x404.co.uk
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/

Competition we will have no stinking competition
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=14505		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  bobbdobbs [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Competition we will have no stinking competition
Now its not just the tablets but the phones Apple wishes to remove from sale.
clicky
Quote:
he letter, seen by Dutch publication Webwereld, requires all stocks to be immediately shipped back to the Netherlands (where Samsung handles its EU distribution). Apple also expects Samsung to remind retailers that if they don't return the stock they could be liable for infringing the same patents Apple is holding against the manufacturer.


Translated from the dutch article clicky
Quote:
Apple claims in the Netherlands a trade ban on all Samsung Galaxy series. But this extends over Europe, as international distribution through Dutch subsidiaries runs.
Apple claims that the trade ban on all Galaxy Samsung smartphones and tablets, could have huge implications for the whole European market. Although the ruling only to the Netherlands.
After Apple complains in The Hague not only Samsung Electronics, but also affiliates and Samsung Samsung Logistics Ltd Overseas BV. This is clear from Apple's subpoena, which has seen Webwereld
Author:  finlay666 [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
Apple should be told to GTFO.

They misrepresented images for the tablet court case to make the Samsung tablet look more like the iPad and the injunction was temporarily disabled
Author:  jonbwfc [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
finlay666 wrote:
They misrepresented images for the tablet court case to make the Samsung tablet look more like the iPad and the injunction was temporarily disabled

No. The injunction was broken because the court that approved it couldn't decide if the injunction was legally enforceable outside Germany (in fact, IIRC, the injunction may still be in force inside Germany). The case of the photoshopped evidence is entirely separate and hasn't come before a court yet, so it has absolutely no relevance to the Tab 10.1 going back on sale.

As for the notion of competition, several other companies have tried making 'tablets' since about a month the iPad 1 came out and not one of them has sold worth [LIFTED]. Every time some other tablet comes to market a desperate portion of the tech community claim that this is the one will finally 'show the iPad up for what it is'. It's like sodding 'Waiting For Godot'. Dell streak, Motorola Xoom, Galaxy Tab, Blackberry Playbook, HP Touchpad. All copies of the iPad, all sold a small portion of what the iPad sold and continues to sell. You can't beat the iPad by trying to make something just like the iPad because a copy is never going to beat the original, no matter how much you try to tweak it. If HTC or Samsung or RIM want to make the next iPad, they have to make the 'the next iPad' not 'The iPad'. Apple already did that, the chance to do that is gone.

What will provide competition is innovation, and innovation is not 'take an iPad, bump up the numbers and stick a USB socket on it'. What will compete with the iPad is something that isn't like an iPad but people want just as much. Because you're never going to make something that is 'just like an iPad' that people actually want more than 'an iPad'.

Jon
Author:  JJW009 [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
jonbwfc wrote:
All copies of the iPad

In all fairness, most non-iPad tablets have more in common with the tablets that pre-date the iPad. They would have existed and probably had similar styles and sales even if the iPad never was.

The iPad an Apple phenomenon which many people preached vehemently would never happen. It hasn't really changed the rest of the market, except for all the completely pointless crap that's talked about it.
Author:  jonbwfc [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
JJW009 wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
All copies of the iPad

In all fairness, most non-iPad tablets have more in common with the tablets that pre-date the iPad.

Really?

Quote:
They would have existed and probably had similar styles and sales even if the iPad never was.

It's an entirely hypothetical argument, but I would disagree. None of the major 'ipad competitors' have a whiff of developing or buidling an iPad like device before the iPad. The 'tablet market' had been tried with windows OSs and had been a graveyard of attempts that failed or small, vertically integrated devices for industrial applications. it's taken the best part of 18 months for any of them to get a product to market that's competitive to the current iPad in design and engineering. That suggests to me none of them had even thought of doing it before they saw the queues round the block to buy iPads and realised there was actually a market there at all. Without the iPad, we would have had none of the competing devices because nobody thought tablets would sell, because they'd tried selling them many times and each time they'd failed.

Quote:
The iPad an Apple phenomenon which many people preached vehemently would never happen. It hasn't really changed the rest of the market, except for all the completely pointless crap that's talked about it.

To quote HP''s CEO Leo Apotherker...

Quote:
"The tablet effect is real, and sales of the TouchPad are not meeting our expectations," Apotheker says, explaining the movement of consumers from PCs to tablets as one of the problems with the PC division.


HP got out of the PC hardware market because the iPad was stealing their laptop sales and laptop sales make actually make a profit, whereas desktops make next to none. The tablets (in all variants) have torn the guts out of HP's PC division's bottom line, so they cut it adrift. Netbooks had a consistent record of sales growth over and above the rest of the product ranges until the iPad and competitors appeared, since when they've dropped off every quarter. Aside from that, the iPad hasn't really changed the rest of the market at all...

Jon
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
Somebody is not happy

http://www.cultofmac.com/adolf-hitler-r ... pad-humor/
Author:  JJW009 [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
jonbwfc wrote:
It's an entirely hypothetical argument

As is your reply.

As for the photo, that's a great example of the fallacy of selective evidence. Using HP as an example, it's very obvious that their latest offering was an evolution of their 1990's products. By using your eyes, you can see this is true.

HP Compact TC1100 from 2004:

Image

The evolution of the tablet computer's physical form is primarily the evolution of displays. Ever since the bulky mechanical Logie Baird devices, screens development has consistently been driven towards:

1. thinner body
2. thinner bezel
3. higher resolution
4. fashionable design

You might argue that the iPad set a fashion trend, but the basic design of a tablet is dictated by the limitations of technology available at the time.
Author:  JJW009 [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
finlay666 wrote:
They misrepresented images for the tablet court case to make the Samsung tablet look more like the iPad

And guess what? It's déjà vu all over again:

Quote:
the picture Apple submitted of the Galaxy S is inaccurate and does not match the real Galaxy S


http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/mob ... alaxy-tab/
Author:  MrStevenRogers [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
Quote:
According to Samsung, the dimensions of the Galaxy S are 122.4 x 64.2 mm. The iPhone 3G measures 115.5 x 62.1 mm. In the text, Apple confirms that the Galaxy S has "some non-identical elements, such as the slightly larger dimensions."


so something that has some non-identical elements is identical
in about the same ball park as 'up to'

since SJ has been away Apple have started to become a real nasty piece of work ...
Author:  jonbwfc [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
MrStevenRogers wrote:
so something that has some non-identical elements is identical
in about the same ball park as 'up to'

Doesn't 'some non-identical elements' imply that is also has 'some identical elements'? It'll come down to the 'split' between those two. If Apple's lawyers can convince the judge that there are significantly more of the latter than the former, Samsung will be in trouble. if they can't, Samsung will be fine.

MrStevenRogers wrote:
since SJ has been away Apple have started to become a real nasty piece of work ...

Jesus.. Apple have always been a nasty piece of work, just the same as every other large corporation. And Steve Jobs is allegedly about the nastiest person there. It's just that before, when Apple had no phones and only 3% of the PC market and was making profits in the order of 1% of what they are now, nobody gave a damn.

Jon
Author:  MrStevenRogers [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
a phone or tablet is identical in essence how it functions but different OSs size colour make model do not make them identical
there are only so many ways to make a phone or tablet much the same as a touch screen

next Apple will be saying they invented the internet and we hold the patent ...
Author:  jonbwfc [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
MrStevenRogers wrote:
a phone or tablet is identical in essence how it functions but different OSs size colour make model do not make them identical there are only so many ways to make a phone or tablet much the same as a touch screen

These lawsuits as far as I've read aren't about 'function'. They're not about the OS or the GUI. They're about the objects themselves, their design and materials and engineering and appearance. I suspect it will prove a very hard case for Apple - I agree that if a device fulfils a given broad function then it has to have a certain appearance in the broad sense - most cars for example have a wheel at each corner and a sloped windscreen, but nobody has the right to claim that as their design. It's just the obvious design for that device. I suspect that will one be Samsung's of Samsung's defensive arguments - if you make a tablet, it pretty much has to to look a certain way. It just depends if the judge decides that Samsung intended to make 'a tablet' or if they intended to make 'an iPad'.

Of course if they can block sales for a while, Apple may not care if they win in the end or not. Six months is an awful long time in the mobile device market.

Phones are a bit different I think - you can say there are several different 'basic templates' of phone (screen+number pad i.e. pretty much every phone a few years ago), screen+keyboard (i.e. Blackberry), touchscreen with several buttons (android), touchscreen with one button (iPhone) and there's much more leeway to argue 'our design is one of these which isn't the same as yours'.


MrStevenRogers wrote:
next Apple will be saying they invented the internet and we hold the patent ...

I believe Dan Quayle already has dibs on that one...

Jon
Author:  MrStevenRogers [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
Quote:
I believe Dan Quayle already has dibs on that one...


i have no doubt that Apple will try too sue him next ...
Author:  adidan [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
Perhaps Paramount should sue Apple for nicking the tablet idea from Star Trek.
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Competition we will have no stinking competition
All this does is show the flaws of a patent system for software. I would like to see more competition between devices. Though Apple will always have an advantage with its profit margins and cash pile.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/