Apple Never Designed the iPad - They Undesigned it
baekdal.com
baekdal.com
Why, of all the devices on earth, does Samsung's tablet exactly mimic Apple's USB connector?
I've got a Galaxy Tab sitting right next to me, here. The design isn't just similar, the dimensions are nearly identical.
Explain it to me. Please. If you can offer a compelling case for why Samsung isn't a shameless industrial design thief that can also account for their USB connector, I will be very impressed. It is, to me, the smoking gun. Don't tell me it's the only way to design a low-profile USB connector. It's the only way when Apple does it – everyone else has been doing fine with USB mini and micro.
Samsung: http://i.imgur.com/eyqGw.jpg
Apple: http://i.imgur.com/nh0eI.jpg
Everyone else: http://i.imgur.com/vpPhZ.jpg
Oh, and for thoroughness, how Amazon designed a beautiful USB micro cable that looked nothing at all like Apple's: http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Replacement-Display-Generation-...
Maybe Apple had a time machine and traveled into the future, stealing Samsung's wholly original USB cable design?
Precisely that, and no other? I don't mean to be flip, but it beggars belief to say that this is some sort of platonic form of tablet connector, especially given that the connector originated on the iPod in 2003, and existed not for stability, but for thinness, and to provide additional pins for accessories in a larger Apple-specific ecosystem. It was designed with a purpose, no part of which beyond thinness obtains when applied to a non-Apple device.
We agree. That reason being, it looks like Apple's, and consumers love that.
I have a Sansa music player that uses an iPod cable but with the wires hooked up differently for no apparent reason. It seems to be a pretty common thing.
Not so much – the cable isn't actually compatible. It just looks like it should be.
I agree that the USB cable is rather a smoking gun - but it's the only one. If that's what's wrong, attack that. Don't go and use that to argue about everything else.
This almost borders on the deliberately obtuse, here.
The USB cable doesn't exist in isolation, a decorative piece in the packaging, to be displayed on your desk as the proud owner of a Samsung product.
The cable plugs into the tablets Samsung is selling. Only those tablets, no others. The cables serve no other use. These tablets have a port on the bottom that has been specifically to designed to fit these and only these cables. So this pretty blatantly lifted design is integral to the tablet. Not just the cable.
Which is the smoke in the gun barrel. It's the obvious signal that says Samsung was looking in a very specific, singular direction when they made their design decisions.
But let's go with your thinking, here:
If such a ban prevailed, and those cables were forbidden from distribution anywhere on earth, even inside the box of a Samsung tablet, the tablet would not function. Couldn't charge.
So it would be an effective short term remedy. And, there again, your smoking gun. The most critical, non-negotiable piece of the entire device was lifted wholesale from Apple.
Apple are asking them to change a whole load of things - colour, size, proportionality etc. Why not just ask them to change the cable?
Let's put it the other way - if someone came out and said they had a patent on some part of Apple's power cable - be it a design patent or a technology one - would you say that Apple would have to stop selling iPads? Or just stop selling those particular cables, and design around it?
For a similar case, look at the recent Doom 3 source code release. John Carmack had to remove the code for Carmack's Reverse because it infringed a Creative Labs patent (which had been licensed specifically to id, not to outside developers). He didn't have to remove the whole code base, just the one bit that actually infringed.
And a new port. Given the scenario where that cable is banned, they'd need to replace the port on every existing tablet they've sold. This is a linchpin.
The point is that this isn't something that exists in isolation. This is evidence that suggests Samsung is comfortable ripping off Apple, and did so. Pretty blatantly. And so if they did it here, you think they didn't do it elsewhere in their industrial design?
Anyone copying the no strain relief cables should be shot, though. I appear to have lost the charging cable for my Galaxy Tab, so I can't check that right now.
EDIT: Found them. The cables that came with my Tab have strain relievers. They're hard to see, but they're there. Point for Samsung.
Maybe the Apple USB connector is not even protected design and Samsung was allowed to use it? Is it actually compatible to the Apple connector.
Once you go for a wider connector, perhaps again there are not that many options if you want to be thin. It has to be some kind of slot of some length. Presumably the amount of pins is fixed, and you want a minimum length per pin for good connectivity? (I am just guessing, don't know much about electronics).
Anyway, do you feel offended by a slot in a tablet? Does it really matter that much?
I'm offended that anyone can look at the situation and argue that Samsung arrived at their designs independently.
Apple has of course influenced the market. The question is whether Apple has the right to be only company in the market to sell certain things, like rectangular touchscreen tablet devices. I don't think they have that right.
But I do wish it was a more standard USB port, like the micro one that Amazon's adopted.
http://android.modaco.com/topic/324387-docking-port-is-it-pd...
Info on PDMI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI Image of Dell Streak PDMI: http://www.images.technologyking.co.uk/25032011/hgggg.jpg
"It is designed as an alternative to the iPod interface which was used exclusively by Apple Inc."
The connector looks like an attempt to confuse people with the iPod peripherals and visual branding. Why that exact shape?
As for the shape of Samsung's plug, form follows function. USB plugs all mostly look the same too.
That's not the same as either Apple's or Samsung's. Samsung's connection is a mirrored version of Apple's. Here's a comparison of the 3 device connectors: http://android.modaco.com/topic/324387-docking-port-is-it-pd...
It's pretty hard to say that Samsung is "just following the standard" if it's different than Dell's connector.
I really wish they had put an actual USB port on the thing, or at least a place to put a micro SD card. But if anyone is copying Apple's whole "we don't believe in strain relief" nonsense, I really do hope they stop that. Damaged cables are not beautiful. They make the device look like junk.
(1) Some copying is legal.
(2) Some copying is illegal.
(3) The line between (1) and (2) is not clearly drawn.
(4) Many companies copy Apple -- some legally and some illegally.
(5) Samsung copies Apple a lot closer then most other mainstream (read: non-pirate) companies do.
...
The problem with Samsung is why (5)?
To say "that's the only way to design something" flies in the face of (4). Why can't Samsung differentiate their tablet as well as (say) the HTC Flyer?
They appear to be interested in looking as identical to Apple's products as possible -- to the point where Samsung lawyers can't even quickly say which is which when a judge holds both products over their head. When the copying is this blatant and close, accusations of piracy are unavoidable.
I'm not saying Samsung's guilty of crossing the line between legal and illegal - that's what experts and lawyers and judges are paid to do. But I'm saying they are knowingly closer to the line then most companies are comfortable being and that it's silly to casually dismiss the idea that Samsung could have infringed Apple's IP (as people here frequently do).
(6) As this article says, Apple [un]designs things by "creating the simplest shape possible".
(7) This is a good thing. It leads in very many cases to the best products.
(8) Samsung, more than others, recognizes (7) and so follows Apple's lead.
If so, then the only way for Samsung to be legal, if (5) is past the line of acceptability, is to intentionally put effort into making worse products.
Which would, at the very least, make a Samsung designer's job description an interesting one.
I have ~10 apple USB cables. I keep 1 in my backpack, 1 in the car, 1 in the bedroom, I have a 6' long one I bought from deal extreme and several others in various places.
I have an iPad - but I'm open to other devices and I hate it when I cant usethe cables I have.
(I have about 8 dell power adapters for the same reasons)
I am very good about my employers buying me requisite devices for work. I have had the iphone since launch and have gone through 12 of them (in all the various models) as I tend to drop them a lot.
The iPad was a gift.
I have not bought a phone or computer for myself in ~10 years.
Here this is a nice photo frame samsung made in 2006, interestingly no one sued anyone for it. Apple is just full of bullshit and does everything to halt sales of their competitor.
Or you are saying that the Ipad copied the samsung photo frame design, and samsung should sue apple for it?
What a compelling argument!
The reason many competitor products look similar or worse than apple products, is because we have unimaginative industrial designers that think like this blogger.
The next generation of apple tablets will find a way to distinguish themselves from their competitors, despite having already created 'the perfect design'.
"Apple never designed the iPad. They undesigned the tablet. They focused on creating the simplest form possible. Every single decision is based on usability, readability, comfort, and focusing your eyes on the content itself."
That's exactly what design is: finding the problems that need to be solved and devising a solution that solves them. One that respects usability, readability, comfort, etc.
"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."
Wrong again.
"Again, this has nothing to do with design. The width of the margin is an engineering problem with only one solution."
And again. It is a design decision.
"Again, none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability."
Because usability has nothing to do with design... nope.
"What has happened here is that Samsung has been forced to add design elements that don't need to be there."
Here you mean "visual elements" not "design elements".
"Again, this has nothing to do with design. This is an engineering constraint." (talking about the batteries)
Still wrong, it has something to do with design. This however is the only one that gets close to its claim.
The author makes a lot of interesting points, but he clearly doesn't know what "design" means.
First of all, if this is the only possible way for a tablet to look, why did all the other Microsoft tablets up to the iPad look vastly different?
Second, there're two famuos quotes:
"The obvious is always least understood."
and
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei
The problem here is that Apple invested a lot of time and thinking into designing a fantastic solution to a problem. But that doesn't mean that it is the only solution. Instead, people are now seeing the world from this point of view, and can't fathom that there is any other solution to this problem - just like before the iPad everybody thought that the Windows Tablet Design was the best solution.
Does the author really believe that the iPad design is the answer to all questions? The final? I bet there're better, more intriguing, more beautiful, and more usable designs that yet have to be discovered.
I've never used the S tablet, but it does seem like it might be more comfortable to hold in portrait mode. I almost never use my iPad lying flat on the table and when I do it is usually an uncomfortable reading angle unless I prop it.
- unless you look at the device edge-on right at 90 degrees, it looks much thinner than it in fact is
- when placed on the table, it gives a subtle illusion of floating.
Both contribute to a subjective "wow!" response, where other practical designs don't.
"the only possible way for a tablet to look"
He never said that, he is claiming that most of the properties Apple is disputing are the best way to design an object like this, which is a perfectly reasonable argument.
I own both the Galaxy Tab 10.1" and an iPad 2, and I actually do get confused between the two all the time, when looking at them from above. They're about the same thickness and reasonably similar shapes, and with the same "rounded rectangle with a black bezel surrounded by a silver frame" I honestly have grabbed the wrong tablet before. To contrast, I never get confused with my HP TouchPad or my Kindle Fire (although that one is smaller).
I'd be perfectly happy if Samsung just switched to a matte black border instead, and Apple should be too: it would, at least from what I've seen, fix most of the confusion here between the two products.
It seems almost all manufacturers have gone to the same sort of packaging that Apple has been doing for years.
Our customers expect streaming video to work regardless of what bizarro device their end user walked out of a store with after getting shaken down by a spectacularly uninformed clerk. :-)
Xuzz was commenting that he confused the tablets, which isn't relevant. It would have been relevant if he said "I really noticed how nice the Samsung looked and how little glare it had due to case design (just like Apple). Those details are subtle but non-obvious."
Here more from wikipedia for anyone interested:
> Trademarks and trade dress are used to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of a manufactured object. To get trademark protection, the trademark owner must show that the mark is not likely to be confused with other trademarks for items in the same general class. The trademarks can last indefinitely as long as they are used in commerce. Design patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items,[7] even those of different utility than the patented object. An actual shield of a given shape, for example, can be cited as prior art against a design patent on a computer icon with a shield shape. The validity of design patents is not affected by whether or not the design is commercialized.
I didn't know this stuff until I looked it up in response to your comment, so thanks.
[Edited in response to nitrogen. Thanks.]
Design patents cannot cover function. That's what regular patents are for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Comparison_to_ut...
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=samsung+laptop&tbm=isc...
Notice the color, shape and style of the laptops you see, especially their displays. They nearly all have black bezel, are rectangular with rounded corners. It basically has all the features you mention.
Samsung's Galaxy Tab looks as much like they ripped a display off one of their laptops as it does like an iPad. It is essentially their brand, the style of design they have applied for years across much of their range. That's one reason they happen to look more like the iPad than some of the other tablet makers.
Where do you think Samsung got their inspiration for those designs? What did Samsung's notebooks look like before Apple's MacBook Pro was around?
Example: http://bit.ly/ufAt6y
As was Apple, hence my earlier comment. Samsung hasn't just ripped off Apple's iPad design, it's been ripping off Apple's designs for years. From the MacBook Air to the iPhone to the iPod Touch, Samsung has been making faithful copies.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=samsung+laptop&tbm=isc...
are faithful copies of these ones:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=macbook+pro&tbm=isch
I just don't see how you can remotely draw this conclusion.
Like:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/12/galaxy-player-samsung...
http://gizmodo.com/5836128/samsungs-new-notebooks-are-super-...
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-31/tech/30092522...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322194642065867.html
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/15/samsung-galaxy-ace-gio-fi...
IP laws are screwed up, but a lot of people are jumping on this bandwagon out of ignorance. It's like people who get mad because a brand comes down hard on folks using their trademark. It's a legal requirement that they enforce the trademark, otherwise they lose it.
And this post proves that those alternative designs would make for a decidedly unappealing tablet experience. If Apple designs their products to be the bare minimum that looks good, they don't have the right to be surprised when other companies come to the same conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo
Here's an article from June 2009 that you could almost literally just swap the word Apple and iPad into.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-protot...
"iPad creates and defines an entirely new category of devices"
Clearly, JooJoo was copied from Apple.
This is what a 1st gen iPod touch looked like in 2007: http://media.gdgt.com/img/product/1/101/ipod-touch-1st-gen-3...
On top of that, designs aren't pulled from thin air, you can subtract at least 1-2 years from the launch date.
This is the form factor that I would have thought of naturally, before seeing the iPad, since it's similar to the designs that existed for computers at the time. Compare it to previous tablets/slates, laptops, Palm pilots, Newton. Most of them have some kind of raised plastic border (and often not black but some shade of gray).
With previous devices, they were generally designed with a stylus in mind (Palm, Newton, slates, etc). A flush bezel, while not required, is a no-brainer when you think about it.
Then it's not really a no brainer, is it? :)
Although I am not sure about it but it appears like there have been prior art for most of the individual design concepts being pointed out here. Samsung photoframes, tablets from other parties and similar elements being icons having being used from ages before. It's the compilation of same design concepts together in Samsung Tabs as well as iPad that is creating the stir. As pointed out above, the similarity between the two appears to be more of an trademark issue than patent - if exactly and just these points are used.
Contrast all the other tablet PCs and so forth which have had a tendency to be sharp-cornered and bulky with asymmetric elements like buttons. The idea of having no favored orientation, for example, is innovative. Most historical tablets had one way up, and it was SVGA landscape.
the color of the margin should be the same as the background color of the content
This after insisting on a sufficient inactive margin, and going on to say the technology doesn't exist. The thought ends with the conclusion of a one-inch-ish black margin.
But wait: what if a tablet DID run its display area to the edge? just with the understanding among developers that any user activity within a specified margin would be ignored, either for lack of sensors or programed disuse. Bingo: Apple's odd requirements of no margin (per se) and no black is satisfied and surpassed by a superior user experience of relevant, dynamic borders; anything from automatic color matching to extending a background image to the edges or even putting useful dynamic information & imagery in the margin may/would be preferred to a space-occupying dead black zone. ...then Samsung patents the idea, leaving Apple with, well, a dead black space-occupying margin.
Methinks the term "malicious obedience" applies. Careful what you ask for...
I'm noting that the author stated that color matched borders would be even better, but then abandoned the idea. I'm suggesting running with it in a manner which would benefit, instead of hinder, Samsung with an edge over Apple with a "what goes around comes around", "malicious obedience" unexpected consequence.
And then you use an example. From that sentence, quoted above, it sure does sound like you were suggesting that Apple insisted Samsung do this...
It's not that much of a stretch to think of it working for black or white borders. Perhaps it could even be done with a type of e-ink so it wouldn't need power except when changing state from light to dark or back.
As well as white, silver, beige, or any of the hundreds possible distinct shades of gray. Throughout 1980-90s, computer monitors were beige, and that was considered to be a classy, neutral, subdued color that works with any content, just like black is considered today. I'm not saying beige is better; I'm just saying that this whole thing that black is "the only possible color" is annoying. Apple themselves make a white iPad as well as covers in different colors, so clearly black is not the only game in town.
Oh, and I've held Sony Tablet S, and it works just fine in portrait orientation; as a matter of fact Sony's tablet is easier to hold with one hand in portrait mode than iPad is. What a bunch of whiners.
They could have put their logo in a shallow etching on that margin.
The margin could be plastic, rubber, or any other material more comfortable for grip and/or better for protecting the screen.
They also could easily have the thumb margin on only 1 side, provided their software allows the user to flip the device upside down to switch between left-handed and right-handed users.
They could have put the speakers as a visible part of the top or bottom margin.
They could have the margin be a screen that does not have touch capabilities and is there simply to extend the background color all the way to the edge.
They could design a new battery that would fit around the outer rim of the tablet internally so that the middle of the device could be thinner. This would be technically difficult and expensive though.
Also, simplicity is very obvious when you see it, but before you see it you might not think of reducing things down quite that far. Case in point: Apple's device is not as simple as the one the author at baekdal.com designed because Apple's has a home button, a lock button, and volume buttons. Those are not necessary, but Apple designed them into the iPad.
http://gdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-03455...
770 (2005): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/231781513/
N800 (2007): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/399708279/
N810 (2007): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/2290709295/
N900 (2009): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/4706326072/
In those pictures you can also see some common tablet features like on-screen keyboards, video chat, maps, and even augmented reality.
All of the Nokia tablets came with a stylus but were mostly used with fingers. The stylus was handy for web browsing - for example, on the iPad I have to zoom HN quite a bit before I can reliably hit the up/down voting buttons.
At some point Nokia even introduced a feature where the UI elements would sense whether you're using stylus or finger, and would size themselves accordingly.
This is because HN's design and HTML code suck. It's unreadable and inconvenient on laptops too.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oieefcckcbbgniifdh...
http://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tablets-befor...
Star Trek PADDs: https://www.google.com/search?q=star+trek+PADDs&hl=en...
The iPad wasn't feasible until those technical problems had been solved.
On a first inspection of the device I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't think they are the same. After turning it on even less. That the samsung looks are inspired by the iPad, I'm sure they would agree but I don't think they would be confused. Most people don't seem confused when buy clothes at Macy's that they are actually the designer equivalent.
Then again, this kind of design-blindness doesn't surprise me. There are constantly people claiming that certain laptops and phones are equally well-designed as Apple products. There is clearly a large group of people who cannot see the difference.
However once you start looking in details there will be a lot of differences, subtle or not. Are the bezels and screens completely flat in a single piece? What are the visual featuring of buttons? How black/white it is? etc.
I like Apple products too, but some of their competitors make awesome products from time to time.
Please, this is a serious question. I would truly love to have an Android phone, an Android tablet or a Linux-compatible laptop with the same design and build quality as an Apple product.
I've pretty much given up on manufacturers that clearly don't want my money. Audio and tv electronics, no problem. Hell, I can even get beautifully designed alarm clocks, toasters and even friggin' designer humidifiers, so obviously Apple hasn't cornered the market on talented industrial designers.
Asus' new Transformer Prime tablet is probably the best example of a product that matches or exceeds the build quality and design of an Apple product.
Asus' original transformer tablet, while not as thin or light as the iPad, was also an extremely well-built and stylish device. I think that I would actually prefer an iPad 2 over the original transformer, but that doesn't mean it isn't a nice piece of hardware.
As an aside, I can't decide whether its website is cool or not: http://eee.asus.com/en/eeepad/transformer-prime/features
Lenovo Thinkpad X220 (Richard Sapper, and well, the build quality certainly beats every MacBook out there) HTC Desire (It fell from 20ft and survived)
as you get older you realize how fucking ignorant the youth is. hindsight is 20/20.
i remember the time before the iPad. before the iPhone. No one, really no one, would have predicted those devices coming from Apple. Multi-Touch? no stylus? no keyboard? unthinkable. Apple doing a phone? A phone!? no way....and here we are.
Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find.
So, are they everywhere, or are they innovative? ;)
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...
Aesthetically, many beautiful objects have sharp corners - tables, windows, and computer screens, not to mention the universal reading tablet, a.k.a. the piece of paper. Our eyes haven't had a problem staying focused inside these rectangles.
The big draw for rounded corners is comfort. But we've been using sharp rectangular folders, binders, magazines, etc. for decades without complaint.
Apple used the rounded corner to great effect, and for now it seems like the only possible design choice. But some point, someone is going to produce an elegant matboard-thin computer tablet with "sharp" corners that don't cut your fingers, and suddenly the rounded corner will seem like a childish relic of the naughts.
I do not know where the author got his "curved lines pull people in" effect.
I also feel like simple vignettes on the corners would make tablets seem much more sophisticated and intricate.
Another related URL: http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/147/ here Lebedev talks about the difference between simplicity and primitivism. This probably most closely hints at what I think is wrong with Apple's design.
' Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find. '
[1] http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...
"none of this is a design problem. It is all about usability"
"The shape of a tablet has nothing to do with design. It is simple logic."
On a side note, HN is usually strongly against patents. The argument is that it is all about execution and patents only retard innovation. Why is everyone up in arms when it is Apple getting copied? They innovated and now the rest of the market is absorbing that design into their products, because it is superior. This is good, for everyone.
As the Nokia Lumia 800 has shown, there is still a lot of room for design in smartphones that don't resemble the iPhone as well. Samsung has no excuse.
Given that Apple itself has tablets shipping in white, I'd agree with this.
This article does a good job of presenting how Apple potentially came to the answer of how a tablet should look, but as noted above, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the be-all and end-all of tablet design. It just means that Apple tablets sell well enough to "force" everyone else into their vantage point.
Go and take a look at the flat-screen TV section of any electronics store. All of them look pretty much alike, and actually also very much like iPad. The main difference is size, and iPad's rounded corners which are nicer to have in a device that you hold in your hands.
You can even compare Nokia's circa 2005 Internet Tablet, the 770 with an iPad. Same black color, bottom corners are rounded. Sure, it still has some more buttons and a resistive screen, but it even came with a "smart cover" (turn the hard cover around, and the magnets in it will put the device to sleep) http://www.flickr.com/photos/bergie/4554791832/
On the general topic, I remember being interested in tablets early on when they were a Microsoft thing and none of them looked like an iPad. Now almost all tablets look iPad like. Samsung in particular seemed to have gone out of their way to make a product that mimicked the look of an iPad. That being said, I'm sad that Apple has taken to the courts over these small issues. The best way to have a leading product is to make a leading product and then continually improving it so that customers want to buy it. This Apple does well. But as an Apple shareholder I'd say playing defence with court suits is a waste of $£ in my opinion but sadly Apple execs didn't ask me. On the other hand withdrawing the bulk of $8billion in parts purchasing from Samsung should have made the point alone IMO.
In fact, Samsung makes TVs with red frames, which they brag is a feature:
http://ars.samsung.com/customer/usa/jsp/faqs/faqs_view_us.js... http://www.pause.com/wp-content/gallery/08-07-23-samsung/08-...
So designers at Samsung are perfectly aware you can make the bezel other colors.
Why must the courts protect consumers from potential confusion among competing tablets but not among competing but similar looking TV's?
Seems like an abuse of the legal system, which has soured me to Apple's products.
If this design is obvious, why then do all tablets made trior to the iPad look nothing like the iPad? (Windows Tablets, Apple Newton, Specialist Medical Tablets, Grid Tablet, etc etc)
http://www.cultofmac.com/109373/what-tablets-looked-like-bef...
body { -webkit-text-size-adjust: none; }
This is a bug[1][2] rather than expected behavior. They can't disable it right away because Apple softwares and Qt requires this "feature". The website is likely not the one to blame here.
Update: looks like there's a new patch to fix this earlier this week.
[1]: https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-May/01686...
[2]: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56543
[3]: https://bug-56543-attachments.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=1...
The real problem I'm seeing in most of these comments is that there's a stark denial that somebody, anybody, could possibly design and build a tablet that's as good (or better) than Apple's flagship product because after all, isn't Apple's design by definition the best?
Wait, you're telling me you created a screen with rounded edges? There's probably over a 1,000 people who conceptually designed iPod/iPad type devices since the late 90s on.
None of this is new. It's absurd to claim it's original.
Not unlike the joke of the expert who knows where the place the chalk 'x' on the broken machine.(http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/where.asp) Apple's choice of favouring certain design problems over others is the result of their own research and how they want their users to experience their device. Valuing different problems produces different results, e.g. if Apple were adamant that the device should be held with one hand the design might approximate an artists palette or have a dedicated strap.
It's up to the lawyers from here, however Apple has been having success in demonstrating that the few differences between the devices are confusingly similar. Samsung's case is weakened by copying, not only the look and feel of the applications, but also the packaging, and even the 30 pin connector which rather than being an elegant solution it's a compatibility choice inherited from other iDevices.
To me, as a consumer, while my opinion is worthless in the matter: I feel it's a high profile knock off and something I'd expect to find in the chinese markets. Also it's association with Android damages the Android brand, allowing people to assume that Android is a rough counterfeit.
Not very rectangular. :-)
> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Also, that thing about the margin matching the color of the content sounds awesome.
I liked the article title but the article is weak. First of all, there are many ways to create a viable tablet. Apple's approach to enumerate the challenges/problems associated with the new form factor and then to solve them not come up with an ad hoc hack and to protect their unique patentable solutions.
At the same time, other companies were creating netbooks because they were to lazy to figure out how to design a fully functional computer and cram it into a notebook form factor.
Probably one of the key breakthroughs was their realization that it didn't need to be a full computer. Seems so obvious now doesn't it? Also that they needed to augment the current state of the touch based UI. All very obvious in retrospect.
If there is prior art then it will remove some of the violations. If you are going to post stuff like this, do the necessary research on when the iPad IP was patented.
Its appalling to see companies blatantly copying better technology and then selling it. They should respect it, either license the technology, develop their own or work on something that Apple hasn't done yet and isn't in the process of doing.
What?
There are several comments here which ring with the similar, "this is the only way it could be" tone that is morally disturbing (although always pleasing to hear from the competition...).
(edit: spelling)
These 2 assertions are basically the same, and were made with next to no basis. Had they actually used the Sony tablet? How do they know that it "It simply doesn't work."? I haven't used the Sony tablet before, but I did use the REB2100 color ebook which is similar to the Sony design where the batteries are in one edge instead of being flat on the back. It is much easier to hold than the ipad. I will argue that a tablet with an edge heavy side like the Sony, if it isn't currently easy to hold with 2 hands for gaming or other applications due to sharp edges, can be redesigned more like the 1st gen macbook air where user can hold the heavy edge comfortably by either a single hand or both hands.
Most peoples reaction to something designed very well is: "oh of course you do it like that, how would you do it anyway else".
But this is naive thinking, there are plenty of ways to design and most are not simple. The beauty of the iPad is that people understand it at a glance, that is incredibly profound. I think it is really unfortunate that the writer of this article took the stance that they undesigned it, simply wrong. They intelligently designed every aspect of this device which is exactly what his diagrams point out.
Apple's computers, tablets, phone, iPod, all look very unique and were certainly designed not undesigned. All of these objects are man made and inherently require design for them to take shape.
I don't remember any of the Windows based tablets looking this way. Or even the Newton, not even the Dynabook looked like the iPad.
Edit: And the author overlooks the fact that multi orientation is a unique design feature onto itself.
http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-th...
in hindsight, it seems like the only completely obvious way to design a tablet, but that fact in itself is the mark of great design.
Going through past tablets and choosing the ones that were not black rectangles proves nothing except that some tablets did not look like the ipad. Some tablets now also don't look like the ipad.
Apple wants to corner the market on simple design. Imagine if your coffee cup couldn't be designed to be round, have a handle that goes from the top to the bottom, or have an opening on the top to drink from.
I don't understand this point of view at all. It's seems loaded and emotive. I'll ask you this; why can other hardware manufacturers make tablet devices that are aesthetically appealing to consumers that aren't using a near identical visual language.
The Acer Iconia has a silver lining around the bezel. That and the Nook are about as "different" as I'm seeing. They're all 7" or 10" TV screens. No one is screaming that their TVs or monitors all look the same, but they're all black boxes with a screen.
>>The Sony tablet was pointed out in this article as a poor design that was over engineered.
The article is neither factual or authoritative. It is opinion and supposition.
For the record I don't support IP.
"Best design is least design."
"Best design is invisible."
"Give less a chance."
It's made even harder because engineers and business managers often insist on extra functionality or visual clutter.
(Often there are good usability or marketing reasons for this, but too often it's simply the desire to be "part of the process".)
Now you do give up something with simplicity. In art you force the user to supply context and sometimes even interpretation; in software design this can actually be a plus. One of the things you give up in software, and hardware, design is novelty. When you boil a solution down to its essence there's often not room for differentiation. You have to change either the constraints, smaller batteries, for example, or change user expectations.
This makes competing against something so "undesigned" very difficult without trying to completely re-conceptualize a product.
This is what Apple did with the iPhone. Now it helped them in that the basic "smart phone" was so utterly, indescribably awful before they entered the market. I imagine the process Jobs went through involved looking at the current market and deciding that there was no way to fix any of that. So they started from scratch. A big deal was realizing that they weren't simply making a phone with some connectivity features and a bigger display, but they were designing a small, portable communication platform that needed to have absolutely minimal impact on, well, portability. They looked at the problem and built just enough to solve the basics and provide a minimal amount of hardware and software to support the ideas. Anything added needs to have minimal impact on the basics.
Now they didn't get it perfect, by any means. But they did a good, credible job. Good enough that if you are a competitor you are going to have a hard time solving the same problems, with the same constraints, and not come up with something that a layman would have a hard time distinguishing from the original.
Now I'm against software patents myself, and think hardware patents should be much more difficult to get and keep. But legal issues aside, if you want to compete against the iPhone and iPad, and not seem like an also-ran, you are going to have to come up with a different interaction paradigm. A device built into spectacles with a heads up display and vision tracking? Something totally audio based; Siri anyone? I can see the attraction to a phone with no display or buttons at all.
I don't know the solution(s) myself, this is not an area I'm interested in developing in.
But I'll probably want to own whatever the next "Steve Jobs" comes up with. A Samsung iPhone/iPad knockoff? Not so much...
(Cue poorly-drawn comic of Bill Gates hurling a TC1100 through Apple's front window.)
IANAD, but everything I have read about design indicates that this is precisely what design is. So, the premise that Apple "undesigned" the iPad is a shaky one. That doesn't make Apple's list of demands any less silly, though.
Thats equivalent to arguing that a flat screen tv is obtained by "undesigning" a TV from the 90's and thus there is no real innovation involved!Simlarly a laptop then was made by "undesigning" a desktop computer!
Yes an iPad is what a tablet should look and feel like but it is so obvious because Apple pointed these seemingly "simple" things out and they absolutely deserve credit for it.
If you go ahead and "undesign" a Boeing 747 airliner and make it work as efficient and smooth as a bird shouldnt you deserve credit for it?
I've never mistaken another car for a mercedes (I'm thinking of the e-class), nor have I ever mistaken another laptop for a macbook, nor have I ever mistaken another mp3 player for an ipad.
i mistook someone using a samsung tablet for them using an ipad - I thought that's what it was, looking at them interacting with it fairly closely, etc.
I disagree with the argument in this article and elsewhere. The fact is, you could make basically the exact same arguments for why things HAVE to look like a MacBook or an iMac. But I've never seen anyone who cares about APPLE products in particular, mistake another computer for a MacBook or another computer for an iMac - have you?
When an expert does a double-take two minutes in and realizes that's not the Apple product it looks exactly like, then a line has been crossed.
you guys can mod me down, doesn't change this fact.
Apple is BMW of computers and BMW is Apple of cars - just look at this and honestly tell me this is beautiful and simple:
http://l.yimg.com/dv/izp/mercedes_benz_e_class_e320_bluetec_...
Compare that to the 5er sedan of same year (if we go back to e60 of mid 2003 things look even worse for Mercs)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/09/19-bmw...
I'm not even talking about A6
http://0.tqn.com/d/cars/1/0/1/P/1/09a6_interior.jpg
This is all personal I suppose, but I take issue when people relate Apple with Mercedes, just not the same level of attention to details between the two.
They didn't: http://twitpic.com/67ykpa
This doesn't look like an iPad to me: http://www.rainbowskill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hp-50...