Recommended Posts

http://www.theverge....-in-apple-trial

You're not doing yourself any favors Samsung....

Not really. It's a master stroke by Samsung to expose just how biased Lucy Koh is. Just because the iJudge refuses to allow Samsung to present critical evidence in court doesn't mean that the public needs to be kept from the truth.

Notice how drastically their interface designs changed after the release of the iPhone though? When Apple first approached Samsung it was in regards the interface layout more than anything, which Samsung blatantly copied, but now it's getting out of hand and including all the hardware.

As for the Camera, Well since I do sell cell phones, I can tell you that the last thing people care about is a front facing camera, and I haven't seen ANYONE using it anywhere. and I haven't had anyone ask about front facing camera on any phone they buy. You'd lamost think there's a reason why the front facing camera almost always is a crap camera with a terrible sensor with no light sensitivity and at best a 1.3 sensor, more often a vga sensor.

I myself as well as my family and friends, use the front facing camera religiously on our phones. I think you may be confusing the fact that people may not find them important when purchasing a device, and actually using said feature. It's not the same thing. Someone may not actually care about the front facing camera from a quality/functionality stand point, but that does not automatically mean they don't/won't use it.

As for the Camera, Well since I do sell cell phones, I can tell you that the last thing people care about is a front facing camera, and I haven't seen ANYONE using it anywhere.

A front facing camera is required for using little known apps such as Skype, Google+ (Hangouts) and FaceTime.

Maybe you've heard of them?

skype-for-iphone-hero-2.jpg

From their early prototypes in the early 90s

Apple MessageSlate prototype:

080447-messageslate_500.jpg

Um.. first of all.. they took the idea from Star Trek (a show that was going on in the 80s) and many other references as the touch tablets have been very popular in that time with other tech companies as well. So Apple wasn't alone there and certainly mind-blowingly original.

Second, I was talking about design. iPad is a replica of how that Samsung photo frame and Samsung's other designs (with even glass frame) looked like (the only difference was that frame was thicker considering it was almost 5 years before and technology advancement didn't allow it to be super thin and it had a support so you can have it on a tablet in standing position). So Apple coming out and saying how they have the right on rounded corners and minimalistic design is hilarious and completely disconnected with reality.

Christopher White summarized it best:

Who?s stealing from whom? If you listen to Apple, you?d think that they have the most original designs in the world and that everyone, including Samsung, is jealous and copying them. Others say that phones and tablets are a basic design ? a rectangle of glass with rounded corners ? that can?t be protected anyway. The courts have gone both ways in recent months, some siding with Apple, some siding with Samsung.

A front facing camera is required for using little known apps such as Skype, Google+ (Hangouts) and FaceTime.

Maybe you've heard of them?

skype-for-iphone-hero-2.jpg

Uh, no it's not required. did you know Skype can be used for VoiP, WITHOUT a camera.... you know the way MOST people use it. the way it started out.

Samsung touchscreen phones before the iPhone : Crap. crap. crap, crap, crap. crap, crap, crap, crap. crap. In that order.

They aren't being sued for the quality of their touch screens. They are being sued because Apple accuses Samsung of copying they're designs on the actual phone, which from the looks of it Samsung were already producing before Apple.

Apple Newton

explain?

Here.. I'll give you a few pics

1960s (Star Trek tablet)

06tablet-620x.jpg?hash=MwV3BQZjMJ

from 1987-1990 (all kinds of tablets with Ipad functionality of today have been shown)

padd.jpgvlcsnap-2011-03-08-18h30m10s242.png

07tablet-620x467.jpg?hash=BJRmLmRjL2&upscale=1picard_padd_listing.jpg

image-aqRhlGEkcc.png

1968 Space Odyssey 2001

08tablet-620x.jpg?hash=Lmp2AGVjAJ

1989's GRIDPad was the first commercial tablet

10tablet-620x.png?hash=ZGZ3ZGZ2ZG

The GRIDPad was followed by a slew of other unsuccessful tablets, including?oh the irony?HP's first failed tablet 1992's Compaq Concerto (a year before Newton)

11tablet-620x.jpg?hash=AmAwMGqwBQ

Fujitsu PoqetPad

12tablet-620x.jpg?hash=MGV4MTHlZw

Fujitsu's Stylistic 3500 - 2001

12atablet.jpg?hash=MTWxATL1AQ&upscale=1

and I'm sure there are quite a few more. from 60s into 90s the tablets and touch screens and other stuff was super hot for everyone. Apple was certainly not the only one who had this idea. They have seen it everywhere else and failed. Just like everyone else.

oh and btw, this is applicable to Samsung and Android as well but I just find it funny because it's 100% true

startrek-invented.jpg

Also, I wonder where Apple saw the idea for their iPad

Oh I remember they saw it on Star Trek and ripped the design from Samsung

samsungpictureframe.jpg

Photo frame that plays videos, movies, pictures and internet/ethernet, USB, SD card support and was designed 4 years before iPad.

http://www.engadget....s-movies-music/

I mean, you can continue to believe what you want to believe, and I agree that the iPad looks similar to the Samsung photo frame, but it just came to light a week or so ago that Apple had iPad prototypes in the pipeline that look like the photo frame, and it predates it by several years.

http://www.theverge....-images#3616441

I'm not interested in arguing that the color of the bezel matters, but they do look similar, and I don't think one ripped off the design from the other.

I mean, you can continue to believe what you want to believe, and I agree that the iPad looks similar to the Samsung photo frame, but it just came to light a week or so ago that Apple had iPad prototypes in the pipeline that look like the photo frame, and it predates it by several years.

http://www.theverge....-images#3616441

I'm not interested in arguing that the color of the bezel matters, but they do look similar, and I don't think one ripped off the design from the other.

I don't see where it says that that design was several years before Samsung's design of their interactive photo frames that had pretty much all the functionality of modern tablets.

Btw, iPad looks identical to the design of Samsung's photo frame. To the chrome bazel.

The point is that Apple patented minimalistic design, round edges and is suing for it and claiming everyone copied them when there is so much evidence that's not true it's overwhelming. They didn't invent sh**.

Uh, no it's not required. did you know Skype can be used for VoIP, WITHOUT a camera.... you know the way MOST people use it. the way it started out.

It's required for Google+ Hangouts and FaceTime.

As for Skype, I'd argue that MOST people use it as a video chat (all the people around me do). Unless you have data to back up your claim, of course.

McElhinny showed jurors an internal Samsung product analysis which said the iPhone's hardware was "easy to copy." Another document prepared by a Samsung executive said the company was in a "crisis of design" due to the iPhone.

Samsung also copies LG year after year when it comes to washing machines and dryers. There?s absolutely no surprise here. I hope Samsung loses this case, maybe they will reconsider before copying everybody else in the industry.

Samsung also copies LG year after year when it comes to washing machines and dryers. There?s absolutely no surprise here. I hope Samsung loses this case, maybe they will reconsider before copying everybody else in the industry.

You should read the whole deposition from Samsung.. McElhinny is Apple's lawyer and that sentence is from his deposition/opening. Whether it's true is questionable. Samsung's opening shot down almost all Apple's claims very effectively.

It's required for Google+ Hangouts and FaceTime.

As for Skype, I'd argue that MOST people use it as a video chat (all the people around me do). Unless you have data to back up your claim, of course.

All the peopel around here use Skype for free phone calls. The only people that use it for video is one old couple that use it to communicate with their grandchildren in the states, and perverts who use it to have pre teen girls send them naked cams for Bieber tickets.

All the peopel around here use Skype for free phone calls. The only people that use it for video is one old couple that use it to communicate with their grandchildren in the states, and perverts who use it to have pre teen girls send them naked cams for Bieber tickets.

Yep.. you nailed it :rolleyes:

Except it's not similar. It doesn't break the design patents Apple are suing Samsung for on it's never phones. like the bezel widths, and the top and bottom being equal width.

As much as Samsung claims they're "fighting for the square" that's not what the case is about they'r ebeing sued for a series of design decisions that mirror that of Apple's.

As for the Camera, Well since I do sell cell phones, I can tell you that the last thing people care about is a front facing camera, and I haven't seen ANYONE using it anywhere. and I haven't had anyone ask about front facing camera on any phone they buy. You'd lamost think there's a reason why the front facing camera almost always is a crap camera with a terrible sensor with no light sensitivity and at best a 1.3 sensor, more often a vga sensor.

thats funny i sell phones as well, lots of people ask all the time about front facing cameras because they want to use skype or various other services like that.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!