plus: 2.46 x 4.56 x 0.44 inches
While Samsung is not win any prize for originality they’re still different enough to tell the difference between the two of them — with SAMSUNG written in large, friendly letters on the front and at the back being a dead giveaway.
RT.
I guess they misspelled Don’t Panic
I’m still baffled at why cell phone aesthetics matter so damn much. These are NOT cars with a variety of unique, infinite curves and contours. There are only so many ways to design a candybar “brick” cell phone. And news flash: they all pretty much look the same from a reasonable distance.
I really don’t believe that anyone here or on the street who knows what an iPhone is/looks like would actually confuse it for this Samsung offering. Though similar in body shape/glossy finish, the peripherals are placed and shaped differently: samsung’s camera lenses are squared (not iPhone circular)…oh right, and the Samsung device actually *has* an LED flash…oh, and the iPhone’s action button is circular versus Samsung’s being squared. The software is essentially the same as previous “offending” software in other Apple/Samsung suits, so that’s a moot point. Strictly speaking on hardware, it has a similar shape…but not much else.
Besides… If this is Samsung’s way of giving Apple the middle finger, I wholeheartedly support its snarky validity. Apple’s incessant “design copying” accusations are so effing hypocritical (http://tinyurl.com/82acupy). Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Edited 2012-01-04 20:27 UTC
The only similarity between the two is the silhouette. And, really, just how many different ways are there to create a candybar phone case?
The button on the bottom is very different between the two.
The speaker slit at the top is very different between the two. There’s even a huge Samsung written underneath the speaker slit on the Ace.
The backs of the phones are completely different.
So … how are they identical?
It’s a pretty big stretch to claim these two are “identical copies”.
At least with the iPad/Tab, there were no giant Samsung logos on the front, and the buttons were similarly shaped, and whatnot.
Here, these are two very distinct phones.
The only two things I can see that are identical between the two phones are that both are black and both have rounded corners (yes, I know Apple ludicrously sues about rounded corners, but that’s stupid patents for you).
*Everything* else is different:
* Speaker slit
* Screen size
* Home screen
* Home button
* Logo positions
* Camera and flash position
* Buttons on the side
How on *earth* is this even classified as “almost” a copy in any way? How many other phones on the market are black and have rounded corners – virtually all of them! I think it’s very poor that people can’t tell the difference between these two phones if you ask me.
Edited 2012-01-04 22:55 UTC
Is it a 1:1 copy? Of course not. When that happens it’s called counterfeiting, not trademark infringement.
Are they close enough that they could be mistaken for each other at first glance? Perhaps. Although I think the fact that it says Samsung on the front makes it a bit less egregious.
Obviously this design is a bit too “inspired” by Apple, but I think it’s about as valid as an infringement as anything else they’ve been sued about: not very.
As long as they don’t market in a way that makes it confusing, I think it should be fair game.
You want infringement? This is it: http://www.allaboutindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/micromax_a7…
It isn’t copyright infringement or counterfeiting and is perfectly legal.
I can make an exact copy of a Rolex Submariner watch and as long as I don’t use the Rolex markings or logo or a similar name it is perfectly legal. In fact dozens of companies make legal Rolex “homages” (replicas) including the world’s two largest watch companies Seiko and Citizen.
An exact copy includes the name. If it doesn’t include the name, it’s not an exact copy.
If everything except the name is the same as a genuine Rolex it is a perfectly legal item.
If it bears the name Rolex but looks nothing like a Rolex (eg a plastic rectangle) it is illegal.
Rather than just pulling the ‘I told you so’ card (because I have, multiple times), I’d rather shed some light as the how and why.
It is, to a large extent, a cultural thing. Asian mentality in this regard is totally different than western mentality. For most Asian entrepreneurs, anything that is producable is a feasable product, patented technology or not. Its just not in their mindset to take IP into account. If you can make it, anything goes, no matter the consequences. If it generates profit, you produce it, as simple as that.
Asian companies have been in the copying business for decades and to a large extent it is what made these economies in the first place, winning market share by competing on price because of the low-wages advantage. A lot of the current Asian conglomerates were built on copying technology from the West. Japan was one of the first to do this, with the copies of German reflex cameras being a notable example, export cars being another. Fast forward 7 decades, and their automobile industry is eclipsing that of the West.
I can give another more recent testimony that illustrates this mentality quite aptly. While working in Asia a couple of years ago, I met a project manager who was active in the mobile handset business. He told me this account from a company he knew who was producing high-end spectral analyzers. Suddenly, this company started receiving phone calls of customers with support questions about units unknown to them. After tracking down where they came from, it turned out they were produced by a small Asian company. The devices were copied to the most minute detail without any compromise on build quality, so they were indistinguishable from the original, albeit sold cheaper. The snag was, of course, that unlike the Western company, the Asian producer nor their dealers had the proper knowledge on how to operate the units, leaving customers out in the cold once the unit was sold.
Being in the phone business, he also let me in on some pretty interesting facts about mobile handset makers in the region, and what they were up to in response to the iPhone, which was just hitting the market back then. Fast forward to the present and a lot of what he told me all these years ago is visible in the marketplace today.
One also needs to contemplate about the macro-economical consequences. The western countries (USA, UK, EU) have the biggest trade deficits in the whole world. This means that a lot more wealth leaves our economies than they can attract. Which essentially has the consequence that a lot western-generated wealth leaves our respective economies. In the past, we’ve compensated this by innovation, but since a lot more manufacturing ends up in developing economies, including our own, the time span from launching an innovative product and it ending up being economically nullified because of commodization is becoming shorter and shorter, reducing the economical advantage even more.
These facts are putting a huge mortgage on the future of Western economies and one has to take into consideration the long-term consequences for our respective economies. I know from a historical standpoint the West is notoriously bad at this, I can attest to you, the decisions made in the East have the long term in mind.
When the money runs dry in our western economies, what will there be left to us, western people? I don’t think anyone with the proper business knowledge will argument that emerging economies like the chinese will come to the rescue. One only has to look at their business practices on their own market and in Africa to know what we’re up against. China is building its market mainly for itself, thank you very much, Western companies need not to apply. China’s market has proven to be a very hard nut to crack as local companies will always get the preferential treatment.
Africa won their independence from western colonists only to end up being enslaved by developing economies like the Chinese, and have been way worse off as a consequence. Hippie stances as “we are all children of the earth” and “share the wealth” are all nice and dandy when bread in the wealth of the accomplishments of our previous generations, I can assure you that Asian enterpreneurs do not share your vision. They are looking at it from the “protect whats ours, find ways to acquire more” perspective, and they have their eyes keenly fixed on the West. Being deliberately na~Ave about this only makes you deserve what’s coming to you.
I hope this testimony will lay to rest some of the pipe-dream ideas that have been floating around here that the free economy aspect ends up being better for innovation as a whole, and that the race to the bottom benefits the end user. One only needs look at 25 of years race to the bottom in the PC industry. When you work at bottom prices, innovation ceases. Parotting products cheaper does not produce a better product, it just means that markets end up being owned by companies who do not understand them. It simply makes no sense from a business perspective to innovate in a market when margins are marginalized. Products are way more than the sum of their parts, or the sum of their features. To properly design a good product is what generates customer value, and wealth.
The $399 junk PC’s in the nineties did not end up putting a lot of value in the hands of the users, either.
+1
Typical racist bullshit.
A huge portion of European industry in the 18th and 19th century was devoted to making copies of Chinese and Japanese goods – particularly porcelain, furniture, paintings and lacquer work. Much of this fakery was passed of as authentic to the unsuspecting European public.
In case you aren’t aware almost every useful early western technology including irrigation, windmills, paper, moveable type printing, banknotes, firearms, gunpowder, rockets, porcelain, navigation, map making, alchemy and algebra were all copied from Asia and the Middle east.
Edited 2012-01-05 04:38 UTC
Typical meaningless leftist elitist snob antipose, skipping…
You seem a bit confused. You are comparing basic materials and techniques with complex technological equipment. The techniques you mention did not cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and what you mention was often invented in the world concurrently. However, even if you comparison would make sense, its still a very one lopped one. Before IP laws, global trade was largely protected by keeping certain aspects of production under lock and key. Which the Chinese protected arguably at even more as vigurously as any other economical power, which is understating things quite a bit.
Porcelain was a very lucrative export product for the Chinese for several centuries for which they charged exorbirant prices, its production secrets guarded closely to protect their monopoly. The same was true for tea and silk, which both literally had to be pryed out of their hands before they were made available to the world. We do not have to owe any “thanks” to the Chinese for them, since they were not given to us in the first place. The only thing the Chinese were interested to trade them for was plain hard cash in the form of silver, foreigners were not even allowed to enter China let alone trade western products there.
By the way, Delft porcelain as made in Europe had its own distinctive style and became popular after chinese import became unavailable for trade after the fall of the Ming dynasty. Prior, Chinese porcelain was widely traded by western merchants and made it to Japan by the hands of the Dutch, which bacame one of the first porcelain producing countries outside of China. We are, however, still talking 16th century now.
If you’re that keen in diving into 18th and 19th century history, you might want to have a look at the industrial revolution, propelled by the Watt steam engine, an English invention, the electrical motor, also from English soil; the first battery, an Italian invention, the first electrical cirquit, a German invention, before we move on to the icons in electrical engineering from the second half of the 19th century like Nicolai Tesla, Thomas Edison, Graham Bell and Ernst Werner von Siemens for your share of innovations which are closer to the field of technology we are currently discussing.
Other noteworthy 18th century events are the Anglo-Chinese wars, which show the Chinese long-standing knack at enforcing trade deficits.
And, since we live in the present after all, China’s huge trade surplusses, or its leadership in counterfeiting, which accounts for 8% of its GDP.
The reality is that westerners weren’t even able to make very high quality copies of many Chinese and Japanese products. No western company has ever created ceramic or enamel work to the same standards as the Chinese or Japanese master craftsmen. Louis Faberge (of enamel Easter egg fame) was considered second rate by the leading Japanese enamel craftsmen.
If you think Delft pottery compares in anyway to Chinese porcelain you have rocks in your head. Delft may have be distinctive but it was crudely made rubbish.
The average western isn’t aware that the Chinese and Japanese make many extraordinarily high quality original products. The top Japanese and Chinese hand made mechanical watches make any Rolex or Omega look like a piece of over-priced mass-produced junk (which in reality they are) in comparison.
Western countries obtained access to Chinese and Japanese technology by literally invading the countries and stealing their trade secrets.
Britain used genuine government-backed pirates (privateers) to threaten Canton and seize Hong Kong by force. These pirates then demanded that Chinese accept opium in exchange for tea and manufactured goods.
In the case of Japan Commodore Peary threatened to send 700 warships from San Francisco (a bluff) to destroy Edo (Tokyo) unless immediate access to Japanese trade was granted.
The reality is that the Asian countries have already passed the west in many technologies. The Koreans are the best steelmakers and shipbuilders. The Japanese make the best optics (most professional microscopes and endoscopes are made by Minolta). The Japanese can even obtain measurably superior sports car performance than Porsche (Nissan GTR) or Ferrari (Lexus LFA) without significantly compromising comfort or reliability.
Edited 2012-01-06 01:20 UTC
The Chinese didn’t stop trade with the west as a part of a nefarious plan. The real reason was that the West had very little worthwhile to offer. Most Western products in the 1840s were mass produced consumer junk – tinware, crude stamped pottery etc – all products that the Chinese could produce cheaper and better. Why would any sane person swap Chinese tea (worth thousands of dollars a kilo in today’s money) for some crappy English pottery or coarse wool cloth?
The Chinese also had no need for steam engines as labour was very cheap.
Your idea that inventions spring fully formed after spending millions on research is ludicrous. All R&D is really little more than a refinement of existing ideas (virtually all of which were originally discovered by accident and tinkering).
James Watt didn’t invent the steam engine he merely improved the existing century year old designs. Before that he made counterfeits of expensive German flutes.
The electric motor concept was discovered by accident when two hand operated generators were accidently connected to each other. The EMF was also originally discovered by accident.
Where did you see me arguing Delft porcelain was better than Chinese porcelain?
Which cannot be said ofcourse of the Chinese, as their ethics totally probihit industrial espionage. That’s when they visit trade shows, they only take those pictures to show them off to their friends and family. Hmmm^aEUR|
Quite the contrary. Western trade in China was probihited by Chinese authority, out of fear that it would generate ‘unrest’ and ‘disorder’, regulating it heavily and designating it to a few isolated areas, discouraging it by raising a not unsubstantial sales tax on it.
When a chinese farmer grows tea, it is a highly developed and valuable item, but when a western scientist makes a breaktrough discovery, it was really dumb luck? How much more can you really look down upon the West? And in the case of silk, its not even human-made pruduct, its a naturally occuring resource which was kept secret intentionally out of greed with the intent of wealth hoarding by ruling royal dynasties.
You’re confusing cause and effect. Until well into the industrial revolution, labour was cheap in the West as well. The industrial revolution and the subsequent social struggle from the labour unions _facilitated_ higher wages and better life standards for the majority of the population.
James Watt improved upon an existing design in such a way that it made steam engines vastly more efficient, after which they became the de facto standard and main catalyst of the industrial revolution. The Watt steam engine was the main facilitator of producing goods in large quantities. Before it, production of goods was regulated to low volume labor intensive hand crafted items. Mass production increased human efficiency significantly, ultimately augmenting life standards and producing wealth for the masses, not just for the happy few.
They are really good at copying stuff, right to the details and for a fraction of the costs, which makes you wonder why the real stuff costs so much.
A certain amount of the cost has to be apportioned to development time. Working in R&D myself, I know our company would be utterly sunk if someone decided to copy the instrument we sell and undercut us in the market. Thankfully it hasn’t happened yet but there’s always a chance. There were about 3 years of development put into that machine by a team of around 15 poeple – that’s not cheap! We need to be able to sell this machine for up to 10 years to make our money back…
Of course, “developing” rounded corners on a phone didn’t exactly cost Apple much, which is where the whole system breaks down. Yes, you should be able to defend your product in order to benefit from the large investment. No, you shouldn’t be able to defend a design which would take any reasonable person a few minutes to come up with…
Edited 2012-01-05 14:05 UTC
What you made sounds very complicated, but what about watches?
In Turkey you can buy a Rolex replica that looks totally real (made in Asia). A Rolex Submariner is an relative old design (so no R&D costs to be won back), but a real one costs a lot more than a replica. So I’m guessing a lot of the costs goes to the well paid people in their beautiful buildings. If that is so than that expensive Rolex watch isn’t really that valuable at all.
The seller of a fake Submariner paid 75 euros for it he told me. That includes material, assembly, wages and profit for the maker.
Bad move Samsung… very bad move… anyone can figure that this girl is surely patented and trademarked by Apple!!
Also, I bet you probably got her at some filthy torrentz site without even asking permission (a.k.a. “paying fees”) to their parents as creators, and thus eternal DNA’s Copyright Holders!
tsk tsk…
Edited 2012-01-05 02:04 UTC
Apple pretty much copied everything they have designed first, and by the way the (s) is common in many products that are scale down versions.
Samsung wins.
The company made a lot of hype on “Apple wants to block us, sues us all over” story. If Apple tries to block this obvious troll piece of a phone, Samsung will once again hit the news and blogs with its Galaxy line (well it already has, just like that, so good for Samsung).
Then again, if Apple lets this phone slide and calls it a day, Samsung will be seen even more clearly as a premium brand making “cheaper Apples”. Thats a nice place to be on the smartphone market.
It’s a bold move, but it’s a win for Samsung one way or another. Apple’s stupidity so far made this possible. I’d say that in this war, Apple just can’t play chess.
It’s simply another piece of evidence that Samsung is totally f*cked up…they can’t even copy effectively.
They look alike. So what? The problem is with the curve or the position of the button? It is a mobile phone. All mobile phones of the same size look alike. In fact Galaxy Ace has quite a few differences like the position of the camera, the curve of the back side, logos, mic and speaker, size and style of buttons. The only thing that looks the same is the size and the… shiness!!!
Because – as always lately with Apple – the photos were edited to look the same size.
Go to the specs, they are not the same size.
Edited 2012-01-05 08:39 UTC
After those news I had checkout some other electronics manufacturers and all of them are copying designs !!
It’s outrageous, just see those device’s designs
http://goo.gl/I2zw7
The are all stomping in each other’s IP like crazy, this have to stop !!!!
[Sarcasm off]
Do really Apple thinks that a black square device with rounded corners is *design*.
Samsung and many other device manufacturers have black devices with rounded corners that predates the iPhone and iPad.
This puppy was being sold years before the iPhone was even designed.
http://goo.gl/5Zww5
At that time those were the designs Apple was selling:
http://goo.gl/NFb1Y
http://goo.gl/twVrA
What is worrying is that people is starting to fall in the Apple game “Smartphones are our idea and everyone is copying us”. I had developed for “Smartphones” years before Apple even thought in building one.
They were called PDAs at that time though.
True. I love the split keyboard on the sides of the screen on the iPhone and am really glad they copied that from Samsung.
That link was meant as a joke, right?
“Now that Apple is busier filing lawsuits than unveiling products.”
Then I have to take a look at AALLLL phone that’s available on the market (and some that will be available, with leaked dimension and screenshoooot).
Cause what? I can’t make that damn phone as I wanted cause it can be similar with the other phone out there and then everyone will call me copy cat.
-change *I* with some company name.
…And my thinking: ‘what madness is this?’
Sorry if this has been said already, but, I have to wonder if shapes of products in the future will really matter… just as long as they have a unique-identifier (i.e.: Product Logo) on them. Like a Product Build GNU Lenience.
When it comes to SmartPhones, Tablets, and other such products… there is a fundamental ascetic that must be met from a users perspective. A phone can only be so thick, a general shape, and weigh so-much… This doesn’t leave much room for unique design, from a patent perspective.
Well, interesting posts, but I have another explanation:
SAMSUNG tools and sells a lot of the same phones it makes for Apple just to save on costs, not really to copy.
I mean why retool the entire production process?
I would do the exact same thing if I was in the same position under contract.
If Apple wants unique phones, let them build their own production facilities if they want that much control over the looks of the phone.
The main reason why products end up looking similar is because of outsourcing, not because of lack of creativity…blah blah blah.
Just my thoughts…comments?
-Hack
Do they reuse the same marketing style and actors as well? To save money on retooling?
Doesn’t Samsung only supply components for the iPhone? Flash memory, processors, RAM… IIRC Foxconn is the company that actually assembles the iPhone for Apple.
Well, because they can. And they resort to shorter way. And their R&D didn’t read OSAlert (esp: http://goo.gl/H6k5s)
.
Check out the Palm Z22 from 2005:
http://www.mobile-review.com/pda/review/image/palm/zire22/pic03.jpg
Sure, the Samsung Galaxy Ace Plus is similar to an iphone, but that’s just how smartphones look these days. And that look wasn’t invented by Apple.
Wow, I almost confused that Palm with the iPhone. Are you f’ing kidding?
Err, I never said it was en exact copy.
No, you gave the link to demonstrate that Apple copied Palm just like Samsung copied Apple, but didn’t really mean that Apple copied Palm.
Given that Samsung’s own attorney couldn’t tell their tablet and the iPad apart in the courtroom – “Not at this distance, your honor.” – I don’t think the question is whether there was a Palm product that looked different, the question is whether Samsung has tried to totally copy the Apple designs. This new phone is just another clear example of them doing so.
I know some people think that having Google copy the look of the OS and all the knock-off hardware makers copy the devices is just fine. I understand that it’s OK in this case because Apple didn’t actually invent electricity or the elements used to make their products and therefore just copied nature really. I mean, isn’t that true?
I’m aware that most people who argue that point actually had made their own devices that looked and worked just like the iPhone before it was announced and just don’t feel like showing them because it was so easy and obvious. I’m sure they weren’t the ones saying ‘Apple is going to make a phone? Is that a joke?’ and laughing it off.
The fact that the patent system has issues and that Apple is a big company doesn’t mean that they’re always wrong. Not always right either by any means, but Samsung is just ripping Apple’s ideas off in this case.
It usually goes something like this :
It starts with an unnamed product market X which is usually a convoluted mess, determined by a zoo of products which each try to nail the user experience but none are really hitting the sweet spot.
1) Apple looks into it, thinking long and hard on how to make the ultimate product, and introduces it.
2) Some of the brighter boffins welcome Apple’s new initiative, while the closed-minded establishment shrug it off, stating it has too little buttons, and it will fail because they can’t open the box.
3) Apple’s product goes on into the marketplace and becomes a hit.
4) Competitors take note and scramble to emulate Apple’s designs for a chance to compete.
5) When the smarter boffins point out that now most of the devices all work the way Apple introduced, the nay-sayers go on to state that it was obvious all along and Apple really didn’t do anything, and are just reaping huge benefits off snippets they scraped together elsewhere.
It happened with the Mac UI, the Powerbook, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, and it’s happening with the Macbook Air. I’m not counting the Newton, because it wasn’t really a successful product, but its obvious Palm took a lot of queues from it in their Pilot products.
I think its about time that people with more than half a business intellect start crying foul at the nay-sayers systematically, because this cycle is getting REALLY old after a quarter of a century.
Well, that’s how the market works. Some company sets the standard by introducing some popular new product and then other companies follows due to consumer demand. How many smartphones would we have if companies couldn’t copy from each other?
They wouldn’t be able to differentiate TVs, too; and yet you don’t see companies going mental about “copying” of what is pretty much the only sensible layout and/or about protecting their “design” which boils down to removing any distinguishing design elements (and copying design language of, say, Braun)
Edited 2012-01-12 00:06 UTC
Well, it has rectangular shape. So yes, Apple obviously copied Palm’s design.
… If I take look from Apple POV.
“Hey, look, Apple has this product – let’s copy it!”
But seriously, how is it any different than what they’ve been doing for the past couple years? 30 pin connector? Check! Same power adapter style? Check! Quick tablet knock off? Check! Get the nephew of the CEO to make a clone cover? Check! Apparently they were able to think of a way to make the tablet not look EXACTLY like the iPad when banned, but basically they’re just looking at what sells and mimicking it.
Congrats on their new Galaxy3GS – note they’re targeting the non-US market since they know they’ll get banned here quickly. Probably not the case in Korea.
Connectors in such style were standard in mobile phones for many years (and thankfully that ceases to be the case), and what Samsung might be (unfortunately) doing is using an open standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI – sure, one building upon existing physical infrastructure* …I guess this one aberration of a connector just ended up with big stockpiles etc., by the virtue of being quite popular in few very atypical places which like to constantly buy useless trash, with top rates of living on a credit, etc.
*what, did you whine that Slot A used physical parts / stock of existing Slot 1 supplies?
Also, curious how it needs to be pointed out to you that Apple outright “stole” that cover style in the first place.
(and Samsung sells quite a lot more different phones, laptops, etc.)
Edited 2012-01-12 00:10 UTC
The Galaxy S (not SII) was a near verbatim copy of the 3GS, but this one is pretty much a carbon-clone.