Samsung Looks to Ban iPhone 4S Sales in France, Italy

[may1]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]To the mass consumer only because of massive marketing campaigns. Not because their products are any good!I've used a hp ipaq as music and navigation unit in my car before I even knew apple had an ipod. True, they did bring tablets to the masses, but those same masses now realize they didn't need any in the first place. What they needed was a monitor with multitouch for their laptop or desktop system. And those've come down quite nicely in brice in 2011, so problem solved.[/citation]

And how much did that cost you when it first came out? Again did you realize that you didn't need them in the first place? Only reason prices have come down for those products are because of competition, and you have to credit this company for what it has done to bring prices down for competing products - thus making it cheaper for consumers.

 

[may1]

[citation][nom]ap3x[/nom]You guys having something against companies make accessible products that are easy to interact with? I don't understand your argument. ... Sure, there are things you can't do on the IPad 2 but if you need those things that is what a computer is for.[/citation]

Agreed.

These days Apple-haters are completely biased idiots like Apple-loyalists.
We need more people like you who knows what to criticize and what to praise.

 

[balister]

[citation][nom]ap3x[/nom]You guys having something against companies make accessible products that are easy to interact with? I don't understand your argument. The reason why their products are successful is because they make things that are typically complicated for the masses and make it simple and easy to use without loosing capability and adding a few additional twists of the their own. Then they put it into an attractive package. There are underline features in OSX and IOS that are not advertised but are seriously crazy slick but since the masses might not use them they don't talk about it. Those features are mainly for technology folks.What company do you know does not market their products. does not matter how good your product is, if people do not know about it, it will not sell. How many fantastic products out there falter because only a small few people know about it. Happens all the time.I feel for you guys that make assumptions about people based on their selection of a phone. It does not make a whole lot of sense really but it does say allot about you guys. There is allot of passionate people on this site, and there is some ignorant people on this site but there are some of you that are both passionate and ignorant at the same time and that is one heck of a combination.If you stop and really use the IPhone or your Andriod devices, peel back the onion a bit, I think you will be surprised what kind of tech really is there. There is allot more to these devices than a spec sheet and the ability to customize your menu's. The fact that some people where able to play MP3's on devices like an IPAQ is a BS argument. Where is your IPAQ now, gone, you can play MP3's on allot of phones but Apple made it accessible and easy to use with a format that allows them to optimize sound quality while saving as much space as they can while at the same time embedding metadata into the content so that you can have usable information about the track and see the album covers. Did not have all that on your IPAQ did you. Again, playing digital music was not an Apple invention, they just changed the way people accessed and managed the music and they did a good job with it.They did not invent the concept of a tablet, I had a Samsung Tablet 9 years ago with windows XP on it. Completely sucked because that form factor does not support general computing very well. Apple took the same uber failed concept and decided to put a OS purposely built for that form factor and just do the main things that most consumers people use on a computer for (email, calender, web) in a convenient, reliable easy to use interface. I was hugely skeptical at first but once I understood what their though process was it all made perfect sense which is why you see tablets eating into PC and laptop sales. Sure, there are things you can't do on the IPad 2 but if you need those things that is what a computer is for.[/citation]

I have nothing against someone making something more accessible, I have a problem with someone taking someone else's ideas and claiming them as their own. Apple does not innovate, they iterate. You ask others if they know what the definition between invention and innovation is, yet your description shows you don't understand what innovation is vs. what iteration is.

A prime example of this involving the new features of iPhone 4GS, Siri. The aspect of Siri has been around for quite some time, have you never heard of Dragon Naturally Speaking? How about that Nokia had a program that worked in the same way, just not as well, for a number of years now? What Apple has done is take prior work in voice commands to computer commands and iterated on it to get it to function better. They didn't innovate, took the work of Nuance Software (maker or DNS) and Nokia and improved on it. This is the heart of iteration.

Apple hasn't done anything truly innovative in years, they've been a hell of a iterator however. You, and others, need to learn the true difference between Invention, Innovation, and Iteration. Most products today are Iterative, very few are Innovative, and even fewer are Inventive.

 

[may1]

[citation][nom]balister[/nom]I have nothing against someone making something more accessible, I have a problem with someone taking someone else's ideas and claiming them as their own. Apple does not innovate, they iterate. You ask others if they know what the definition between invention and innovation is, yet your description shows you don't understand what innovation is vs. what iteration is.A prime example of this involving the new features of iPhone 4GS, Siri. The aspect of Siri has been around for quite some time, have you never heard of Dragon Naturally Speaking? How about that Nokia had a program that worked in the same way, just not as well, for a number of years now? What Apple has done is take prior work in voice commands to computer commands and iterated on it to get it to function better. They didn't innovate, took the work of Nuance Software (maker or DNS) and Nokia and improved on it. This is the heart of iteration.Apple hasn't done anything truly innovative in years, they've been a hell of a iterator however. You, and others, need to learn the true difference between Invention, Innovation, and Iteration. Most products today are Iterative, very few are Innovative, and even fewer are Inventive.[/citation]

Iterative process is more like how Intel and AMD is improving CPU parts by moving into more detailed manufacturing process- by repeating the same thing and making few adjustments to the instructions.

What Apple did with SIRI (as well as many but not all of their products) is innovation. They added something new to their products and made a new change to the iphone series. How they perfected the SIRI software is most likely a result of iteration (you and I weren't in the process of making SIRI so what do we know) and the core innovation part was implementing the successful technology to the iphone. In essence - they innovated the iPhone.

Now you seriously need to learn the difference between Invention, Innovation and Iteration.

As for the claim that Apple takes other people's ideas and claim it their own - I don't see it that way. Yes, Apple does take other people's ideas, but looking at their products closely they improve on other people's existing ideas and then bring it to the table. They never claimed other people's ideas as their own - but a few ideas they added by themselves to other people's ideas, they have every right to claim those if they wish to.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Exactly what did you smoke today, pardon my French?Did Apple invent tablets? Nope, it's something from 90th.Did Apple invent "rectangular device with rounded corners"? (this "community design" is the reason Samsung Galaxy is banned in Europe's biggest market, Germany) Are you kidding me?Unlike with Apple's "innovations" of "we buy this and that and slap it there, then give it a spin in media" Samsung owns patent on actual technology. Something you spend money on when developing, you know, investing in R&D not simply buying a company that owns the patent. (like Apple with multitouch or now Siri)[/citation]

You lose any credibility whatsoever when you claim the Samsung Galaxy is banned due to being rectangular and having rounded corners. That is simply not true. At all. By any stretch of the imagination. And when you have to lie, to make a point, that says it all.

 

[accolite]

[citation][nom]may1[/nom]Iterative process is more like how Intel and AMD is improving CPU parts by moving into more detailed manufacturing process- by repeating the same thing and making few adjustments to the instructions.What Apple did with SIRI (as well as many but not all of their products) is innovation. They added something new to their products and made a new change to the iphone series. How they perfected the SIRI software is most likely a result of iteration (you and I weren't in the process of making SIRI so what do we know) and the core innovation part was implementing the successful technology to the iphone. In essence - they innovated the iPhone.Now you seriously need to learn the difference between Invention, Innovation and Iteration.As for the claim that Apple takes other people's ideas and claim it their own - I don't see it that way. Yes, Apple does take other people's ideas, but looking at their products closely they improve on other people's existing ideas and then bring it to the table. They never claimed other people's ideas as their own - but a few ideas they added by themselves to other people's ideas, they have every right to claim those if they wish to.[/citation]

Just admit it the previous post is right...

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]balister[/nom]I have nothing against someone making something more accessible, I have a problem with someone taking someone else's ideas and claiming them as their own. Apple does not innovate, they iterate. You ask others if they know what the definition between invention and innovation is, yet your description shows you don't understand what innovation is vs. what iteration is.A prime example of this involving the new features of iPhone 4GS, Siri. The aspect of Siri has been around for quite some time, have you never heard of Dragon Naturally Speaking? How about that Nokia had a program that worked in the same way, just not as well, for a number of years now? What Apple has done is take prior work in voice commands to computer commands and iterated on it to get it to function better. They didn't innovate, took the work of Nuance Software (maker or DNS) and Nokia and improved on it. This is the heart of iteration.Apple hasn't done anything truly innovative in years, they've been a hell of a iterator however. You, and others, need to learn the true difference between Invention, Innovation, and Iteration. Most products today are Iterative, very few are Innovative, and even fewer are Inventive.[/citation]

Firstly - where Siri is or is not innovative is irrelevant. They don't have to make every single new thing innovative for them to be innovative overall. Take the app store, for example, the iPod, iTunes, or more recently, take their decision to have dual antennas which can intelligently be selected between. The Apple Macbook Air - another innovative world thinnest. iCloud - the first synchronisation software to be integrated with a mobile OS, the list goes on, and on. Just because some random guy in a basement dreamed up such a device in decades gone by doesn't mean it doesn't take innovation to make the ideas work.

Secondly - just because something was done badly in the past doesn't mean a company who does it well doesn't deserve credit. The Nokia example being a good example of how their implementation was completely useless.

Thirdly - where is the innovation in all the other mobile phone manufacturers, eg Android? They are all designed to look and feel like iPhones, or at the very least taking strong cues from it, and have pretty much tried to replicate the whole app market and style of phones directly from Apple.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]zybch[/nom]huh? What has apple actually innovated except fisher price interfaces to make idiots think they are computer 'experts"?[/citation]

It's a pathetic man who thinks that something has to look complicated to be valuable, or useful, or 'only for idiots'.

'Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler' - a wise man once said.

I mean come on, who is so socially retarded that they have to define themselves on whether or not an idiot could operate their phone.

 

[watcha]

not* 'only for idiots'

 

[halcyon]

The whole Apple vs. Samsung battle seems to be getting tired. They're going to have to eventually work it out. Why make themselves look retarded in the process?

 

[may1]

[citation][nom]accolite[/nom]Just admit it the previous post is right...[/citation]

Which part? The only reason why replied to the previous post was because his claims were, in essence, false.

As I've said before, I'm an Apple hater but you guys have no right to deny the positive contributions the company has made.

 

[Kamab]

Apple might be innovative, but more than most companies they sue the competition to slow competing products from getting to market. They just want to delay, because in the meantime they can make even more profit.

As long as the system stays the same, all these companies will need their army of lawyers that intimidate and defend in order to stay competitive. Big waste of money.

 

[ap3x]

Pro[citation][nom]Kamab[/nom]Apple might be innovative, but more than most companies they sue the competition to slow competing products from getting to market. They just want to delay, because in the meantime they can make even more profit.As long as the system stays the same, all these companies will need their army of lawyers that intimidate and defend in order to stay competitive. Big waste of money.[/citation]

Protecting intellectual property is standard practice of any successful business. Unfortunatly it also creates allot of noise.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]Kamab[/nom]Apple might be innovative, but more than most companies they sue the competition to slow competing products from getting to market. They just want to delay, because in the meantime they can make even more profit.As long as the system stays the same, all these companies will need their army of lawyers that intimidate and defend in order to stay competitive. Big waste of money.[/citation]

You're right about that. Its too bad, I'm one of those folks that don't hate Apple or their products but this sue-happy stuff is unncessary, and leaves a bad taste in some folks mouths.

I think Apple needs to focus on not disappointing people with iPhone 4s-type announcements, like they have, and work on truly innovating. They've got a new leader, its time for a new outlook.
and working on new slick products

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]may1[/nom]Agreed.These days Apple-haters are completely biased idiots like Apple-loyalists. We need more people like you who knows what to criticize and what to praise.[/citation]

Thanks, I appreciate that.

 

[stingray71]

Wow, this is getting juvenile.

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]may1[/nom]Sony was pushing more towards the ATRAC3 player instead of a MP3 player due to copyrights issues from one of its subsidiaries. It was only after they realized they lost the battle against Apple in the early 2000s that they ditched ATRAC3 and made MP3 their mainstream format. Anyway the softwares for the players are terrible - and that's coming from a nothing-but-walkman user.As for tablets, iPad was not the first tablet product Apple made. Just because your daddy bought a tablet before the time of iPads doesnt mean HP should get the credit as tablet manufacturer.[/citation]

This is 100% correct. Many people think of Sony as purely an electronics company. They make nice tv's, walkmen devices, dvd players and what now. Sure their devices could do things like play MP3 but before MP3 really took off Sony was pushing ATRAC3. You have to keep in mind that a large part of Sony's income comes from media format licensing. Every CD sold, Sony got paid, same with DVD format. Sony lost the home video wars to VHS (made by JVC) when they came up with Betamax (which was technically superior). Now days there was DVD Audio vs Super Audio CD (Sony's format), or Memory Stick Duo vs SD, or HDDVD vs Blueray (which they clearly won).

The point is that Sony got on board MP3 (which was developed by the MPEG group) after ATRAC3 did not work out.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]ap3x[/nom]he point is that Sony got on board MP3 (which was developed by the MPEG group) after ATRAC3 did not work out.[/citation]

Oh, I miss my MiniDiscs...I still have a nice recorder under my bed.

 

[Guest]

@watcha

"You lose any credibility whatsoever when you claim the Samsung Galaxy is banned due to being rectangular and having rounded corners. That is simply not true. At all. By any stretch of the imagination. And when you have to lie, to make a point, that says it all."

correct me if im wrong but the majority of those patents were dropped, about the only thing that was held up with grid of rounded off rectangles and swipe finger gesture for pix browsing, where as in Autrailia, it's purely a "look and feel" law suit

so i think his close enough to the mark, just saying

 

[rhangman]

Nope, Australia is down to 2 patents, one on multi-touch capacitive screens and the other to do with touch input heuristics. Germany is the one where Apple got an injunction based on their generic 2004 Community Design. So yeah, a rectangle with rounded corners. Interesting is the fact that Apple didn't sue using their iPad 1/2 CD's. Instead they went with the 2004 generic one that looks nothing like an iPad.

The scroll bounce patent was the Netherlands, but Samsung already removed the feature via a software update, so there will be no ban. Same 2004 CD didn't hold up there either.