Apple vs Samsung

[Andrez]

Just wondering. I'm for Samsung.

[Oracle]

It's a bit suspicious that the jury was all from the US (afaik, I may be wrong), and found Samsung (a Korean company) guilty...
Edit: I use T-Mobile (Cheapness > Quality \:D), and most of their new phones are now Samsung (the sale of some of which Apple is trying to prevent), so this really fucks me over... <_<

[Marti]

Nokia

[Vanquish]

HTC all the way.

But if I was going to buy a new phone, I'd probably get a Samsung. I find that generally Apple products are very overpriced for the actual quality of what you're getting.

[Mael]

Don't care, never owned a phone.

[Armed]

Samsung

[Roflcopter]

I don't own a smartphone, but the thing that strikes me is the sheer arrogance of claiming such basic design traits as proprietary. Oh, and the fact there's prior art to demonstrate Apple wasn't the first. I don't think most Apple fanboys appreciate just how little Apple innovates vs actually just taking the best existing technology and adding polish and extending it in its natural direction a little.

[Misty]

http://www.mydigitallife.info/wp-content...Mobile.jpg

this is my cellphone <3 and it shall be forever because it's better than fancy shits we have now

[Nightmare]

I voted for "I hate both" because their computer prices annoy me. :3

[#M|A#Wolf]

Never have used any Samsung mobile devices, only the tv's. i like apple for being user friendly though i do think that its stupid what they did against samsung, and their shit needs to be cheaper.

[al3rt]

I got an iPhone 4 for my birthday 3 years ago, I've never had a problem
, never had to send it into the repair station actually im writing this message on it. This is the really first proper phone I have before I had this Nokia thing that didnt break when you dropped it but the floor cracked. My dad has a Samsung Gal. SII and he's had to send it in 2 times now to repair so that's the first thing that I dont like with the samsung's. Also for the "the price you pay and the quality you get..." and that imo it's not true I think its worth it especially with the 4S, there's speed and handiness in it. I also like the new samsung Nexus and SII so its a hard decision but to be honest I like Apple a bit more so I go with Apple.

[Oracle]

[bballn45]

iphone, iit iis ialot ibetter ithan ithe iSamsung iphones. iI ilike imy iI's itoo.

[Lateralus]

As a consumer I will always vote against the company that wants to dominate a market using unfair patents. On the other hand intellectual property must be protected.

No, I don't think Apple should be able to patent rectangles with round corners but what differentiates a brand are the features combining together that creates a unique experience. That's what needs to be protected.

Holding a Samsung right next to an Ipad there are similarities so it's a tough call. Either way the judgement will be controversial. But in the end, from my perspective, I want variety. A company that dominates the market controls the market. So I'll go against Apple on this one.

Let's not forget that legit companies will do all they can to control it within legal means. So protects Apple's property but keep them on a leash!

[Roflcopter]

[...] but what differentiates a brand are the features combining together that creates a unique experience. That's what needs to be protected.

So by that logic grocery stores shouldn't be able to compete by providing the same products organised in similar ways? What you're essentially asking for is a monopoly on the ability to provide certain features together. But this is very common in other industries.

The problem comes with wanting to own ideas as if they're some amazing insight that deserve protection. In fact most ideas today are derivative of existing ideas and concepts, and granting a monopoly on an idea would result in endless monopolies of products. Being able to provide essentially the same thing for a lower price is traditionally a great form of competition and makes markets more efficient.

[paulmuaddibKA]

Had a samsung, it broke.

Similar to this one.
I would buy it again.

[blueberry]

Most featureless but durable phone I've ever had.

Spoiler

[Lateralus]

So by that logic grocery stores shouldn't be able to compete by providing the same products organised in similar ways?

I think you misunderstood my point. When a brand is obviously duplicating another brand's product it also creates unfair competition. Your analogy is just too broad with grocery stores. I am talking brands and you are talking ideas. Hence I used the term "features" and not "ideas" Brands are the product of tangible items that come together and provide a unique experience. Of course you can't patent the idea of a store but when we talk about logos, colors, slogans, etc- of course they can be patented.

Regulations are what prevent monopolies forming. Such as the current issue with Apple and Samsung.

Being able to provide essentially the same thing for a lower price is traditionally a great form of competition and makes markets more efficient.

I agree it is good to be able to buy a similar product for lesser price. However, then where's the motivation for businesses to invest into research in development when the market is so easy to enter? Ctrl+C & Ctrl+V is easier but is it ethical in business terms? Should any person that can invest money be able to copy your product?

It's like the difference between summarizing an idea and someone plagiarizing a book.

---

Had a samsung, it broke.

Had an apple. It spoilt.

[Oracle]

Had an apple. It snapped.

[Roflcopter]

I think you misunderstood my point. When a brand is obviously duplicating another brand's product it also creates unfair competition.

No it isn't. Many businesses produce the exact same products, for instance farms that produce vegetables.

Your analogy is just too broad with grocery stores. I am talking brands and you are talking ideas.

How is it too broad? You talked about a monopoly on feature-sets as being acceptable to protect what you view as a brand. My point is that many many businesses struggle to find ways to differentiate themselves over the competition. It's a well-known and expected problem of business.

Your analogy is just too broad with grocery stores. I am talking brands and you are talking ideas. Hence I used the term "features" and not "ideas" Brands are the product of tangible items that come together and provide a unique experience. Of course you can't patent the idea of a store but when we talk about logos, colors, slogans, etc- of course they can be patented.

Logos, colors, slogans etc... cannot be patented. I don't think you're aware of what a patent is, but they only cover inventions.

I agree it is good to be able to buy a similar product for lesser price. However, then where's the motivation for businesses to invest into research in development when the market is so easy to enter? Ctrl+C & Ctrl+V is easier but is it ethical in business terms? Should any person that can invest money be able to copy your product?

In some circumstances yes. I wouldn't want there to be only one supplier of carrots.

Brand protection should exist to avoid confusion and fake goods, but that's far from selling a similar product. And to be honest the two phones seem as similar as any two phones I've seen.

[Lateralus]

No it isn't. Many businesses produce the exact same products, for instance farms that produce vegetables.

Farms don't create vegetation they grow it so the competition is in both the branding and the price. However there is one exception. Certain genetic mutations have been developed by companies like Monsanto that grow crops faster and have higher yield. It is otherwise impossible to patent basic raw materials. That's like Apple trying to patent carbon fiber. Which may be next on their agenda lolz j/k You are protecting a system with patents.. not raw goods.

How is it too broad? You talked about a monopoly on feature-sets as being acceptable to protect what you view as a brand. My point is that many many businesses struggle to find ways to differentiate themselves over the competition. It's a well-known and expected problem of business.

Yes. I agree with that. And i do hope courts in the future will not let big business bully competition with frivolous patent claims. But there is a level of integrity even smaller businesses have to maintain. the question is how where to draw the line between infringement and fair usage.

Logos, colors, slogans etc... cannot be patented. I don't think you're aware of what a patent is, but they only cover inventions.

Sorry to have confused you there :P I meant trademark not patent. These are also protected by law.

In some circumstances yes. I wouldn't want there to be only one supplier of carrots.

again, carrots are a raw material so they don't apply.

Brand protection should exist to avoid confusion and fake goods, but that's far from selling a similar product. And to be honest the two phones seem as similar as any two phones I've seen.

Of course similar products are going to exist. That's the basis for competition isn't it? All I'm talking about is the blatant copying of a product produced or manufactured with a system.

[Orynge]

Nokia.

[SKB]

Samsung, because (super) AMOLED.

[Roflcopter]

...

Personally I don't see the distinction between my vegetable example and the iPhone case. I'm also not sure if you're arguing about how the system "should be" or "is".

In your example, the difference between a vegetable you find naturally and a genetically modified version is the latter incorporates genetics covered by a patent. But the patents Apple relied on are probably not valid (from discussions I've heard) and at least I don't think they should be.

I agree with the SKB that AMOLED screens are lovely. If we could get that kind of contrast in a laptop it would be sexy.

[SKB]

It's not only just contrast, response time (in theory < 0.01ms) and viewing angle on those screens are pretty amazing. The only thing bad is power consumption on brighter images, but seeing that AMOLED is pretty new tech, there's lots of room for improvement I suppose.

[Roflcopter]

It's not only just contrast, response time (in theory < 0.01ms) and viewing angle on those screens are pretty amazing. The only thing bad is power consumption on brighter images, but seeing that AMOLED is pretty new tech, there's lots of room for improvement I suppose.

Yes although many displays have input lag caused by processing not the actual parts that put colour on screen.

[Lateralus]

...

Personally I don't see the distinction between my vegetable example and the iPhone case. I'm also not sure if you're arguing about how the system "should be" or "is".

On my original post all i was saying is that no, I don't agree that Apple should be able to patent a generic thing by itself. Rectangles with round corners, icons, tap to zoom, etc. are not exactly examples of a system by itself. However, when you put these things together in a certain formula you create a unique recipe that should be protected.

A farmer cannot patent raw materials like crops. But if he/she created a composition with them like a "secret recipe" that may be patented. So I wasn't arguing concerning a supplier that deals with basic ingredients. They cannot and should bot be patented. This is where you and I agree and had a miscommunication I think.

I'm not aware of all the details of Apple vs Samsung but i think a lot has to do with asking whether Samsung intentionally tried to confuse consumers by making the product too similar.

Bottom line for me is that I can see both sides. As a consumer, competition is good. The more competition, the less chance of price fixing. On the other hand businesses should be protected by unfair infringements upon legitimate patents. What makes the system work is checks and balances. Without a legal framework it would go to one extreme or the other.

Patent laws aren't so clear sometimes so they become subjective like in this case. There are bad referees in every sport :)

[ElCrema]

Apple is the most nocive tech company that is. I was really glad when Jobs passed away, not the man itself, felt sorry for his family and all of that, but what he represented. They're the ones who started this whole "fancy" hardware fever that we have nowadays. Technology and information should NEVER be treated as commodities. It's stupid and counterproductive.
Funny thing is that a few days ago I read an editorial on the NY Times wondering why the USA are loosing their technological domiance to China and India. Maybe it has somenthing to do with the fact that a tablet in USA cost about $500 and they all run on proprietary software and in India a similar one costs about $35 and uses open source all the way?