11-17-2012, 05:50 AM | #556 |
Zennist
Posts: 1,022
Karma: 47809468
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
|
|
11-17-2012, 06:01 AM | #557 |
Zennist
Posts: 1,022
Karma: 47809468
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
|
Well, here's one court battle won by Samsung. Queen Elizabeth has now weighed in on the matter, issuing a royal decree crowning the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 the official tablet of Buckingham Palace, passing over the iPad. From henceforth, only Samsungs are to be used for official business and royal browsing ... or off with ye head.
--Pat |
Advert | |
|
11-17-2012, 06:13 AM | #558 | |||||
Enthusiast
Posts: 25
Karma: 496132
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wales, UK
Device: Nook Simple Touch (US)
|
Quote:
The thing here is that not all views are necessarily of equal value in every instance. In respect of a discussion regarding design infringement, to comment meaningfully, you ideally need to understand the principles. In your case, if you don't understand or value the visual design, any point you make about copying this (or not) is going to be basically flawed. I haven't been commenting on any of the functional stuff - just the visual design. I don't understand enough about the other stuff to comment. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You are valuing functional design far more highly than visual design, and in terms of whether the latter should be protected under patent law, I accept that it's fair to say that patents are better suited to functional things, and copyrights more appropriate to IP like design. But, design is apparently patentable in the US, and Samsung has clearly copied Apple. Even if it wasn't - it's a clear case of copying. We can debate the relative value of functional design vs visual design, and in this respect it's difficult to argue against your view that functional design is more important. As to whether visual design has any value at all, that's a different matter The reason for the number of words is that most people don't understand design at all. There are subtleties (inspiration vs plagiarism) that need to be described and illustrated to be appreciated, that defy an abbreviated Twitter-like summary. |
|||||
11-17-2012, 06:39 AM | #559 |
Enthusiast
Posts: 25
Karma: 496132
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wales, UK
Device: Nook Simple Touch (US)
|
Sorry, couldn't resist |
11-17-2012, 06:46 AM | #560 | ||
What Title ?
Posts: 1,325
Karma: 1856232
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bavaria Germany
Device: Sony Experia Z Ultra
|
Quote:
Quote:
You can accuse me of short attention span, but I am getting tired of this fork of the Samsung vs. Apple debate so I intend to stop posting in this fork for a while. |
||
Advert | |
|
11-17-2012, 06:46 AM | #561 | ||
Enthusiast
Posts: 25
Karma: 496132
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wales, UK
Device: Nook Simple Touch (US)
|
Quote:
But I do think you might just have been referring to some people here in that respect I wouldn't be offended, but I'm a master of causing unintended offence. This is partly why my posts are so long. I'm conscious of my not-so-hidden talent, so I try hard (but often fail) to avoid it! Quote:
|
||
11-17-2012, 06:50 AM | #562 |
What Title ?
Posts: 1,325
Karma: 1856232
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bavaria Germany
Device: Sony Experia Z Ultra
|
|
11-17-2012, 07:36 AM | #563 | ||
Enthusiast
Posts: 25
Karma: 496132
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wales, UK
Device: Nook Simple Touch (US)
|
Quote:
I could elaborate and prove this, and it is probably also useful in relation to the debate about phone design copying, but you know you're proposing to argue a technical point about copyright of architectural design with an architect - right? I mean, haven't I bored you all enough?! And neither building is most definitely an 'architectural masterpiece'! Quote:
Although I'm an Apple user, I can clearly see when they have done some stupid or undesirable stuff. I can also laugh at the 'sh*t Apple fans say' videos on Youtube. There are a couple on Android too. I'm going to take that in the spirit of a jovial dig in the ribs. You don't really want to have that discussion do you? |
||
11-17-2012, 08:22 AM | #564 | ||
Zennist
Posts: 1,022
Karma: 47809468
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
|
Quote:
Quote:
In regards to general insults, if the shoe fits wear it. If it doesn't, donate it to the Salvation Army. --Pat |
||
11-17-2012, 08:34 AM | #565 | ||||
Zennist
Posts: 1,022
Karma: 47809468
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--Pat |
||||
11-17-2012, 08:54 AM | #566 | |
Guru
Posts: 722
Karma: 2084955
Join Date: Dec 2010
Device: iPhone
|
Quote:
(Click for original size) 7. Browsing — Web Browser While loading Youtube videos, the entire screen feels empty because the "loading" screen is at the top right corner
iPhone: It's easy to see the "Loading..." sign in the video screen because it's located at the center of the screen S1: Because the "Loading" sign appears in the top right corner of the screen while YouTube video is loading, the screen below feels very empty. Directions for improvement: Modify by inserting the text in large font at the center of the screen to match LCD size. |
|
11-17-2012, 09:27 AM | #567 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,896
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
|
Quote:
|
|
11-17-2012, 11:28 AM | #568 |
Bah, humbug!
Posts: 39,072
Karma: 157049943
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Pro, & a Samsung Galaxy S9.
|
Moderator Notice
It is the opinion of the Moderating Team that classifying one's opponents in a debate as "sheeple" is offensive and is to be avoided. |
11-17-2012, 12:14 PM | #569 | ||
Enthusiast
Posts: 25
Karma: 496132
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Wales, UK
Device: Nook Simple Touch (US)
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, let's start to talk about the alleged rip-off of the Rose Center by Apple. I wouldn't necessarily call the second design 'derivative'. It could be claimed to be inspired by it, but derivative I think is stretching it a bit. To start with, the Apple design is fundamentally about a simple, minimal glass cube that kind of serves as a big lobby. The original work uses a glass box which is an exhibition space and just one part of a larger design. In terms of glass boxes, you can't look at the original and say it's the predecessor of all glass boxes. Architecture which is based on simple volumes is really common, and this kind of monumental architecture started with the pyramids and was revived by Claude Nicolas Ledoux and Étienne-Louis Boullée. It so happens that the medium of expression is glass. The reason for the curved roof is functional. You need to get the water off the roof so that you have less chance of snow settling on it. The ideal would be a flat roof, but it's not practical, so you try to get away with the minimum degree of curvature or slope possible so that you don't ruin the design principle of your 'cube'. The word derivative implies that the new work arises explicitly as a result of the original, without adding to it. This isn't really true. Of course if you wanted to be picky about the term 'derivative' I guess probably over 90% of all architecture could be called derivative. This is of course different to being a blatant rip off. The Apple store also doesn't rip off the Rose Center, because that would also involve the size of the panes, proportions, means of structural support and volume elements. Apple have used a design which is similar to a single part of another (the Rose Center is elevated on a massive masonry base which projects past the cube, has a roof which is solid, not glass, and it has a solid closed volume at one edge) and refined and improved it. The Apple store has been stripped to the point of ultimate minimalism, with an almost invisible support structure which is constructed of the same material as the cladding. On the Rose Center, the support structure is an overt part of the visual design. In the new building, it's almost non existent. Even if you take the view that the original was an explicit precedent (which is commonplace) it doesn't substantially copy the original, it only uses a part of the design, which it refines and adapts to the new context and function. So - in terms of 'rip off' pertaining to a blatant copy, it's clearly not so. Even the glazed section isn't a rip off. Most obviously the new building has a transparent roof. Also the function is different. Would you consider Pei's Louvre pyramid a rip-off of the orginal, but updated and translated in a modern material? If we go back to the similarity of phone copying, the Galaxy didn't evidently add anything (apart from the logos, which aren't relevant) or take anything away from the original design, it copied it in its entirety, and copied most of the details in their complete form for precisely the same use as a direct competitor. The only really evident difference externally is the square button instead of a round one. Now that is a rip-off |
||
11-17-2012, 12:56 PM | #570 |
Captain Penguin
Posts: 2,948
Karma: 2079199569
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Nook Glowlight
|
Indeed. Having worked for a large mobile phone company, I can tell you that they have phones from every other competitor, to benchmark against and to get clues on how to improve the devices. Everybody does this kind of study.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apple vs Samsung US Ruling | JD Gumby | News | 14 | 06-30-2012 03:49 PM |
Samsung smartphones outsell Apple | HansTWN | News | 99 | 11-15-2011 11:31 AM |
Samsung surpasses Apple as No.1 Smartphone vender in Q3 | =X= | Android Devices | 4 | 10-21-2011 10:56 AM |
Another round in the Samsung vs Apple war | covfam | General Discussions | 15 | 09-21-2011 03:30 PM |