Posts by Mark . 1810 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
And a Samsung or HTC phone with that design that predates it is still prior art, even if they have other differences like slide out keyboard.
Not to mention that the idea of patenting designs is ludicrous, whoever thought of it first. The only concern should be trademarks, which adequately covers the issue of customers being confused (hint, if they only get confused when you start covering up logos, they're not confused).
Here's the thing - tablets were around, and mainstream, years before Apple. The most obvious example being smartphones (a smartphone is still a type of tablet - especially if all we're talking about are the physical design/look, rather than whether it has one particular feature). But also non-phone tablets, which were more commonly known as media players or Internet tablets in the past, e.g., Archos tablets in 2009, Nokia Maemo tablets before that, or even Apple's own Ipod Touch - and many other handheld computing devices years before that (e.g., touchscreen PDAs in the early 2000s).
The Ipad was only different to these in that it was 10", rather than smaller. But if you're going to claim that that makes a significant difference, then you've lost the argument - as by the same logic, surely Samsung's smartphones today (4.8") are different to any Iphone produced by Apple (a piddly 3.5").
Furthermore, if rumours about Apple releasing a 4" Iphone, or a 5-6" Ipad "mini" are true, then surely again by this reasoning, Samsung should be able to sue Apple for being first with designs of that size (the Galaxy S, and Galaxy Note)? You can't have it both ways. Will we see Apple forced to pay royalties to Samsung for these products, or else have them banned?
Not this FUD again. Most phones don't run vanilla Android - the releases of TouchWiz etc came much more recently. To expect Samsung to build and test their OS, on all their devices, the moment vanilla Android is released, shows a shocking ignorance of software development.
If you're an Android user who wants the vanilla Android release the moment it appears, then go buy a Google Nexus phone. Otherwise, there's nothing to complain about.
Suppose that Android wasn't open source, and wasn't available to anyone in vanilla form - instead it was a collaboration between Google and manufacturers like Samsung and HTC. Would people still be picking on the date that Google finished their work? No. Yet the situation in reality is no practical difference to this.
It would only be a problem if this process meant Android phones got features months after other platforms. But the evidence is that this isn't the case - on the contrary, it's IOS users that get features years behind the competition. Who cares if the updates happen within days of the OS release, if you've had to wait years for the OS to include basic things like copy/paste, multitasking or apps?
Having people on different compatible versions is not fragmentation - no one talks about fragmentation of Windows or OS X.
"Fragmentation" is also spin, as fragment implies small. The vast dominance of Android means that even Samsung TouchWiz along outsells the IPhone platform. It's Iphone which is a small fragment by comparison.
The only thing I'd agree on is it's annoying when the networks hold up the updates - not sure why this happens, or is allowed. And I'd also criticise that some low end Android phones still are being released with 2.x (or were, until very recently). But the "ICS released a year ago", or spinning it as "fragmentation", is just FUD.
But the flip side is, if you're complaining about bugs in your phone, why are people calling for Samsung to rush out with ICS or JB updates ASAP, from the moment Google releases it, never mind that they have to put their own OS and UI on top of it, and test it? That's a receipe for far worse user experience.
The "x% of people update IOS within so many days" stats are unfair, as it doesn't count all the testing that Apple do.
Maybe some of us are competent developers who can cope targetting more than one version of an OS.
And who cares if people leave a platform because they can't make money from applications that people don't want. Either offer something or value, or I'll enjoy the vast amount of software available for free. (Indicidentally, I've seen similar articles about "apps" being a hopeless investment for Apple too, so there's nothing special about Apple. The only ones who make the money are Google, Nokia, Apple etc, due to the 30% profit they get to cream off of everyone else's work.)
I agree it's unfair that people criticise WP 7 vs 8. Just because some of us object to nonsensical Android criticism, doesn't mean we're "fans" who hate everything else.
The catch is that Android is so popular that even one of those "fragments" is bigger than the IPhone platform. Similar for say Windows Vista onwards versus OS X. So even if you decide to restrict what you can develop for, it's still worth doing it, more than for the Apple platforms.
And I'm not sure Apple is so much more easier. That argument worked with the original Iphone, but now we've got 5 Iphones, and I think 3 Ipads. Soon they may release a "mini" Ipad too to the mix. Not to mention all the various Ipod Touches. There are countless Macs too, which have used different chipsets over the years (e.g., NVIDIA and Intel). So I'm not convinced at all that the hardware is easier to support.
This argument really only works for consoles, where you just focus on particular device, and forget about the older ones the moment the new one is released. But whilst people might write a game for "X Box 360" say, I'm not sure developers want to only write for "Iphone 4S" or "Ipad 3" or whatever the latest version is.
According to the Apple-loving BBC you mean.
The reason it's harder to make money, is there's plenty of free stuff there. That's *good* for consumers. Sure, on Apple you can get away with charging loads for a sat nav software, when Android and Nokia get it for free. Why is that a plus for Apple users, exactly?
For whatever reasons, there are plenty of Android developers writing software for free or low cost. If that pushes down the ability to make a profit, then great. That's what you get with a mature popular OS, that's well supported by developers.
There were rectangular phones with rounded corners before Iphone 1, just as there were phones with touchscreens, including full size ones. And there have continued to be a variation of phone styles since 2007 too. I'm not sure what you mean by a "Blackberry knockoff", or have against Blackberry anyway - I'd rather draw from that OS, than IOS. Thankfully Android did follow in the steps of the existing mainstream platforms like Symbian, not IOS. As a result, it didn't lag years behind in basic things like 3G, copy/paste or apps, and became the successful number one platform, unlike IOS.
As for looks, companies were well aware of people buying phones based on looks or coolness long before Apple. I mean for heaven's sake, that's business and marketing 101. There were plenty of good looking phones before 2007, and there have been plenty of ugly looking phones since (including Apple since Iphone 4 - it has an ugly profile, tiny screen, and the obvious logo looks like a tacky fridge magnet, one that exists only to be a commercial advert for Apple).
If Samsung broke some court rules, fine them for that (though I still find it unethical that they were forced into this farce in the first place, I'd add - and it's unclear why putting their own documents into the public domain is wrong when they aren't court evidence - why should they be censored?). But granting Apple a win has far reaching implications.
I mean seriously, let's do a reality check here - "Samsung broke the rules, therefore let's give Apple a monopoly on rounded rectangles"?!
Firstly it is an immensely disproportionate punishment, considering the billions at stake from losing. It is also a punishment for users, the tens of millions of us who buy Samsung products (more than Apple). I don't want the products I love banned, nor do I want *my* money going to Apple (well, I'm in the UK, but it isn't fair for US Samsung users). And what are the implications for other companies that Apple might demand money from, because they also have rounded rectangular devices?
A fair trial is already impossible for Samsung, due to the endless Apple hype we've had for the last 5 or more years. E.g., last night on the TV[*] I noted that practically *every other advert* was giving a free advert to Apple, whether it was "Get this app on your Iphone/Ipad" or showing the obvious tacky light up Apple logo on a laptop, or mentioning Apple products by brandnames whilst other products are generic (Iphone vs phone, Ipad vs tablet, Mac vs PC or laptop), or obligitary mentions (one insurance advert goes to mention "your Ipod" as an example they'll cover, and then follows that with "your Iphone" - sorry, like most people, I don't have an Iphone). All this, despite Android having the largest smartphone share, over 50%; despite even one Android phone company alone outselling Iphone; despite Iphone never having been number one (it was Symbian before); despite Windows laptops being more common than Ipads; despite the outrage we get if a company dares to only cater for the mere 90% of Windows users, but forgets the 10% of Mac users - but apparently, catering for the 10% of Iphone users only is okay.
There is simply no comparison to criminal trials - it would be as if every other advert on TV was saying "This guy [defendant in a case] is a great guy!", with the near entire media going on about how he's innocent. That would already be contempt. Yet we're meant to believe that whilst that's okay, the jury will be biased instead from one single Samsung document?
[*] Sorry, "on my LG TV" - I need to start speaking like an Apple user.
I suspect any email policy is more to do with work processes than lack of space (e.g., avoiding people being bogged down with endless emails). Yes, I'd probably argue against such a system on the whole, but how a company chooses to operate is not up for us to question.
Having seen vanilla Android and TouchWiz, I don't see the latter as looking like IOS - does IOS even have homescreens yet, or are you still left with the poor solution of selecting from millions of rows of icons?
A few similarities doesn't mean an attempt to mislead consumers, and it's no different to the way that Apple introduce features that were first in other products (which they've done for large numbers of things in their phones).
Once again, the Apple fan labels other companies as "copying" for anything that Apple did earlier (even if they weren't first), yet ignores Apple for doing the same.
I can read (why is it that you can't debate without throwing insults all the time? You seem to be angry over this case), and I think this case and the claims are barmy. If you claim my understanding is incorrect, it's up to you to explain why - so far, you haven't.
Well hang on - if the jury is capable of listening without prejudice, why is it a problem for Samsung to publish material that won't be admitted in court? You can't have it both ways.
No I don't think it should be decided by people commenting here either. It shouldn't be a court case at all, anywhere.
(Actual so-called "fandroids" are very rare. Most the time it's people just fed up of the Apple hype all the time. Indeed it's funny you assume that if people don't support Apple, they must favour Android - a typical tactic to pretend they only have one competitor, to make Apple seem like a 50/50 choice. Personally I like other platforms too, be it Symbian, Windows or Linux.)
Samsung evidently don't have an in-house policy of keeping emails permanently.
I'm not saying no one should be allowed to sue anyone. I'm saying that, aside from this case being barmy from the outset, it's also sad Samsung's time and money has to be wasted like this.
You are a perfect example of someone who's been prejudiced by the years of media coverage of Apple, thus proving a fair trial isn't possible. Despite being shown factual evidence of countless phones that have used rectangles, rounded corners, full size touchscreens, any number of buttons, you still believe "Apple did it first", despite them being late to the party in 2007.
What is this "very specific design" you refer to?
I'm not commenting about how the law works - evidently the law does allow trials to be held over who invented rectangles, and for devices to be banned in the meantime. That doesn't mean we have to like it, or that the system isn't worthy of criticism and ridicule.
If the system is that one company can claim they thought of rectangular devices with round corners first (a dubious claim anyway given earlier devices on the market, and even if it was true, something that shouldn't be patentable anyway), and then the other company has to waste time and money on legal fees and red tape and employee training costs, rather than spending money on innovating, then yes, I find that rather sad.
True, but the problem is that by that argument, the media shouldn't be reporting anything else with respect to Apple or Samsung phones either. But I don't see them pausing on all the hype that Apple continues to receive.
The problem is that the issue of "smartphones from major multinationals", one of whom being the number one company (not Apple), is a far bigger issue than one single specific criminal event. Given the fanaticism over companies, especially Apple, it seems an impossible task to prevent any risk of jury prejudice over Apple versus Samsung, not to mention that such damage is already long done before the trial starts. Compared with most criminal trials, where this isn't an issue. This is particularly a problem given the prevalent "Apple did it first" myths, that are specifically relevant to this trial. (Not to mention that talking about this trial as if it were a criminal trial, not some company claiming it invented rectangles with rounded corners, is a bit mad imo...)
If risk of jury corruption is an issue, then this trial should be thrown out on the grounds that a fair trial is already impossible.
By "inadvertedly", you mean, automatically deleted as part of their standard practices for all emails.
But yes, obviously as soon as someone claims they invented the rectangle, Samsung should have to waste time and money saving every email for this farce of a trial. For some reason, Apple never have to go through this.
I'm confused - it's one thing to try to corrupt a jury, but why should information be *censored* to the public, just because of Apple? Sorry, that's a seriously different matter. It's bad enough we have this farce in the first place, but now Apple wants to twist what's allowed to be published, because it might challenge the RDF version of events?
If the argument is that information in the news might prejudice any jury, then why doesn't that argument apply to the vast amounts of wall-to-wall hype, bias and misinformation in favour of Apple in the press (especially the US)?
Surely by that argument, given the prevalent myth of Apple "inventing" everything to do with smartphones in 2007(!), then it's impossible for Samsung to ever get a fair trial. Any jury is going to be prejudiced against Samsung, since they'll believe that Apple were first with everything, and everyone else "copied". But no, one single piece of information slips that's in favour of Samsung, and that's the thing that upsets the judge? This just shows how impartial this trial isn't.
Indeed - although in fact, Google already have their "Google TV" platform.
It's not had much success so far, though I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes more common. LG are already planning to roll out Google TVs in the US, and may switch to it as their main platform.
Interesting point about the hardware upgrade slot - that solves the problem of hardware being out of date (the main advantage of separate boxes being you can upgrade the box without buying a whole new expensive TV).
Genuine question - what are the good things it does?
The thoughts I had were the cost. For £50-£100 you can get loads of boxes that do wireless and Internet streaming. For around £160 you can get the "smart TV" boxes from the likes of LG that also add things like applications. Yes having Android compatibility is a bonus, but I'm not sure worth paying that much money (plus LG will be switching to Google TV soon anyway, so I'd rather see what they produce). I have an LG smart TV, but am considering getting a box for a second existing TV in the bedroom. What is it that the Nexus Q does better, for the extra price?
Whilst I love my Samsung, I agree it is odd - I don't see anything bad about HTC. Even within Samsung's offering, it's amazing how different models get wildly different sales - e.g., the Samsung Galaxy Nexus didn't sell anywhere near much as the Samsung S2, despite the Nexus being newer and better hardware, which wasn't overtaken until the S3 was released. Either people really love Samsung's TouchWiz version of Android, or there is something about marketing.
It's not necessarily about media hype - the obvious counter examples being Apple and Nokia. Nokia were the number one company, now number two to Samsung, with their Symbian alone being the number one platform until 2011 (and it still after that outsold Apple until the WP switchover), yet Nokia got either little coverage, or when they did, it was hate spin from the media. Apple meanwhile have got vast amounts of hype since before the first IPhone was release, yet it's never been the number one platform, and it wasn't until 2011 that they managed sales anywhere near comparable to the mainstream players - in the early years, sales were abysmal, worse than Windows Mobile/Phone. And more recently, their sales have now been sliding by millions every quarter, despite the media hype continuing for Apple. Marketing is important I think, but thankfully people seem sick of the endless hyping of only certain companies by the media.
I'm glad that Android dominates - though I worry a risk if Samsung end up basically being the only notable Android manufacturer around. With Motorola and now HTC, Android doesn't seem to have been so great after all for most manufacturers (and Nokia's decision not to switch to Android doesn't look so mad after all).
I agree - though note the problem is not so much Apple being popular in the US (even in the US, Windows vastly outsells OS X; Android outdoes Iphone - Apple are a niche platform there as anywhere else), but that the Apple users are a lot more fanatical. To someone who owns a Samsung phone, TV, PC or whatever, it's just a phone, TV or PC - even if it's one they really like. To the Apple user, it's an "Iphone" or a "Macbook".
Also the problem that Apple fanatics seem devoted to the company, rather than the product. Never did the most fanatical Windows fan go "But look how much money MS make!" For Samsung or anyone else, people are fanatical about their products, but Apple fans will argue what's in the best interest of Apple as a company - which has implications for a trial.
"the fact is if Samsung did get the rectangular design first then apple have no right to use it"
And I wonder why Apple devices aren't being banned also in the meantime. If the argument is that whoever is first to design a rectangle should have a patent (which I think is ludicrous, but it's Apple's argument), then since there's just as much evidence that Samsung were first, why isn't that backfiring on Apple? If Samsung win, will they counter-sue Apple?
I agree (apart from the IPhone being a perk...)
There's the whole debate about juries and payment, the usual arguments being about one's social duty. But hang on a moment - it's one thing if we're talking about criminal offences, but should it really be a social duty for ordinary people have to sit out large companies' patent squabbles?
It's even more insidious when you consider the billions of dollars at stake, and the billions of dollars that Apple have stuffed in the bank. Meanwhile, ordinary people have to give up their time and livelihood, so that Apple can argue its way to stifle competition to make even more profit?
I mean, obviously I'd *love* to be on this jury to have my say, and evidently the "We're an Apple family" members won't have a problem either, but for most people who don't care, this seems rather unreasonable.
[snipped ad hominem]
If we have the same system just by a different name, why isn't the same thing happening here?
Any system that allows you to register and then get a monopoly on something as broad as "rectangular with rounded corners" is barmy, and worthy of criticism. Even more so if this is done at the design stage, and so as I say in my earlier post, nothing to do with the risk that people might be confused (i.e., issues that are covered by trademarks), but instead something that adversely affects other companies who are working on such obvious designs independently, but just happen to be later to "register" (or perhaps, they don't go in for this trolling).
So far, the claims (including from people like you) have all being to do with alleging that Samsung intentionally copied Apple in some hope to "steal" sales. Yet now it turns out we're back-pedalling, to say "Apple registered them earlier, so Samsung can't use the rectangle, even if they designed them independently before such designs were made public from Apple"? That claim might have a better chance of being true, but it's also a far more a ridiculous thing to ban Samsung from doing.
"Apple HAVEN'T patented round corners, they've patented a 3D shape."
I'm not sure if your post is a parody or not. The idea of patenting the cuboid is even more barmy than patenting rounded corners.
"It's quite possible to create a phone with rounded corners that doesn't infringe this patent."
Well yes, I can just see that spherical, dodecahedron and triangular prism phones being so workable. That's all we had, until Apple came along and showed us the cuboid...
And again, you have it backwards. Saying one can't make a cuboid-like phone is a far greater problem than saying one can't have rounded corners (though the latter is still ridiculous).
...perhaps those Samsung 2006 slides can put to rest the millions of fanatics claiming that Apple invented (or "popularised") touchscreen phones, or that other manufacturers only did it because of them.
As for the later slides from Apple - even if Apple also had designs earlier, surely this is missing the point? The claim that Samsung copied what Apple were selling in the marketplace seems an entirely different claim to saying that Apple were the first to work on such designs. I mean, supposedly what the US calls a "design patent" are what we call trademarks, but there's a significant difference. Only the former claim is a trademark issue, since there you're copying what's already being used in the marketplace. But saying you should be able to "own" a design, simply because you drew it first, similar to the way patents work, seems completely mad to me.
Seriously - are Apple claiming there was some espionage here, or that they should own the designs even if they were independently created?
Surely Samsung should also bring in the support of other companies here - even if Apple were before Samsung in initial designs, there were clearly other phones like this out in the marketplace years earlier (in patent cases, prior art can be shown from any company, not just the one defending). Touchscreens were a technology that had already been shown, and were clearly becoming more common - the idea that one company can own any design for this, years after others have brought it to market, is mad.
"The bitter international rivalry between the top smartphone and fondleslab makers "
But Nokia aren't causing problems here. I think you mean, rivalry between the number one, and a company that are third place, and have lost massive sales over the last few quarters. A drop of 10 million sales in a single quarter? It makes Nokia's slide look gentle!
And how is being rectangular with rounded corners not an essential part of a phone? I mean yes, you could work around it with oddities like sharp corners or triangular phones, but that's worse than missing out some of the standards that you list (evidently Apple fans have no problem with a phone lacking 3G, after all...)
Anyone would think this was an inquiry into a criminal investigation, not squabbling claims over the invention of the rectangle.
Maybe Samsung decided to focus on innovation, rather than wasting time training thousands of employees to save endless emails in case of bogus claims[*]. It's sad if the number one smartphone company is going to get dragged down, because employees are forced to change their practices, getting swamped in unnecessary old emails, just because other companies use their money for lawsuits.
Regarding the timescales - so if an individual sends an email to Apple claiming that said person invented the rectangle or whatever, this means Apple has to retain emails from that date, no matter how bogus the claim?
And hang on - if Samsung is disputing patents with Apple, why aren't all relevant Apple devices being banned in the US?
[*] Declared a fact to be bogus, in the UK.
How many were Ipod users? The thing is, by 2007, Apple had already built up a niche of Apple fanatics, even if they weren't using Macs.
Also note that it's not just about sales. The advantage that the original Iphone had was not the sales (the platform sold poorly back then, other companies sold and popularised smartphones way more than Apple), but the wall-to-wall endless hype in the media, even before it was released. Presumably due to Apple obsessed journalists.
How is the Ipod Touch not a tablet?
Tablets have been around, and mainstream, for years - we just gave them other names, like media players or smartphones. I remember looking at mp3 players in 2009, and noting that at the low end were simple small mp3 players, and at the high end you had devices that also played videos, on large screens, with Internet and apps. Tablets. Some ran Android, some ran other OSs. The only game changer recently has been Android, meaning that a decent OS is available for any hardware manufacturer to use to make tablets, rather than every manufacturer (Apple included) having to maintain their own proprietary OS.
I find it interesting that Apple fans don't call the Ipod Touch a tablet, surely that would make Apple look better, having released a mainstream tablet years ago? But no, the reason is that they'd then have to admit that tablets, Ipad included, are nothing new.
The Star Trek transporters weren't actually real, you know. On the other hand, the design of rectangles and rounded corners *was* real - whether it's in a film, or not. That's the difference. A working transporter would be an actual new invention - rectangles and rounded corners aren't.
"they'd have to prove everyone who bought a Samsung device would have gone out and bought the Apple equivalent instead (had the Samsung device not existed)."
Indeed, though it's even more than that - the claim isn't that Samsung devices aren't allowed to exist, but that they aren't allowed to have rectangular screens and rounded corners(!) So they have to prove that if Samsung had made it look different (e.g., non-rounded corners), that all those buyers would have gone and bought Apple devices. Essentially the claim is that all Samsung buyers were actually wanting to buy Ipads and Iphones, but were "confused" and accidently bought a Samsung device - yes, this claim is nuts.
Not that my Galaxy Nexus looks anything like a tiny Iphone. Aside from the obvious size issue, it doesn't have the tacky big logo on the back.
You're right - so I hope you believe that Apple should be paying customers like Archos, who were first to "invent" tablets with rectangular screens.
And if the rumours about the mythical Ipad Mini are true, I hope Apple are ready to pay whichever company was first to make a tablet of that size (and size is important - if not, then an Ipad was no different to the tablets more commonly known as smartphones, "invented" years before Apple by companies like Nokia and Samsung).
And if the mythical Iphone 5 ever finally arrives, and goes for a 4" screen, then again it looks like they'll have to be paying money to someone like Samsung, because it wasn't Apple who first "invented" a 4" phone.
Any Android phone automatically syncs with Google's servers.
Admittedly I was surprised that my Google Nexus had no PC software whatsoever, having previously enjoyed the useful software that came with my earlier Nokia 5800. But still, I can see the reasoning - your average user is better off just syncing with Google as it works automatically and easily, and anyone competent enough to worry about connecting their phone to their PC is competent enough to either drag and drop, or use whatever 3rd party software they like. It supports the open standard of MTP, so any media software supporting that should surely work fine? (And if Itunes doesn't support the open standard that is MTP, I'd say that's Itunes that is at fault. There is other software that will do the job.)
Indeed - never in the most heated Windows vs Linux/Mac/Amiga/whatever debates in the 90s did I hear a Windows fan go "But look how much money Bill Gates makes!"
The way the media now treat technology companies like sports, as if we care about which one is doing better, is odd. It's only Apple fans that have recently tried that tactic. The rest of us, even those of us who get fanatical about technology, care about the end products, and how things look and compare for the consumer. If Nokia make phones at lower profits than Apple, that's good for consumers - yet recently the media spun that story as negative press for Nokia and positive for Apple. If Android or Windows runs on loads of devices, that's good for consumers - we don't care that Apple's model makes more money for them. The only people who should care are Apple shareholders - and if those are journalists, that's a conflict of interest anyway.
Except there are plenty of high end Android phones (e.g., the S3), and plenty of cheaper Iphones (anything pre-4S - I've seen even the 3GS still on sale).
People buy Android (or Symbian, WP, BlackBerry etc) for many reasons - because they want that phone, because they believe it's better. That such platforms deliver the product that consumers want, at a lower cost than Apple, is an extra benefit on top of that.
1. You're comparing Apple's entire phone sales, to one single Samsung Android model.
2. I don't know, why don't we use actual facts rather than guessing?
3. As I explain in my other post, comparing sales of single models is a poor way to judge anything, and biased towards Apple. Not sure why being "cheap" is a problem - firstly, Apple's older phones also sell more cheaply. Secondly, if Samsung are able to deliver what customers want, at a lower cost than competitors, then that's something they should be praised for. Thirdly, even if you did compare only the expensive phones, it's not clear to me that Apple would outsell Samsung (since Samsung have other expensive phones, whilst Apple do not). Not sure why you dismiss the Bada smartphone OS either - that Samsung offer phones on a range of platforms demonstrates the diversity they have in their products. Bada alone sells at least as much as what IPhone did for its early years, yet the media barely mention Bada, whilst IPhone got nothing but hype from the start.
Indeed. There's some referenced sales figures at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Historical_sales_figures - interesting to see how Android has left everything else, IOS included, behind in the dust. Also interesting to see how Symbian dominated before that, not Apple. Sad that the picture we've got from mainstream media reporting of the last 5 years has been so biased, and not at all representative of the actual true picture.
And still I see all these adverts for websites/services going only "Get this on your IPhone" - barely 20% of the market, outsold over 2 to 1 by Android, and with probably still a smaller installed userbase than Symbian.
"Not quite keeping up with the iPhone 4S" is a completely biased comparison - Apple only have one phone per generation, where Samsung have loads.
The only useful stats are either comparing by platform (Android is way ahead of IPhone), or by company (where Apple are third behind Samsung and Nokia). Comparing by individual phone models is a useless stat, as it means that it's biased towards a company that has fewer models. *Worse*, it depends on how the models are labelled. Samsung and Nokia typically give different model names for small variations, whilst Apple don't. Why should a model have a different name just because it has a faster CPU, but not if it has more storage space, for example?
Any metric that can be changed simply by conducting a relabelling exercise is useless. If one ice cream company sells 100 cones, whilst another one sells 90 cones without flake, and 90 cones with flake, only a spin artist would suggest that the former is doing better!
I also note that this article doesn't say the IPhone 4S is selling better, it merely handpicks the statistic of selling X in so many days, which Apple always do better on (because the fanatics rush out and buy it immediately).
It's interesting to look at the history of Apple media coverage:
1. IPhone is number one (conveniently forget about Symbian, number one until 2011).
2. IPhone is outselling Android (conveniently forget about Symbian).
3. Okay, Android is outselling IPhone, but Apple are still the number one company (conveniently forget about Nokia)!
4. Okay, Samsung is way outselling Apple - but IPhone 4S is still selling more than Samsung Galaxy S3!!!
What will happen when the S3 is outselling the 4S (which is already happening in some markets, e.g., the top model in the UK for a year has been the S2 and now the S3)? My guess is the media will then switch to "Iphone 5 outsells Galaxy Note 2" - already the media are making the comparisons, since these two phones are expected to be released around similar times.
"making it the most popular smartphone series in the world"
Talking about a "series" is even more meaningless than models. Why do all of Apple's phones count as a single "series", but not all of Samsung's Android phones? The fact is that Samsung have been selling more smartphones than Apple (and that's before we get to the point that "smartphone" is ill-defined - why is the original Iphone, which couldn't even do apps, a smartphone, whilst many phones get labelled "feature" phones? This just means that 100% of Apple phones get compared to only a minority of Samsung's and Nokia's). It's kind of sad that stories about the immense success of Android and Samsung have to be blighted by this attempt to hand-pick stats to go on about Apple all the time, and make them look better (and I'm not just talking about this story - The Reg are one of the better places for fairly covering all the technology companies, the problem is more with the rest of the mainstream media).
I must have missed that decade of non-rectangular tablets. What a shame, a world of triangular and oval screens would be quite interesting, even if completely pointless and unusable for a computer.
"but Apple have shown that this form factor along with many many other elements combined make a viable consumer product - so the copycat manufacturers without the time or skill to do advanced industrial design, move into the market and copy."
Yes, clearly it takes great skill to think to make a tablet (which has on it not much more than a screen) the same shape as a computer screen. Obviously no one would have thought that a rectangle would be the best way to make a viable consumer product. I mean: TV - rectangle; monitor - rectangle; phone - rectangle. I can see why most people would be confused as to what form a tablet screen should take. I'm glad we have Apple to help us out.
"The laws exist to afford protection, so the lawmakers must have considered those protections desirable. Commentards on The Register might view it differently"
Um, the law has ruled that Samsung didn't copy. But you're the one here commenting, trying to argue different...
" and stylus tap-drag to unlock has been around for ages, it's nothing new that a finger replaces the stylus; thus some form of prior art exists"
And surely in addition, any device with a touchscreen works with a finger, even if it comes with a stylus - thus the question of whether a user uses finger or stylus really is irrelevant. (Or were there devices that only detected touch from a stylus? I'm only aware of the resistive style touchscreens that respond to anything.)
I do hope you criticised Iphone 4 for changing the resolution then. And I expect you to be first in line to criticise the Iphone "5" if it's ever released, if it has a different screen size. That's before we mention the many Ipads, all with different resolutions, and a completely different whopping 10" screen size.
And different Iphones have different CPU speeds, so they already have that so-called "fragmentation" at all.
"I'm also not saying that there aren't ways round these, there may be, but I'm not a programmer."
I am a programmer. Different resolutions or screen sizes aren't a problem. It isn't simply a case of "working round them" - rather, it isn't an issue in most cases full stop. You don't design software in "pixels" these days, you just lay out the UI that you want. And in any cases where resolution might be an issue, then you'd have the same problem with the different models of IOS devices too.
The only platform which doesn't have resolution "fragmentation" is Symbian, which standardised on 640x360 for the last 5 years, and is only used for 3.2"-4" devices, rather than tiny to large like IOS. Funny how I don't hear Apple fans praising Symbian over IOS for this - once again, made up criticisms like "fragmentation" only work if they make Apple look better.
"a phone it's a mini tablet"
That makes no sense. If it's a phone, it's not a tablet by definition. Although reasonably we might refer to phones as being tablets too, that applies to all phones. I'd call 3-4" "mini"; over 5" is getting more towards mid-range.
(The idea of "tablet" meaning "big" has no basis in historical usage - any handheld device that wasn't a phone is a tablet. It's only Apple who decided to make an absurdly big tablet.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
