IPhone caused "crisis of design" at Samsung
allthingsd.com
allthingsd.com
Also, did their lawyer fuck up by mentioning the memo? I'm not well aware of how these things work.
Anyway, the memo by itself doesn't damn Samsung, but in context with, oh, the radius of curvature of every corner of key products being changed to exactly match Apple's devices, the color and arrangement of icons, the color and choice of materials, and the design of packaging all matching -- it seems pretty damning.
Yesterday we had the internal memo revealing that most returns of the Galaxy Tab were literally caused by customers mistaking it for an iPad.
Burger King for a long time had a strategy of building new restaurants near newly built Macdonalds because it knew how much effort its rival put into researching locations. This seems kind of unethical, but apparently is perfectly legal competition. Samsung builds its restaurants near Macdonalds, copies the menu, erects a golden M over the entrance, and serves takeout in white bags.
Samsung certainly doesn't model itself after Apple. It just copies their product designs down to the packaging and marketing.
Of course, Borders went on to screw the pooch all by itself later, but that's a different story.
In that context I think it's damaging to Samsung as it's hard to say it doesn't show a little part of that picture, but obviously Apple will need a lot more to make the whole argument.
The implication is that the lawyer fucked up - that the memo was out of scope until he referenced it at which point the judge considered it fair game - but it's not 100% clear.
This very much seems like a misdirected argument, at least from the ethical perspective. The question isn't whether or not Samsung was trying to emulate the elements that made the iPhone a success, the question is to whether it should be allowed or not. A world where that kind of "copying" is disallowed isn't one I want to live in.
But that's not what this case is about.
Apple is claiming that Samsung copied their product's aesthetics to mislead consumers. That's why Apple is suing Samsung.
And truthfully, I don't want to live in a world where that sort of copying is allowed.
And to be clear: I'm fine with the idea that you can get a design patent on very narrow grounds to protect branding aspects that trademarks don't. Make Samsung change their plastic then. Don't use that as a springboard to argue they should be sued out of the market. That's just evil.
No, that's protecting the patent.
So yes, this is how the system works. Both sides putting in enormous effort over admissibility of minor documents, outcomes swayed by minor missteps.
http://www.blogcdn.com//media/2012/08/walkman8212.jpg
None of those products (iPod, Walkman, iPhone) would be confused for the other.
You're right that it's a great parallel and perhaps even more so.
They've been excluded from the trial - Samsung's lawyers were late in submitting them.
When you look at from a consumer's point of view, it looks pretty damaging. When you start to look at what Apple legally can prove, this memo is not that damning. Like you stated, it says they wanted to use a similar design and UX, but never stated they would copy it verbatim.
It's just not the smoking gun Apple attorney's are probably looking for.
If I've seen one consistent thing from Apple product design, it's that they appear to iterate continuously on the hardware and software/UI/IX components until they feel they have reached the absolute best (and before a wrong-tangent thread starts, that doesn't mean it is THE best, just Apple's opinion of best, etc.)
Most likely in the course of designing the iPhone/iPad, Apple threw away countless hardware and software designs that would have frankly been great and significant game changers. So I would imagine their view is along the lines of "We know the iPhone isn't the only conceivable marketable smartphone layout."
I personally believe that Samsung, or some other smart company, could have come up with an iPhone competitor that would not be so closely compared to and confused with the iPhone. Especially when you consider that the iPhone was groundbreaking in the sense of not having a physical keyboard. That was certainly not perceived as the "perfect" solution at the time, and probably still isn't. There was room for innovative differentiation in how user input was handled (physical keyboard, Palm grafitti-style input, chording keyboard, something new).
Instead Samsung (and several other companies) immediately switched to the flat all-glass iPhone design with the same basic rows of squared icons.
I understand why this perception exists, but I do not think that it represents a fair assessment of what happened.
The first Android device after the iPhone was the HTC G1, with both a keyboard and a trackball. The first two "high-end" (IMO) Android phones were the Motorola Droid and Nexus One (one had a keyboard, the other had a trackball). There were also some Blackberry-esque designs built in the past couple of years (cf, Motorola Charm, and a couple of others). There have also been variations on hinge design and screen setups (HTC Desire Z hinge, and Kyocera Echo).
Samsung themselves have built a couple of high end Android phones with slideout keyboards for both AT&T and Sprint.
The fact that they've settled on a slate design has less to do with their attempts at differentiation than it does with providing what the market has been asking for. They've tried building the other phones, they just don't sell to as large of a demographic.
I can't imagine anyone today picking Palm graffiti-style input over Swype, for example.
I disagree that the slate is what the "market wanted", it's what Apple told them they wanted, which is a very polished skill of Apple.
Apple consistently sets their marketing apart, and many/most other vendors follow up with "me too" products and marketing. I don't recall seeing any of the keyboard/trackball type phones really truly pushing and standing behing those products as a "THIS is what you want" type of marketing. It's kind of like Apple stakes out a claim and defends it vehemently with their product marketing. Many other vendors try something and kinda say "we think you might want to consider this", but they don't seem to truly own and embrace their own decisions.
Apple basically ignores everything else and puts out their own concepts. I don't see this as much from other companies, though I do try to really look and keep an open mind.
I personally think that an elegantly designed and marketed keyboard phone could have been a solid iPhone rival, maybe even still could.
I had that first Motorola Droid, but the software truly sucked at the time. Email client was lame, didn't support signatures at all. The keyboard was OK, but not great. The OS consistently fumbled switching between soft and physical keyboard by throwing away whatever you were typing. So, I don't think the "market" rejected the early keyboard phones as much as they rejected to overall state of those devices at the time relative to iOS.
Samsung pretty clearly took the iPhone and decided to make their own equivalent. It's an approach they've used (with great success) when competing with Sony. Unlucky for them Apple patented their work every step of the way.
Microsoft however went back to the drawing board, looked at how users were actually using the iPhone, went through their own product development process and built something unquestionably unique.
Why can't Samsung just come up with it's own ideas? Why was there no S-Voice before Siri? Why is the Galaxy line pretty much the only Android Smartphone with a home button? Why do Samsung product packages (!!) look nearly the same as Apple?
Even if people like Samsung or hate Apple they have to admit that something fishy is going on here.
Windows Phone / Metro show that you can do these things differently, so does BlackBerry OS, so do some Android phones. When you look at the similarities between the iPhone and assorted other smartphones, they're nowhere near all being the same.
It's certainly interesting that (to my eyes at least) more recent phones like the S3 look a lot less like the iPhone than the S2 did and has still been massively successful.
I can see how this argument might seem plausible if Apple were only going after Samsung, but they're not.
Apple's also going after HTC (going after, among other things, the Nexus One and the HTC Flyer), Motorola (Xoom)and at least a couple of smaller tablet vendors (and it is entirely possible that there are lawsuits and/or other legal actions I've missed). It's worth nothing that that list includes the top 3 Android OEMs in the US. It's also worth noting Apple is likely avoiding suing Sony because Sony has a trove of patents they could counter-attack with.
This isn't about copying, no matter how much Apple and their apologists try to pretend that it is. This is about Apple abusing the broken patent system to damage their competition - no more, no less.
I'd suggest that in different cases (and indeed within the same case in some instances) both things are happening - Apple are pissed off at what seems to be outright copying and that Apple are taking advantage of the system.
But I'm dubious about any suggestion that it has to be one or the other, these things are rarely that clear cut.
a) Do not copy the iPhone. Make old ugly phones. (What blackberry did) Now users are stuck with old ugly phones.
b) Make something different, not because it's better, but only for being different's sake. (what windows phone did) Forces users to adapt to something new instead of using what they're already used to.
c) Embrace the innovation. Put all that's good about the iPhone in your product. Then iterate through it and improve upon it. (what samsung did) Now users have the best of both worlds, they have the brand new innovation, in a format they're used to. And taking benefit from next iterations improved from it.
It's obvious that option C is best for users. Might not be the best for the original innovators. But it's the best for consumers.
Sometimes it's easy to forget that intellectual property is first and foremost intended to protect users. Not innovators. Protecting innovators is a means to a greater end. It's the vehicle that we found that would, in theory, lead to greater products for users. But, unfortunately, often there's a conflict of interest between inventors and consumers.
As an innovator, it's in my best interest that everyone in the planet must pay their every last time to me if they ever stare at my invention, and are only allowed to improve upon it if I allow it. But as a consumer, it's in my best interest that inventions are shared and improved upon. So I can have the best of both worlds.
When there's this conflict of interests. Consumers should always take precedence. Because protecting consumers is the only good argument to back up IP in the first place. If that's not the goal, then IP is meaningless. Protecting inventors for protecting inventor's sake has no value. We do so because we believe that will lead to greater products for users.
It's very common to see a confusion between these in these discussions. Even in courts. Every time I hear "apple is being ripped off because they paid so much money into R&D" or "artists are entitled to their music, and not you". It's clear there's a disconnect between what IP should be and what you think it should be. You shouldn't care whether it's protecting the inventor, you should care whether it's protecting the user. Whenever you're in doubt, you should ask yourself if doing something will protect or hurt the user.
And in this case. It's obvious that even tho Samsung did copy a lot from Apple, they're also improving a lot on what existed before. What they're doing is not in the best interest of those they're copying from. But it's in the best interest of users. Punishing Samsung hurts consumers. That's what we should be worried about. If samsung loses this, it sets a terrible precedent for our industry. And it would be a great loss for consumers. Regardless of who copied what for which reason.
The trial is asking "did Samsung copy Apple?", this question is "should that matter?" which is a question for our law makers.
The side you don't talk about is what benefit accrues to someone who does great design or R&D or produces great art if it can just be immediately copied by someone who doesn't have to make the investment in time or money. If that deters investment then it's not necessarily in the long term interest of the users.
Personally I'm not intrinsically anti-IP, I see some benefit, I just think the level of protection that's afforded goes on for too long and is handed out to too easily.
My feeling is that if you look at how markets develop, there is a period where there is rapid innovation followed by a period of stabilisation and standardisation. If we provided protection during the initial period (maybe three to five years) that provides incentive but may also encourage innovation as people looked to innovate themselves to compete.
Then after the market has settled down and there are clear winners and losers, the protection is moved and the standardisation you talk about can come to pass as the foundation for the next wave of changes.
But critically IP needs to be looked at on a market by market basis. Having a one size fits all system that covers drugs that need years of expensive testing, music that might be written in a few hours, software that is almost certainly redundant in a couple of years and hardware (that depending on it's nature could fall almost anywhere on the spectrum) is mad.
If you assume that everything Apple invented was trivial to copy. Then even then, Apple was still the richest company in the whole planet before having ever bothered that anyone copied them. The richest company in the whole planet. It seems to me that the R&D investment already payed off, lawsuits or no lawsuits. I believe that answers your question.
It's clear from these results that Apple and competitors will invest in R&D anyway no matter if they get copied afterwards. It still pays off for them. I'm pretty sure the world won't stop inventing new things because some are being copied.
Different things have different costs to develop, different value, different life span, different barriers to duplication and so on. Some of the things Apple have been granted patents to they'd have done if they had no protection at all, others they may not have bothered with.
But it's easy to look at the success of the iPhone and say "it's obvious it paid off" but not all R&D leads to an iPhone and not all companies are Apple. That's like talking about running and only using Usain Bolt as an example.
I agree that we should have different IP laws for different situations but I don't think profitability or size is a good metric to use.
EDIT: I wonder (thinking out loud) whether some sort of system where you have to be willing to license all patents on something like a FRAND basis might work (not FRAND in terms of the detail but the overall principal)? No-one gets exclusivity but you do get a return. Competing companies can then work out whether they think it's worth paying the modest fee or whether to develop and alternative themselves.
Say you're a one man start up and you invent something really cool in your garage. You start marketing it, get a bit of leverage and sell a few. It's going great, you've got some orders, get some money from an investor, you've got a proper workshop and are growing nicely.
Then Samsung or Apple see what you're doing and think it looks cool. They get their factories up to speed and throw a few million dollars into marketing (that you don't have needless to say) and before you know it they're selling millions. Everyone wants it, consumer demand is off the chart and no-one cares a jot about you in your workshop any more because Apple and Samsung can make the thing cheaper and get it to consumers faster.
So, it made it to market, there's plenty of demand and yet where's the incentive for you to do anything when you have your next great idea other than go and get drunk in a ditch because you've got no desire to get screwed over again?
Yes the consumer benefits from cheaper devices but they also benefit from great people having great ideas and being incentivised to do something with them because they know they could get a reward.
And that's before we get into talking about how we do want to encourage failure because if we try 1000 long shots, even if 90% of them fail, we'll have more great stuff than if we try 100 things and half of them work out. research risks benefit the consumer in the long term.
There is a reason "Shut up and take my money" is a meme. Look at the LightTable project that has been shown here on HN a few times over the past few months[1]. Take a look at the current state of popular IDEs. There are hundreds of common patterns shared between every one of them. Chris Granger comes around and shows a new idea and new paradigm for software engineering and everyone goes wild, a Kickstarter campaign starts up, and he gets to work on trying to get a product out the door that thousands of people want. For the sake of argument, lets say he fails to produce the product (personal issues come up and he has to quit, or whatever). Does that automatically make the project a bad product? Thousands of people still want to use it, over 7,000 people have already put money down in support of it. Are those people just idiots when it comes to choosing a hot new product and can't tell a doomed project from a good idea?
Consumer demand does not equal market success. There are hundreds of examples I could give of product features I've personally implemented for my work that have been thrown away because some stakeholder didn't see the value at the time it was shown, and on occasion that same feature gets requested later in the product's lifecycle.
[1] http://www.chris-granger.com/2012/04/12/light-table---a-new-...
Intellectual property has always been a temporary monopoly granted to provide economic incentives to inventors/writers/what-have-you for societal advancement.
Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Objective...: "The stated objective of most intellectual property law (with the exception of trademarks) is to "Promote progress."[12] By exchanging limited exclusive rights for disclosure of inventions and creative works, society and the patentee/copyright owner mutually benefit, and an incentive is created for inventors and authors to create and disclose their work."
That said, I don't like your tone. Arguing, for or against a position does not make one an apologist.
From Article 1, Section 8: Congress shall have the Power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I guess it's fair to say that 'the Progress of Science' is for the benefit of citizens, but there's definitely cutouts for the benefits of inventors & authors.
I think this muddiness definitely sits near the root of current IP debates.
> Congress shall have the Power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
The goal or motive.
> by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The means by which the goal is achieved. The benefit to authors and inventors are a means to and end, don't confuse the means for the motive.
Which action from those existing developers would be best for users?
a) Do not copy your product/service. Continue doing things the old way.
b) Make something different, not because it's better, but only for being different's sake. Forces users to adapt to something new instead of using what they're already used to.
c) Embrace the innovation. Put all that's good about your product/service in their offering. Then iterate through it and improve upon it. Now users have the best of both worlds, they have the brand new innovation, in a format they're used to. And taking benefit from next iterations improved from it.
So where does your preferred option (c) leave you in this scenario? Would you whole-heartedly welcome another player "embracing your innovation"?
If that happens to me, I'll lose all motivation to innovate any further. What is the point after all?
At the end of the day. I trust my skills in my area. And deep inside, I'm confident that no matter how much I'm copied, whoever copies me will always be one step behind me. Because I'll keep on innovating one step further. The only reason I founded a startup is because I believe I'm better than the competition, otherwise I wouldn't have. Realistically, I believe my competitors are much more likely to become clients to my API than to actually try to implement it themselves.
That's just one of the many reasons humans will continue to create and innovate, no matter how much innovation is copied.
"If that happens to me, I'll lose all motivation to innovate any further"
Well, tough luck kid, but a free market has no morals. In a free market the law of the fittest applies. And you should be glad there are still free markets out there, in which people like us can thrive.
Many consumers buy the iPhone "because it's iPhone" - they can't even tell you half of its innovations. So you left out d, which is what Samsung did:
d) Build a device that usurps the panache of the iPhone
Imagine that tomorrow someone -- say Apple -- makes a device that can read your thoughts. Nokia rushes a thought-reading smartphone to the market just before everyone else gets their own thought-reading smartphones on the market. Does Nokia suddenly have a worldwide exclusive right to it?
This is all very similar to the countless "on a computer" patents.
Every device learns from every other. I used Android above but of course it learned from WebOS among others.
Further this notion that the iPhone spurred on a lot of changes that were already happening industry wide is truly infuriating. You've seen the ridiculous "here are smartphones before the iPhone, cherry picked to find those most unlike it, and here are smartphones after the iPhone, cherry picked to find those most like it", acting as if the pivotal event was the introduction of the iPhone, external to the fact that a confluence of hardware improvements made such a form factor possible if not optimal.
The GPS industry -- which exploded before the iPhone -- pioneering and accelerated mobile screen technology, mobile touchscreens, mobile CPUs and GPUs (OpenGL ES -- the foundation of graphics on the iPhone -- was built almost purpose suited for mobile GPS devices), etc. The iPhone borrowed from that development, taking the state of screens, touchscreens and GPUs to make a better smartphone.
Everytime someone shows one of those "before the iPhone" and "after the iPhone" they scream out their ignorance. That the iPhone took advantage of the progression of technology at the right time doesn't give it ownership of the domain.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/15/tomtom-go-910-portable-gp... <- a year before the iPhone.
All hardware discussions aside (and you do make some good points), the central advance of the iPhone was in the design of the software.
Everything is an app. Everything. The alarm clock is not a special case, Wifi is not a special case, e-mail is not a special case. All functionality has a 'home'. All functionality is 'owned' somewhere. All settings are handled in one location.
There are no scrollbars. No menus. No modes. No windowing. No pointer. No double-tap. The only fixed interface is Volume Up, Volume Down, Home, and Lock. Everything else is mutable, task-specific, and optimized for the space available.
This is the supernova idea that changed more than just the smartphone industry. Vast chunks of complexity and spaghetti UI were drained out of the smartphone experience. Everything else shitty about iOS 1 including the hacky update system and the crappy popups was cleaned up and refined in time, none representing a failing of the product's core design.
So in no way, shape, or form could the iPhone be described as 'horribly complicated'. Literally no access to the filesystem, no ability to add or remove software, no classical ports, no expandability, no alternate firmwares or carrier modifications, simple setup of "cloud" services, effortless PC sync... it was a masterwork of simplicity for the great bulk of users.
He quickly realized that it was NOT an iPhone or even a very smart smartphone.
Since you don't always get to use the phones in stores, you don't always know what you're buying. If it "looks like an iPhone" and has the same feature list, to many people it's the same basic device, just like most people do with appliances, cars, tv's, computers, etc.
Samsung made a lot of sales based on the fact that they looked and sold themselves as an iPhone look/workalike device.
Notice how Toyota partnered with Tesla motors to build an EV SUV? Or what about how Ford licensed Toyota's hybrid technology back in 2004? Patents and licensing.
Given that the automotive industry is much older than the computer industry, they've likely learned the value in licensing technology where it makes sense. Nobody would claim or confuse a Ford Fusion Hybrid with a Toyota Prius.
Also, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, etc. all by now have fairly distinct branding and styles, so you don't see as much where the new Ford sedan looks just like the new Chevy sedan in hopes of selling more vehicles.
Samsung seems to have made a real effort to look and sell as if they're selling iPhones and iPads. That is why they're in trouble. Notice that Apple didn't sue Blackberry for the the Storm or the Torch looking the same as the iPhone.
Steve Jobs warned Samsung about not infringing on many of the key patents e.g. rubber banding effect and even offered to license it. Samsung refused. Hence the subsequent lawsuits.
By "value" I mean the value to the shareholders of the established large companies, not value in the sense of capitalism creating value.
And it highlights how fast people adopt tech now. Major feature changes in automobiles happen over decades, and people can rely on the look signaling major features.
Now the uptake is so rapid that consumers have a lot of opportunity to make dumber decisions. A smartphone may well impact your life more than your choice of sedan, but because a smartphone is cheap compared to a sedan you just aren't going to research the choice as thoroughly.
Really, the consumers are the problem. They need to realize that despite the low cost of computers and smartphones, their choice of computer and smartphone is sometimes a decision on the level of "apartment shopping," not "Xbox or Playstation?," when it comes to impact it will have on their day-to-day life.
Before that, Sprint was laughably selling the HTC Touch with WinMo6.5 and some crappy skin as their iPhone equivalent.
Maybe it's just hindsight bias, but as I recall, hardware manufacturers didn't seem to do nearly as much direct brand marketing before the iPhone as they do now.
It was a rock solid device (I even had Android flashed on it and in many ways it outperformed my "legit Android" Samsung Moment). WinMo6.5 was also a fine competitor in the PalmOS era, but everyone except AT&T tried really hard to sell skinned WinMo6.5 devices as touch friendly interfaces even sans-stylus in response to the iPhone. That fell flat on it's face once you tried to use any non-superficial feature on WinMo6. Dial a number? Sure, use your fingers. Need to enter a new contact? Bust out that stylus.
Fact of the matter is that current state of technology places limits and barriers that should not be permitted for patent or copyright right up against. In fact, this effect will only concentrate even more as the physical nature of technology and innovation disappears as things get smaller and more concentrated.
With technology and design starting to crowd up against a barrier of physical form-factors, it becomes increasingly apparent that patenting and copyrighting should proportionally protect the change, the innovation, the added value; not the absolute.
The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more marginal variations on existing technology and design than not. Capturing popular attention and leveraging inherent human desires is what garnered the devices and Apple so much fame and fortune, not the innovation or creativity. There is nothing unique about straight lines, exact curvature, shininess, sharp edges, and uniformity. Apple simply OCDed the shit out of their products. I applaud their designs and their configuration of technology, but much of it is not sufficiently unique to warrant patenting or copyrighting.
Where do you draw the line, and will Apple (or any other corporations for that matter) be allowed to draw that line right around their interests, products, and designs in a self-serving manner...essentially corporate gerrymandering?
Tongue-in-cheek, so no need to tell me how stupid I am, but we may as well allow for the patent on anything that is different than what existed prior if we are going to allow patenting and copyrighting of what is defined by hardly more than the technological limitations. Should one be allowed to patent a tablet that is 5 mm thick because it is thinner than a 6 mm tablet?
When you patent fundamental constraints, you might as well patent and copyright going from point A to point B and sue everyone that doesn't go through point C to get to point B. You are essentially trying to force complexity and inefficiency because you have hijacked simplicity and efficiency.
There are interesting points you make about IP law, but you lost me in the above sentence which is just plain wrong. Perhaps you forget what the pre-iPhone cellphone market was like.
Bullshit.
The iPhone may not be unique anymore, but when it was released, it was groundbreaking. It can be argued forever that Apple did not 'invent' multitouch [1, 2], didn't invent rounded rectangle, a grid of application icons ... etc. but they were the first ones to democratize it. The iPhone was the first device to truly have 'thought through' how a touch-only device should work for a variety of tasks. There are lots of interesting projects that never move beyond research labs; I think Apple pushed the whole industry and research community forward with the iPhone.
To look at a product as a sum of its parts is often very very misleading. That's true for the iPhone. Of course other manufacturers had to start using similar technology, but that doesn't mean that they could or should copy interaction paradigms, design details (right down to the final retail packaging). AND most other manufacturers managed to use the same technology and NOT cross the line between inspiration and ripping-off. I cannot fathom how one can look at the Samsung products in question and not see that they were more than inspired.
"You are essentially trying to force complexity and inefficiency because you have hijacked simplicity and efficiency."
Bullshit.
Simple is hard. Yes, that's an official Apple line, but anyone who's ever written a piece of code will attest to this fact. Removing cruft, making things cleaner, starting over ... is often the most difficult step. Apple clearly did the same with its products, it's clear from the prototypes it presented in court. Also, there are umpteen examples of how things can be made simpler and better than what Apple offers. At a software level, WebOS does (did) a great job of figuring out multi-tasking on mobile devices, Android is fantastic with notifications and cross-app communication (intents).
Without getting into lawyer-esque conversations, just take a look at the Samsung products in question ... you should get what this case is about (for now, just focus on things that meet the eye ... literally)
[1] Flexible Machine Interface (Nimish Mehta , University of Toronto). Published in 1982. [2] Fingerworks (1998). A company founded by Wayne Westerman and John Elias. I think Westerman went on to work for Apple. For multi-touch history, check this out http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
Please change the title to " iPhone caused..." (i.e. add an space at the beginning), and the stupid auto-capitalization system will be fooled.
see here for a submission with lowercase i at the beginning: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4306480