Samsung Galaxy S III sales to top 10 million

[DreamWeaaver]

As much as I like Apple vs Samsung, I wouldn't want them to hate each other or let things get really nasty

Keep it clean and competitive !

 

[K-A]

Lol. They don't even have to, the "fans" on both sides seem to keep the rivalry much too competitive!

It's like Ford VS GM, or M-B VS BMW.... Now Samsung/Android VS Apple. Haha.

 

[K-A]

A desperation move. Basically Google acknowledges Apple's innovations as essential, therefore they aren't asking to pay to use it.... they're asking that it be *CONSIDERED FREELY USABLE TO EVERYONE BECAUSE IT'S THAT GOOD AND ESSENTIAL*:

Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards

Friday July 20, 2012 4:25 pm PDT by Jordan Golson

​

Apple CEO Tim Cook has said that he wants other companies to "invent their own stuff", and that Apple shouldn't be "inventor for the world".

Google General Counsel Kent Walker disagrees, and this month wrote a letter to the US Senate Judiciary Committee arguing that commercial inventions that impact "consumer welfare" should be just as important as technical patents.

All Things D's John Paczkowski interprets Walker's argument thusly:

In other words, Google’s view is that just as there are patents that are standard essential, there are also patents that are commercially essential — patents that cover features that are so popular as to have become ubiquitous. The latter are just as ripe for abuse as the former, and withholding them is just as harmful to consumers and the competitive marketplace. Viewed through that lens, multitouch technology or slide-to-unlock might be treated the same way as an industry standard patent on, say, a smartphone radio.​

Apple strongly disagrees. Bruce Sewell, Apple's top lawyer, writes a rebuttal letter to the committee, saying in part, that simply because a "proprietary technology becomes quite popular does not transform it into a ‘standard’ subject to the same legal constraints as true standards."

In other words, simply because an Apple technology is extremely popular with consumers, doesn't mean Apple has to license that technology to competitors. Apple owns numerous patents regarding nearly all iOS technologies, a fact that Steve Jobs touted when he launched the first iPhone in 2007.

From Sewell's letter:

The capabilities of an iPhone are categorically different from a conventional phone, and result from Apple’s ability to bring its traditional innovation in computing to the mobile market. Using an iPhone to take photos, manage a home-finance spreadsheet, play video games, or run countless other applications has nothing to do with standardized protocols. Apple spent billions in research and development to create the iPhone, and third party software developers have spent billions more to develop applications that run on it.​

Though Tim Cook has said that he hates lawsuits -- once calling them "a pain in the ass" -- he has said he will staunchly defend Apple's inventions from copycats.

Steve Jobs was quoted in his biography as threatening to "go thermonuclear" on Google for what he considered the theft of Apple's intellectual property regarding the Android operating system. He pledged to spend every penny Apple had in the bank, a war chest that has since grown to more than $100 billion, fighting a legal battle with the company.

All Things D has the full text of both letters, as well as a much deeper analysis of the legal aspects of the situation.

 

[DreamWeaaver]

A desperation move. Basically Google acknowledges Apple's innovations as essential, therefore they aren't asking to pay to use it.... they're asking that it be *CONSIDERED FREELY USABLE TO EVERYONE BECAUSE IT'S THAT GOOD AND ESSENTIAL*:

Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards

Friday July 20, 2012 4:25 pm PDT by Jordan Golson

​

Apple CEO Tim Cook has said that he wants other companies to "invent their own stuff", and that Apple shouldn't be "inventor for the world".

Google General Counsel Kent Walker disagrees, and this month wrote a letter to the US Senate Judiciary Committee arguing that commercial inventions that impact "consumer welfare" should be just as important as technical patents.

All Things D's John Paczkowski interprets Walker's argument thusly:

In other words, Google’s view is that just as there are patents that are standard essential, there are also patents that are commercially essential — patents that cover features that are so popular as to have become ubiquitous. The latter are just as ripe for abuse as the former, and withholding them is just as harmful to consumers and the competitive marketplace. Viewed through that lens, multitouch technology or slide-to-unlock might be treated the same way as an industry standard patent on, say, a smartphone radio.​

Apple strongly disagrees. Bruce Sewell, Apple's top lawyer, writes a rebuttal letter to the committee, saying in part, that simply because a "proprietary technology becomes quite popular does not transform it into a ‘standard’ subject to the same legal constraints as true standards."

In other words, simply because an Apple technology is extremely popular with consumers, doesn't mean Apple has to license that technology to competitors. Apple owns numerous patents regarding nearly all iOS technologies, a fact that Steve Jobs touted when he launched the first iPhone in 2007.

From Sewell's letter:

The capabilities of an iPhone are categorically different from a conventional phone, and result from Apple’s ability to bring its traditional innovation in computing to the mobile market. Using an iPhone to take photos, manage a home-finance spreadsheet, play video games, or run countless other applications has nothing to do with standardized protocols. Apple spent billions in research and development to create the iPhone, and third party software developers have spent billions more to develop applications that run on it.​

Though Tim Cook has said that he hates lawsuits -- once calling them "a pain in the ass" -- he has said he will staunchly defend Apple's inventions from copycats.

Steve Jobs was quoted in his biography as threatening to "go thermonuclear" on Google for what he considered the theft of Apple's intellectual property regarding the Android operating system. He pledged to spend every penny Apple had in the bank, a war chest that has since grown to more than $100 billion, fighting a legal battle with the company.

All Things D has the full text of both letters, as well as a much deeper analysis of the legal aspects of the situation.

Meh...wasn't much of a fan with Google. I mean have you ever used Google Chrome? it's awful when it comes to YouTUbe videos...it freezes and crashes EVERY TIME when you have too many tabs. I definitely pick Apple over Google every single time.

 

[K-A]

Actually I haven't used Chrome too much, but I have heard some things like what you're saying.

Yeah, Google lost a lot of my respect. I mean, seriously, when a company is being sued by practically EVERYONE, companies who total trillions of dollars of market cap, mostly due to either copyright laws and antitrust privacy, it says something about how they operate.

I wish that SAMSUNG would get serious and develop their own software and leave Android in the dust. It'll probably be inevitable at some point, as Google might make the first move with Motorola (or not). Samsung becoming a serious competitor to Apple in the mobile/media/computing field means that I think if they want to truly take on Apple in that "end all be all" approach, and in the ultimate "product cachet" approach, they'll need a more exclusive software that isn't shared across the line with every other phone available. Also, Google has proven to be amongst the most untrustworthy of companies (case in point, Eric Schmidt going behind Apple's back and developing Android after leaving Apple's board and hearing all of their ideas/plans), so with a purchase of Motorola.... If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be feeling too comfortable, and would be acting preemptively.

 

[Top Secret]

Samsung have the Bada OS. Look how well that's doing.

 

[K-A]

Bada....? I thought they used Android?

Edit: Nm, just looked it up.

 

[DreamWeaaver]

Samsung have the Bada OS. Look how well that's doing.

I have never heard of it before or used it. You tell me.

 

[Cashmere]

Not really related to the S3 per se, but here is a quick review of the Nexus 7 which I have been using for a little over a week.

Some initial thoughts:

HARDWARE:


- Excellent build quality. The perforated rear cover gives it a nice premium feel, doesn't feel cheap in any way.

- Easily the best android tablet at the moment. The 7 inch form factor is perfect and I much prefer it to my iPad. Its lighter, much easier to hold with one hand and still great for reading content and watching movies.

- Nvidia Tegra 3 processor + 1GB RAM make it an extremely capable tablet. The graphics on games such as Riptide & Dead trigger (Nvidia optimized games) look incredible and are fairly close to console level graphics.

- Screen. The IPS display offers great viewing angles and really good resolution. The only drawback with the screen it is terrible for outdoor use, especially on a sunny day.

- Front facing camera is decent and works well with gtalk, skype,etc. No rear camera which is great IMO. It is a cringe worthy sight to see random people taking pics/videos with their tablets while they have smart phones in their pockets. Hopefully more tablet makers will follow this approach.

- Battery life is decent. Comfortably get 2 days on a charge, with moderate to heavy usage.

- No memory card slot. Probably the only caveat I can think of. If you want to load lots of media on it, make sure you get the range topping 16GB version.

The OS:

- Android 4.1 (jellybean) is definitely the best mobile OS at the moment. Comes with the usual android perks such as customizability, awesome task switcher and the ability to set non google apps as default apps. Even though it feels faster than ICS, it still does tend to get a bit choppy every now and again, especially when switching between certain apps.

- Chrome – is now the native web browser and out of Beta phase. Doesn’t support flash (lolwut?) – HTML5 ftw! Works like magic otherwise. Browse something at work, when I get home, it continues exactly where I left off at work. Based on browsing behavior it preloads pages I am most likely to view and makes pages load up even faster. Easily the best web browser regardless of what platform you use.

- Google Voice vs SIRI: Google voice supports offline dictation (yay!) and responds much faster than Siri. Siri on the other hand seems to have more of a personality as it usually responds to questions with voice, almost as if you are having a normal conversation meanwhile Google voice just brings up google search results (for non factual questions).

- Google Now: Even though this is in its infancy stages right now, it has HUGE potential. Over time, it studies your search patterns and in conjunction with Google’s GPS location services it learns more about you (in a creepy, stalker like manner) and then makes suggestions. E.g. when I leave home in the mornings it automatically knows that I am off to work (and it knows where my works place is) and lets me know what time I will reach my work place WITHOUT me asking. :O

-The one thing that did bother me is that the home screen could not be rotated. It remains permanently locked to portrait mode. However, installing nova launcher does remedy this problem.

- Updates: In the 1 week of ownership, my Nexus 7 has already received 2 OTA updates. This alone has cemented the fact that I, henceforth, will only purchase nexus branded Android devices. Hopefully more consumers will demand nexus devices and this can help reduce Androids fragmentation problems.

THE ECOSYSTEM:

- the Google apps in particular (youtube,maps,drive,chrome) are brilliant and definitely better than their iOS equivalents.
Sadly the same cannot be said about most other 3rd party core apps. E.g. apps such as Facebook, Twitter & Skype are just terrible on android and simply lack the polish and refinement which their iOS versions have. Skype keeps crashing and needs to be force closed everytime (it doesn’t close from the task switcher). Besides the lack of functionality on apps such as Facebook and Twitter, the UI is merely stretched from the phone UI and they are not tablet specific apps. This problem is persistent throughout most of the Android apps and is very annoying.

It is getting better but IMO, but the ecosystem continues to be the biggest crevice in the Android OS. The whole 'open source' argument is a double edged sword; a critical flaw as much as it is a strength for Android. It’s failing to attract quality developers, because not everybody wants to compile code for free (which is why a lot of Android apps lack refinement compared to iOS). While Google may not be able to pay developers the lump sums of cash which Apple is doing, they can at the very least, implement more stringent conditions for app development such as Microsoft and Apple have. If Google don't do something compelling very soon, the expected wave of Windows 8 tablets in October could prove to be a more compelling purchase over Android tablets.

 

[K-A]

So you like the 7" form factor that much, huh? Looks like the 7" is the next emerging market. From what I've heard Apple's gonna expand the iPad line and release a smaller (7") take on it.

 

[Gianclaudio]

I'm really torn between Nexus 7 and upcoming Amazon's Kindle Fire 2 and mini Ipad.
Is easy to dismiss the Kindle Fire at first, but Amazon shopping experience and customer service is nothing short of amazing, and I already own a Kindle e book reader and I love it.

Regards!

 

[K-A]

I still haven't graduated from the "PC era" into the "Post PC era", since my work and "art" requires me to use a good ole' Macbook Pro. To me a 7" seems pointless considering you have such large phone screens right under it and the iPad sizes right above it. However, mobile media is the future so we'll be seeing lots of very distinct stuff like this happening. I can't wait to see Apple's take on it if the rumors are true. I have a feeling that they'll do something cool and different to give their 7" its own identity somewhat.

 

[K-A]

This deserves a post on both Apple/Samsung related threads here....

 

[SirLance99]

This deserves a post on both Apple/Samsung related threads here....

People, I bet, are taking the wrong thing away from this image. One big touch screen with shortcuts on it is likely to look the same, but let's look closer at the stylistic similarities between the Samsung and Apple offerings. Silver border, big home button, not much else to look at.

Now look at those older Samsungs. Silver border, large prominent centred button (fair enough, with other buttons around it, but they haven't changed that, they've just made them capacitive touch points instead). If anything, when you start piling things on top of the basic elements of a touch screen (screen and a way to get home), Apple stole more from Samsung. The stylistic elements that make modern Samsungs look so much like iPhones were present on Samsungs before Apple even made phones!

Just because capacitive screens weren't cheap enough to be used in smartphones before 2007, and they weren't cheap enough for tablets before 2010, does not give Apple any valid patent claims on smartphone and tablet technology. Here are a few prior arts from Sharp, LG and Samsung.

The iPhone was unveiled in January at MacWorld 2007, but barely a month later, Samsung took the lid off their QWERTY slider, the F700 which one could easily say, shares an awful lot of aesthetics to the original iPhone. Oh, and let’s not forget the LG Prada phone that was also announced in January of ’07 (same month as the iPhone). It too shares a striking a resemblance to Apple’s “unique” slate device. Are we somehow supposed to believe that Samsung and LG built an entire device in 1 months time? Not likely… not even for Samsung’s elves and their nimble little hands.

You can play this the other way around too

 

[K-A]

The "iPhone 1" (which I've never heard of) is really reaching. That's clearly a Motorola phone, not an "iPhone".

The F700 concept to me is further proof of how much Samsung after it ripped off the iPhone (because it doesn't look like one). It still has that "old guard" look of phones, it looks ancient, proportioned like the pre-Smartphone (which Apple also invented the market of in the way we know it today) etc. The iPhone's "EXACT" look is what Apple's contesting more-so than the nature of a large screen design. If Samsung had kept going with the F700 look, I don't think Apple would have ever filed suit. It's when they literally started looking like *iPhones*, combined with Androids IOS ripoff, the problem arose. To me, those pictures from Samsungs side further prove how much the iPhone's *exact* look and nature changed around Samsung's approach completely.

 

[Monster]

Well I think the F700 and the iPhone looks quite similar to each other. What do you mean when you say it looks 'old guard' ? The F700 is 5 years old, of course it looks old, same with the first generation of iphone. The overall shape of the phones are the same, the parameter of the phones are surrounded by a shiny trim, the shape of the speaker is the same, and they are positioned at the same location relative to the rest of the phone. They both have a single 'home' button at the bottom of the phone, Samsung used a rectangular button, Apple used a circular one. The iphone is a little slimmer and has a wider screen, that is about it. Because the original versions of the Samsung phone and the i phone look so similar, it is not surprising to see the newer versions of their phones continue to look similar to each other.

 

[K-A]

When talking phones, and this statement can benefit both sides (Apple/Samsung), it's hard to make anything that's a touch screen look drastically different....

Now that said, Apple's iPhone clearly is the "new era" that ushered in the *distinct* high-gloss, streamlined, etc, etc, look of modern phones that Samsung has cloned so staunchly, it's actually hard to tell a new iPhone apart from a new Samsung (until you hold them and realize one's plastic and one high quality glass, but the reason Samsung doesn't copy that I'm sure is due to keeping costs down while Apple doesn't penny pinch on hardware quality). The larger screen, the IOS style display, etc. aren't quite there on the F700. By "old guard" I mean it still looks like an evolution of a phone that you can buy in the early 2000's. The iPhone basically showed them how it's done, and they instantly made phones that looked exactly like the *iPhone*, not like the F700 (which came out at the same time as the iPhone, so it's not like Apple released theirs years after using the Samsung blueprint). The graphics, etc. on the iPhone are incomparable to the Samsung.

Also, that picture is purposefully misleading, in that the F700 was unveiled AFTER the iPhone, so it wasn't pre-iPhone. It was what Samsung was doing at the EXACT same time as Apple, and the iPhone pictures shows how immediately influenced Samsung became, as their next models looked much more iPhone than F700.

This is why the case is so "grey", it comes down to what defines copying.

 

[K-A]

If you removed the more manipulative aspects of that last graph, you'd have this and it makes it much more clear I think.

 

[Monster]

When talking phones, and this statement can benefit both sides (Apple/Samsung), it's hard to make anything that's a touch screen look drastically different....

True

Now that said, Apple's iPhone clearly is the "new era" that ushered in the *distinct* high-gloss, streamlined, etc, etc, look of modern phones that Samsung has cloned so staunchly, it's actually hard to tell a new iPhone apart from a new Samsung (until you hold them and realize one's plastic and one high quality glass, but the reason Samsung doesn't copy that I'm sure is due to keeping costs down while Apple doesn't penny pinch on hardware quality).

Well I agree that Apple use top quality material to make their phone, but they charge customers more for it. As for the Apple having the superior hardware, I am not sure about the phone's internals, Samsung galaxy phones do have better on paper specifications than the iphone, but the iphone has better software integration with the hardware so that helps to minimise the on paper disadvantages.

The larger screen, the IOS style display, etc. aren't quite there on the F700. By "old guard" I mean it still looks like an evolution of a phone that you can buy in the early 2000's. The iPhone basically showed them how it's done, and they instantly made phones that looked exactly like the *iPhone*, not like the F700 (which came out at the same time as the iPhone, so it's not like Apple released theirs years after using the Samsung blueprint). The graphics, etc. on the iPhone are incomparable to the Samsung.
Also, that picture is purposefully misleading, in that the F700 was unveiled AFTER the iPhone, so it wasn't pre-iPhone. It was what Samsung was doing at the EXACT same time as Apple, and the iPhone pictures shows how immediately influenced Samsung became, as their next models looked much more iPhone than F700.
This is why the case is so "grey", it comes down to what defines copying.

I understood what you are saying, the iphone is Apple's first attempt at creating their own phone, it is their vision of what the next generation of phone should look and function. It is evident that Samsung and Apple was following the same development path, but Apple had a much clearer, broader idea, and their product execution was much better. I agree that even though the two companies were on the same path, Samsung was a step behind, they have underestimated the potential of these new 'smart' phones, and they did not put much emphasis on user friendliness.

As for the similarities between the iphone and the Galaxy phones, if you slim down the F700, give it a larger screen, then you will end up with the Galaxy S, so I would say it was a half coincidence, half deliberate attempt at imitating the iphone.

Now the legal proceedings gets even uglier...........The last section of the article is particularly interesting to read.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...ims-apple-ripped-off-sony-20120727-22xil.html

​

iPhony? Samsung claims Apple ripped off Sony​

​

Date​

July 27, 2012 - 12:02PM​

​

Asher Moses​

​

Technology Editor​

​

View more articles from Asher Moses​

Follow Asher on Twitter Email Asher​

​

iPhone prototypes from 2006 revealed by Samsung in court documents. Left model was inspired by Sony, while the one on the right resembled an iPod Mini.​

Apple's early iPhone prototypes were inspired by Sony, while Samsung knew its tablets and smartphones were virtually indistinguishable from Apple's but launched them anyway, court documents reveal.

A US jury trial in the high stakes patent infringement battle between Apple and Samsung begins on Monday, and both have filed their trial briefs. Among court documents is a slew of photographs of iPhone and iPad prototypes, first revealed by The Verge.​

Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly twenty years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung's patented technology.​

In Australia, after the High Court in December overturned a decision to ban the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from sale, the Federal Court is now hearing Samsung's counter-claim that Apple infringed Samsung's patents related to 3G communications technology.

​

Another early iPhone prototype, this one resembling recent Nokia phones.​

Australian patent lawyer Mark Summerfield, senior associate at Watermark, said he did not expect the US case to affect the case in Australia as in the US the hearing would be concerned with Apple's "design patents" protecting the physical appearance of products, whereas the case in Australia concerned their function.

Advertisement​

Apple's US trial brief, obtained by The Wall Street Journal's AllThingsD blog, reveals the company will rely on internal Samsung emails showing the similarity of Samsung's products to Apple's is "no accident".​

"Rather, it results from Samsung's deliberate plan to free-ride on the iPhone's and iPad's extraordinary success by copying their iconic designs and intuitive user interface," Apple's brief reads.​

​

Samsung court docs show diagrams alleging it was working on iPhone-like designs before Apple's product launched.​

"Apple will rely on Samsung's own documents, which tell an unambiguous story."

The company is asking for Samsung to pay damages of $US2.5 billion to cover its estimated lost profits.​

Among the documents is one from February 2010 showing Google warned Samsung that its Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1 products (code-named P1 and P3) were "too similar" to the iPad. It demanded "distinguishable designs".​

​

This iPhone prototype looks like the first iPhone that was released by the company but has square corners.​

Another from 2011 shows Samsung's Product Design Group noted it was "regrettable" that the Galaxy S "looks similar" to older iPhone models.

Furthermore, third-party designers warned Samsung that the Galaxy S "looked like it copied the iPhone too much". They warned that "all you have to do is cover up the Samsung logo and it's difficult to find anything different from the iPhone".​

Samsung hit back with its own court filing, seen by Fairfax Media, claiming that Apple's iPhone wasn't its own invention but in fact based on Sony products.​

​

Early iPads were designed with kickstands.​

In 2006, the year before the iPhone was launched, Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori was directed to design an iPhone prototype inspired by Sony. The Apple prototypes even had the "Sony" logo bar one which was renamed "Jony" after Apple design chief Sir Jonathan Ive.

Compared to Apple's own internal prototype that looked like an iPod Mini, Apple designer Richard Howarth noted the Sony-inspired designs allowed for a "much smaller-looking product with a much nicer shape".​

One bears a striking resemblance to the iPhone 4 and was described by Howarth as "only half a step away from the current model".​

​

Early iPads were designed with kickstands.​

Other internal Apple emails contained in Samsung's brief showed Apple employees claiming that the iPhone's features weren't first to the market but instead the "first successful versions of many features".

Samsung also tabled its own internal documents from 2006 purportedly showing that it was working on iPhone-style designs "well before the iPhone was announced". It claims much of what Apple complains of is Samsung simply "benchmarking" products against competitors, which Apple also practices.​

"Samsung has been researching and developing mobile telecommunications technology since at least as early as 1991 and invented much of the technology for today's smartphones," Samsung claims​

​

​

​

​

Apple's Sony-inspired "Jony" iPhone prototype.​

"Indeed, Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly 20 years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung's patented technology."

A US federal court judge this week sanctioned Samsung for destroying email evidence relevant to the case, saying the company "failed to prevent" its destruction.​

Patent lawyer Summerfield said settlement talks between Samsung and Apple appeared to have failed because Apple believes its patents are worth significantly more than the Samsung patents involved in the case.​

Since Samsung's technology forms an essential part of 3G, unlike Apple, it has already previously agreed to make its patents available to all comers on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms.​

"The fact that it [Samsung] cannot deny a licence to a good-faith requester may mean that the court will not grant an injunction, which weakens Samsung's negotiating position," he said.​

"Apple seems to hold the view that standards-essential patents are inherently less valuable than its user-experience patents. I am not persuaded that this is the case.​

"Samsung has invested huge sums of money over two decades in its contributions to mobile communications technology, and to suggest that a licence covering the huge number of patents (hundreds?) it owns in this area should be much cheaper than a license to a handful of Apple UX patents fails to recognise this reality."​

Federal Court Justice Annabelle Bennett recently labelled Samsung and Apple's patent dispute over the 3G wireless transmission technology "ridiculous" and said it might be best settled in mediation.​

In the US, Judge Lucy Koh in California already tried to resolve the issue via mediation but it did not work.​

​

​

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/iphony-samsung-claims-apple-ripped-off-sony-20120727-22xil.html#ixzz21nkoO7Mj​

 

[Monster]

More photos of the i phone prototype with the Sony name, very very strange indeed.



http://www.engadget.com/photos/iphone-cad-drawings-and-prototypes/