Editorial

Would you mind being more original, Samsung?

It’s no secret Samsung and Apple are not getting along too well at the moment. In fact, it might be one of the least well hidden disputes of 2011. By the looks of things it seems to be a trend continuing into 2012; I have to ask why.

I don’t consider myself a fanboy to any brand. My family have had plenty of Samsung phones over the years, my own phone (the Galaxy Ace), is just another phone in the line. I do think, though, that Samsung have picked a fight they’re not going to win by choosing Apple as their target. Like I said, I consider myself impartial on the topic of companies. Brand loyalty is something I can understand but do not follow too closely. If I can get a better product at a similar price I see no reason to shoot yourself in the foot. In fact, before I bought the Galaxy Ace I now own, I was considering an HTC Wildfire or an iPhone 3GS.

I understand there are people who are fanatically devoted to their company of choice; while I don’t understand why, I won’t argue against their views. Samsung’s advertising has slowly become more antagonistic towards Apple, and the patent war isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. At the end of the day, competition is good for the consumer, but there is a limit to competition. At some point people are going to be turned away from the competitors for their obsession with beating each other. That's when competition becomes bad for business.

Samsung’s advertising is a good example of this. They clearly are competing against Apple, and the majority of phone manufacturers are competing against each other. The difference is that other phone manufacturers don’t make it so clear they want to fight against Apple. Whether you like or loathe Apple they have done a lot to the world of mobile phones since the original release of the iPhone. The iPhone has been immensely successful and that cannot be denied, even among Android fans. It has done a lot to change the world of phones, and everyone wants a piece of the touch-screen pie.

Now's the chance to prove it, Samsung.

I’m not going to get into the whole design debate which exists between Samsung and Apple in particular, for one reason in particular. That reason? I honestly couldn’t care less if their phones look similar. Sure, a ‘Shenzhen Special’ (a term I rather enjoyed from Joseph Finder's novel Buried Secrets, and am now shamelessly borrowing) is an exception to that rule, since it deliberately tries to be as close to the original design as possible to cheat people out of their money.

If you’re looking to buy a phone you will do your research and you will know what you want, so if you’re buying from a reputable seller you won’t be ripped off. If you’re trying to buy a cheap iPhone from Dodgy Dave down the road, you’re taking your own risk, so don’t be surprised if it runs Windows Mobile 6.5.

Phone design must be functional, and evidently, the common form factor shared by Apple and Samsung is functional. If it wasn’t it wouldn’t appeal, but I’m not going to argue about design. It all goes a long way in making a popular device. My main problem doesn’t lie with the design, with the silly patent wars, or the obsession with one-upping each other – but it does lie with the marketing. Specifically, Samsung’s marketing. Samsung does a lot of things right in the technology industry, but their advertising could do with an upgrade. Most of their current approaches seem to ape their rivals.

Two of the worst examples of Samsung’s advertising, in my own opinion, are fairly recent. I’m speaking about the concept of being ‘Samsunged’, and the ‘Smoked by not-quite Windows Phone’ campaigns. I am assuming a lot of the direction taken in advertising is coming down to the shareholders, since I don’t want to think Samsung’s advertising agencies are as uninspired as waiting for a competitor to make a move before following.

Advertising isn’t hard. You find something which is a big spectacle, and then you make use of it. For example, the Super Bowl in America is a golden opportunity. Samsung even realised this... then decided to make their advert slot a jibe at Apple fans. There are a literally infinite number of possibilities, and this was apparently their best. I’m not a fan of marketing buzzwords in general, but it seems to be a popular method of advertising. Even Apple have succumbed to creating the word ‘resolutionary’, so presumably there's something to it. I still think it's the stupidest method of advertising possible, but all the same, I'll overlook it.

I can think of at least three different openings in the world of advertising which aren’t occupied, and could easily allow Samsung to slot in and make a creative mark. How hard would it be, honestly, to get some celebrities to speak highly of your devices? It might be costly, but you'd probably offset the costs. Marketing a phone to teenage girls suddenly becomes a whole lot easier if Lady Gaga approves of it. There are plenty of celebrities out there, and Samsung could choose even a handful to help advertise their flagship phone. Speaking of their flagship, I’m not sure whether it’s the Galaxy Note, Nexus, or SII. It might be all three.

Running through my head, it would not be at all difficult to find celebrities or musicians who appeal to an audience. It really does seem to be as easy as looking through the music charts and Twitter trends for a name. In the UK, you could have One Direction, JLS, or another band with an almost cultish following promoting your devices. Thousands of sales made in about a week with one campaign. You could have a Justin Bieber promotion anywhere in the world, and it would also sell.  I’m not denying it would be costly, but since Apple haven’t done this it would probably cost less than conceding another lawsuit when they inevitably get riled up again.

My second idea is to sponsor sporting events, and do it properly this time. The phone advertised at the Super Bowl, the Galaxy Note, couldn’t have been advertised in a worse manner. I’m not a sporting person, but I know soccer has a massive following, so why not capitalise on that? A Samsung logo here and there around the pitch as well as on a uniform would work wonders on convincing sports fans they need a Samsung phone.

If they really wanted they could probably strike up a deal in NASCAR, Formula 1, or any other automotive racing league, and sell to a more dedicated bunch of petrolheads. Continuing on with my first idea, how hard would it be to get a few people from your sponsor to speak? If Sebastian Vettel said to buy a Galaxy SII, someone would buy a Galaxy SII. Jimmie Johnson advises you get a Galaxy Nexus? There’ll be a Nexus sold. Celebrities are a great tool for marketing; after all, they're marketed themselves.

While I'm on the subject of sports, Samsung proved valuable in getting the 2018 Winter Olympics held in Pyeongchang, South Korea. I'll guess there will be plenty of Samsung advertising at that, but why wait? It is one event and it isn't going to be held until just under six years time. Now is the time to get marketing. Don't wait six years because the entertainment market could have changed then. It's better a company begins immediately than sits complacently.

The third idea of my trilogy is some more human marketing. Case in point: did you ever know Samsung make cars? Since 1994 they’ve been in a 20-80% partnership with Renault, making cars for sale in the South Korean market specifically. A company begins to sacrifice identity when it forgets its market. The solution to that is to actually give a company an identity. This is definitely the most risky of my three suggestions, since Saab tried to do the same thing by comparing their cars to their military aircraft. Nobody bought a 9-3 because it could shoot down aircraft in a dogfight. It can backfire, but hasn't attacking Apple?

This ad actually aired in the late 1980s. It's cool but how does it actually sell the car?

If they could appeal then they could do a lot more. Consumer oriented marketing isn’t a new thing, and I know Microsoft trademarked the term ‘People Powered Stories’, so the idea has been floating around for a while. To my knowledge though, Samsung could be the first to actually show employees and consumers talking about the company. An advert showing a worker in a plant assembling a phone could do the trick. Have the worker explaining what he likes about Samsung and give it a whole, feel-good atmosphere with some happy music in the background. As the Kony 2012 campaign shows, you can really impress anything upon people if it's done well.

Have a customer who is a music lover talking about why he loves his phone for its camera, and give it some music. It really doesn't seem too hard to do. In fact, you could have the Samsung CEO appearing in an advert. Everyone knows Steve Ballmer and Tim Cook as the two faces of the new breed over at Microsoft and Apple, but could you name Samsung's CEO? The company has grown a little bit faceless. I actually had to check online, and it seems the CEO is Lee Kun-hee.

Considering he was able to turn his company from a low-quality electronics manufacturer to a worldwide company with the quote, "Change everything except your wife and kids", seeing him recounting the change to a top-class company with pride in a 45-second advertising slot would give the company a little more identity. The quote has a bit of humor to it, and that could be instrumental.

The quote proves that Kun-hee has been able to reinvent his company in the past, revitalising everything about it. If he could do it in the past and change everything it should not be hard for him to do it again, changing only the advertising. Samsung is in an excellent position in terms of hardware. All they need to do is get into such a good position in terms of advertising and doors will open.

I’m not saying my ideas are feasible, but to continue with the derivative advertising campaigns isn’t going to help the company any. As I said at the beginning of this article I am no fanboy, but I like to see a company standing on its own two feet. Samsung are resting on their laurels, waiting for opportunities to feed off their competitors, and I don’t think it works. It might give the impression of a company who keep an eye on their competitors, but die-hard fans of Apple would argue they’re doing more than keeping an eye on their competitors and the trail they’re following.

Samsung’s fixation on fighting Apple isn’t going to work. It might work now but their phone line-up is downright confusing. They released the Samsung Galaxy Pocket just recently and it’s little more than a budget Android device bearing plenty of similarities to the older Galaxy Europa. Less is more in many places: the flood of models isn’t helping, nor is the advertising campaign which boldly goes where everyone has been before.

Remind me again, are you a Galaxy Pocket or a Europa?

Originality is key in succeeding. If you can’t make it entirely original at least differentiate yourself a bit. There’s nothing original about the Europa hardware or the Pocket which it has stemmed, nor is there anything original about taking an original idea from another company and making it into your own. Samsung do a lot of things right, but the advertising really cripples any and all existing potential.

Perhaps the worst thing is that Samsung have shown themselves to be capable of so much more than they're currently doing. They have the Galaxy Beam, the Galaxy Nexus, the Galaxy SII, the Galaxy Note, and a handful of tablets. Flooding the market doesn't help supply and demand as a concept. You have the supply, but where's the demand? Nobody asked for the Galaxy Ace to be replaced by the Galaxy Ace+ less than a year later. Nobody bought a Europa and thought to themselves, "You know? I really must buy a phone with similar hardware two years down the line".

William Bernbach, a man who knew a lot more about advertising than I ever will (he led the VW Beetle advertising campaign in the 1960s), said this: “Advertising doesn't create a product advantage. It can only convey it”. Samsung would be wise to remember this when they try to copy and convey in the future. If you advertise your product as having an advantage (properly this time, guys), then you will have an advantage.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Hackers slip into Digital Playground, steal credit card info

Next Story

Mass Effect 3 review: the ultimate ultimatum

41 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Well written editorial. You might be interested to know that Samsung is actually sponsoring the angry birds space game. They seem to be advertising the note. Just check out the Facebook fan page of angry birds.

Well-written and some good points, however the ideas for alternative marketing are the most unoriginal ever.

I'm not generally a fan of marketing that disses another company or product, but the Samsung ads are actually funny and do have some truth to them. If people think they're funny, they share them and they remember them.

Bashing a competitor has nothing to do with originality - it's how they go about it.

Samsung could certainly do a lot better in defining who they are and how the brand presents to consumers, but they do seem to be focused on providing "choice", something that companies like Apple don't really have (or need...). This does dilute their brand image though.

I do agree with the idea of giving a "face" to Samsung, as people tend to not trust companies that seem to be faceless.

TBH who is really bothered? I prefer Apple products as that is what works for me but surely these companies can advertise any way they want to! Plus if they copy then they deal with patents. It's how business is done now unfortunately.

So, a display that could be rolled into a tube and a screen extension that covers the entire phone are not original enough for you?

So this is a TL;DR that basically rants about samsung ADS make it clear they are fighting against apple, yet you dont care that their products look externally the same? Meh.

Sprint also has ads targeting the other big players by their names and nobody gives a crap. I mean, its ads.

Before everyone argue that Samsung or whatever asian company make cheap plastic phones, you should go and live in Asia for a while. People there are capable to be way more creative than you think. They like to take existed things and try to make them cheaper to give everyone access to stuffs that they normally won't be able to. That even helped to make the whole internet, social networks and social media so rich as it is today. For most of the ppl they would say "this do just fine for me". They want to show ppl that there is plenty of room for optimizing prices and ppl needs. As a company, you give what ppl want (or could want) and make money; what's wrong with that?

The whole brand vs brand war thing is the result of an urge of people trying to be different and individual no matter what (even if it's just the color, the name, Lady GaGa outfits,....). That gives companies markets to emerge different products.

The thing that makes us human beings so bad creatures is that we are emotional and rational at the same time. If we are only rational, we wouldn't even need to discuss about those things and just consume just as much as we need. But we are emotional, we need gadgets that define our individuality, encourage us to consume more and more multimedia.

I don't understand this whole editorial.
Isn't Samsung the leader in OEM sales? Not to mention they lead in global LCD tv market share. If so then this whole article is kinda a moot point.
Does it really matter if they used a few ideas from competitors? Or that they are targeting Apple in their campaigns? Nope.
No offense to the op but this article is kind of a waste of breadth. It seems that this whole article is about originality. I can't name a company lately that has been truly original in anything they produce. Copying is the standard for everyone. It's the end result that matters, not how you got there.

Agreed. nice editorial. I thought by the title you were going to nag on about their bitter legal dispute differences, but it didn't.

Samsung supply the heart of apple products, on a technicality really... They manufacture the A4/A5x processors in Texas - probably because if they were made overseas, their designs would go overseas. so for Apple to prevent foreign counterfeiting, their design don't 'leave' US soil until its ready to be installed... But it goes to Samsung. Then the finished chip is sent to china and put into the phone, which is then sent back to the USA. This works in favor for both companies. Yet I don't see why apple of all companies is not manufacturing the phones completely in china and the USA.

Samsung is clearly shooting itself in the foot by making so many of everything...
Then again, they do make EVERYTHING. TV's washers, ovens, dishwashers, DVD players, phones, laptops, hard drives, ram, cameras.. They built a business on manufacturing the components and devices. Open up a device and see how much of the components in it are stamped samsung or are manufactured in their facilities.

They base their models off commercially available chipsets. They don't have a true samsung all-in-one processor like Apple does. I think they stamp out some extra's and design their own devices around that. Limited number of them - hence why they are constantly releasing newer versions... Just a theory as to why they don't have any flagship products, but a constant flood of increasingly better and ridiculously-named gadgets.

Not sure that Samsung need your sponsorship advice http://www.chelseafc.com/

Microsoft have tried stuff with bands at launch events, but as we all know people just wanted to go and see the band and could care less about whatever was being launched

The thing that makes these kinds of comparisons and arguments difficult comes down to what Apple do - they do a few specific things and they do them well. They are in control of the whole process of making their products vertically, from hardware design right through to the OS - but benefit particularly because they are the only ones that can develop and sell iOS and OS X and can easily build-in tight integration, whereas Samsung basically have to wait for Google for any OS level software innovation and they don't have any real grip on PC software.

The other thing that puts Samsung in a hard place is that Apple has been the aggressor. Samsung has to counter-sue and sue some more just to defend their right to sell devices because Apple runs to the courts crying - with falsified claims - every time Samsung wants to launch something new. It really is a joke...

i am appalled by the tone of this article. who the hell do you think you are to judge samsung for being unoriginal. if there's one thing, samsung is being original in being unoriginal. period.

Albert said,
i am appalled by the tone of this article. who the hell do you think you are to judge samsung for being unoriginal. if there's one thing, samsung is being original in being unoriginal. period.

Being original for being unoriginal? Make more sense please!

Samsung is blatantly gunning for Apple in its advertising campaigns, which is a real shame because Samsungs devices can speak for themselves. They should showcase the features a bit more.

Albert said,
who the hell do you think you are to judge samsung for being unoriginal.

Hahaha this reply made my day. You need to stop taking yourself, or Samsung for that matter, so serious.

floopydoodle said,
Samsung went after Apple? I'm not sure which reality you live in.

Um, isn't it very clear that Samsung has been going after Apple for a while now? Which reality do you live in?

FalseAgent said,

Um, isn't it very clear that Samsung has been going after Apple for a while now? Which reality do you live in?

Frankly Apple was the first to pick the fight. Samsung is choosing to not take an Apple rapage lying down.

ambushed said,

Frankly Apple was the first to pick the fight. Samsung is choosing to not take an Apple rapage lying down.

Samsung went to copy Apple first, and Apple didn't take too kindly to blatent knock-off's

~Johnny said,

Samsung went to copy Apple first, and Apple didn't take too kindly to blatent knock-off's

What did Samsung copy exactly? Some people say that they did but I've always wondered what

I think Samsung is a great company and Apple is too however I don't believe Samsung are copycats. Don't fall into the trap known as marketing because Apple marketing wants you to believe that they are riding the front of innovation and Samsung marketing will tell you the same. This is what it's meant to do, get people talking about their products (which its working).

And as for flooding the market that is just Samsung responding to demand, judging by their sales I would say its an appropriate response.

And I have owned an iPhone 4 and a Galaxy S 2 (I learn more so towards my SGS2) However I think both phones/companies are great and have their target audience.

Ently said,
I think Samsung is a great company and Apple is too however I don't believe Samsung are copycats. Don't fall into the trap known as marketing because Apple marketing wants you to believe that they are riding the front of innovation and Samsung marketing will tell you the same. This is what it's meant to do, get people talking about their products (which its working).

And as for flooding the market that is just Samsung responding to demand, judging by their sales I would say its an appropriate response.

And I have owned an iPhone 4 and a Galaxy S 2 (I learn more so towards my SGS2) However I think both phones/companies are great and have their target audience.

Samsung is great company for producing cheap plastic phones.

Ently said,
I think Samsung is a great company and Apple is too however I don't believe Samsung are copycats. Don't fall into the trap known as marketing because Apple marketing wants you to believe that they are riding the front of innovation and Samsung marketing will tell you the same. This is what it's meant to do, get people talking about their products (which its working).

And as for flooding the market that is just Samsung responding to demand, judging by their sales I would say its an appropriate response.

And I have owned an iPhone 4 and a Galaxy S 2 (I learn more so towards my SGS2) However I think both phones/companies are great and have their target audience.

Let's just admit it EVERY company copies. Or take ideas from each others. Samsung is just one of those VERY good at copying and makes it even better with UI and their own tech. So that is both a good thing and a bad thing.

Well Apple really was first at something. And the was the ad campaign designed to tear someone else down while trying to prop themselves up. It worked for Apple, sadly, and if Samsung wants to go there, fine. I would rather not see MS go there though. Because to this day I have a bad taste in my mouth over Apples choice of tactics.

jimmyfal said,
Well Apple really was first at something. And the was the ad campaign designed to tear someone else down while trying to prop themselves up. It worked for Apple, sadly, and if Samsung wants to go there, fine.

Luckily for Samsung, if they did try to run that style of campaign they could *never* be as smug as Apple

Except he made it clear he isn't a fanboy of any particular brand.

This type of advertising isn't allowed in the UK or Europe, and I think it's also extremely petty. He has a point that companies should be focusing on their own products and not trying their best to trash another named brand in their own campaigns.

The Galaxy Note campaign (at least in Europe) does this very well, have a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwMvhwPPfDc this is advertising that really makes a point.

Neobond said,
Except he made it clear he isn't a fanboy of any particular brand.

This type of advertising isn't allowed in the UK or Europe, and I think it's also extremely petty. He has a point that companies should be focusing on their own products and not trying their best to trash another named brand in their own campaigns.

The Galaxy Note campaign (at least in Europe) does this very well, have a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwMvhwPPfDc this is advertising that really makes a point.

The beautiful thing is that apple was the most famous company in history to put down their competitors when it was Mac vs PC.. They went as far as getting an actor that looked similar (in a mocking way) to the CEO of Microsoft and focused completely on how Windows was bad or how Microsoft was too big.. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on those ads over like 4 years..

Think if Samsung were to have comercials where they had some dufus that was dressed like Tim Cook and some other Kid dressed cool and just talked about how the Iphone sucks.. Thats how apple used to do it..

My problem with the article is that Samsung may have copied the idea of a tablet design.. Samsung copied the general idea of the device but I think apple is starting to copy the smaller details of their competitors.. Dual Core tablets were announce far in advance to the Ipad 2.. High resolution tablets have been announced for months now and yet they are still copying something announced last week.. I cant wait for apple to get a digitizer and then people will some how turn it around that Samsung Note copied it somehow.

If we can agree that everyone copies everyone when it's beneficial to the company, we can move on Steve Jobs said himself that innovation doesn't have to mean new things, it can mean making existing ideas better.

Lachlan said,
The beautiful thing is that apple was the most famous company in history to put down their competitors when it was Mac vs PC.. They went as far as getting an actor that looked similar (in a mocking way) to the CEO of Microsoft and focused completely on how Windows was bad or how Microsoft was too big.. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on those ads over like 4 years..

You make a good point, but I think there are some key differences between Apple's "Mac vs. PC" ads and Samsung's ads that target Apple.

One major difference is market share. Microsoft's market share among consumers was well into the 90%'s when Apple was making those ads. Depending on whose statistics you use, they're still around 90% today. Computers had practically reached the point of being a standard home appliance, and Microsoft was the default. There was no real alternative: every computer purchased came with Windows, and there was no choice for anything else. (Linux was and arguably is still out of range for the average user.) In the phone market, this is definitely not the case. Apple may make the greatest impact on headlines, but they do not have the most market share, nor is there any one dominant player in the market, as Microsoft was with computer operating systems. It was not unusual for Apple to riff on Microsoft; it is a bit weird for Samsung to target Apple, and Apple alone.

Another major difference deals with how the ads made their jabs. The Mac vs. PC ads seemed to make fun of the standard PC experience, while briefly talking about their own features and trying to make a point of how they were different. I should also mention that I disagree with your interpretation of the actor chosen to play "PC" - I felt that he was meant to embody a business setting, and not the CEO of Microsoft. I was a Windows user around the time that those ads were coming out, and had been for many years - while they didn't make Apple seem any more appealing to me, some of the mockery of PCs felt like an inside joke that I and any other PC user could appreciate. It was a sort of "we've all been there" thing. By comparison, Samsung's ads seem to mock Apple's hype and their fans. I've been an Apple user for about four or five years now, I'm not a fanboy (and still virtualize Windows when I need it), and while I've never waited in one of those lines that form days before a product release, I felt a bit insulted by Samsung's ads. The difference in feelings was that Samsung's ads were much more personal, featuring actors portraying Apple users/fans; furthermore, Apple, with its smaller market share and "novelty products," is a personal choice at this point. The Mac vs. PC ads did not try to portray any users, and PC users knew deep down that Microsoft was not their personal choice - it had been the default, the requirement, from day one. There was very little to be offended over.

I had a few more thoughts but this has already grown longer than I'd planned, so I'll end it here.

Neobond said,
Except he made it clear he isn't a fanboy of any particular brand.

There is that well known phrase that sprung to mind while reading - Me thinks thou doth protest too much. I have been called a Microsoft fanboy by other Neowin users many times. I have an iPod Nano, an iTouch, an iPad, a Mac mini, and a few iPhones. The author claims to have a diverse set of devices, but according some Apple people, that does not keep you from being a fanboy.

There were many things that jumped out at me while reading, but I will keep it short by only talking about two.
1) Really, the solution is to advertise during NASCAR? A couple years ago, the Apple faithful mocked Microsoft because they were lower class. Microsoft had to sell their products at Wal-Mart and Target. Apple would never sink that low because they were for the elites, the special people, the smart people (remember those studies about how Apple users were better educated?). And the type of people that would shop at Wal-Mart or Target are not the type of people that Apple would want to be associated with. This has changed over the years, Apple now sells at Wal-Mart and Target - something that I think the hardcore Apple faithful cringe at. NASCAR (unjustifiably) has a stigma of being only for the low class people, people Apple would never pander to. So Samsung needs to avoid markets that could possibly be Apple's market? In other words, don't try competing with Apple, that is the only way to avoid appearing to copy Apple. Of course, when Apple does the same, I'm a Mac/PC, those commercials are brilliant.

2) Criticism of Samsung getting into the car market. So diversification is now wrong? Microsoft is criticized for being a two horse shop - Windows and Office, when they get into other markets, they are criticized for it. When the XBOX was first introduced, they were mocked, but I would say that it turned out to be quite successful. They tried in other markets, such as Zune, but the Apple faithful (and Jobs himself) mocked it. A few years ago, 2007 to be exact, there were rumors that Apple and VW (interesting that VW was brought up at the end of the article) were working on an iCar, and it was going to change the world. It would revolutionize the automotive industry with it's innovative UI (I don't see how you could drive with only a scroll wheel). And yet, Samsung had diversified into cars 13 years earlier than the mention of the iCar, but But Samsung was wrong for diversifying. Microsoft even released their Windows Embedded Automotive in 1998, later to be used in millions Ford cars and is the basis of Sync. So Apple is only rumored to be in a market (those rumors started, incidentally at the same time Sync started being sold), and it only shows the genius of Steve Jobs. Samsung actually does it, and they criticized for it? Why not also criticize Microsoft for Windows Auto, after all, there was a possibility for Apple joining that market and you should not compete with Apple.

tanjiajun_34 said,
I wouldn't really say that is copying lumia. It is just using of bright colour. Does that means only Nokia can use bright yellow, pink and blue? And also... Lumia looks a lot better than that......
I thought the same thing until I saw the first and last picture where the front of the device is shown in each. It looks almost exactly the same. The only thing I can really see that's different is the speaker position and system buttons.

tanjiajun_34 said,
I wouldn't really say that is copying lumia. It is just using of bright colour. Does that means only Nokia can use bright yellow, pink and blue? And also... Lumia looks a lot better than that......

You need to take a look at the other pictures too, I have nothing against Samsung (my SGS rocks) but that's some pretty blatant copying right there... -__-