132-page internal memo shows how Samsung set out to copy the iPhone | Hacker News Reader

132-page internal memo shows how Samsung set out to copy the iPhone

bgr.com

46 pointsServerGeek37 comments

What's annoying is this isn't the real issue. Of course Samsung felt threatened by the iPhone, and set out to copy the aspects of it they liked. That's how capitalism works.

The real issue is what degree of protection should our legal system provide original innovators against those who want to copy their innovations.

I think the guiding principle should be the least legal protection that would still leave enough incentive for the original innovation to be created. In the case of software, where there is little fixed investment cost and a competitive advantage to being "first to market", I have a hard time seeing the need for any legal protection.

For example, could anyone seriously argue that Apple wouldn't, say, implement a "slide to unlock" mechanism on the iPhone if they couldn't patent that behavior?

We really need an act of congress to rectify this situation.

I wouldn't argue that lack of legal protection for "slide to unlock" would stop them including it. But I would suggest that had they had absolutely no legal protection then there is a significant chance that the entire R&D project that became the iPhone wouldn't have happened. Why invest that much time and money, playing with prototypes and ideas that might never come to market, invest billions in production lines, software development and be the first in taking a bold leap into uncharted waters if you have no recourse when someone simply rips you off at the end of the day?

Walk into a Walmart and you can find tons of knockoff products like "Honey Nut Oatie Os". The breakfast cereal industry doesn't appear to have collapsed, though. In fact, you can buy a generic brand version of almost anything.

Yes. It's the designers whose jobs are devalued because although they have created something of immense and enduring worth to society, their value to a (single) organization is much less.

That said it's a complex issue and patents have historically never really covered designers (look at the history of the motorcar, the plane, photography, architecture, etc.)

Also the iPhone is probably the exception - it actually did make a huge amount of money before being copied. Most design projects are far more marginal.

"little fixed investment cost"

? I think you underestimate the costs for a company like Apple to go through the design, test, review, tweak cycle over and over again for each of those pixels. The cost to get it just right is not "little".

The extensive costs from the required multiple iterations required to arrive at such designs before they are seen by the public explains why companies like Samsung would prefer to save money, skip the iterations and simply jump straight to the end result by copying.

But this isn't the issue at hand.

Apple's claiming that Samsung deliberately copied their trade dress to confuse consumers. Remember, trade dress isn't functionality. It's the look and feel of the product, not the functionality.

It's over things like the color of the slide to unlock mechanism. The choice of icons and placement. Not the fact that you move your finger across the screen in a certain place to unlock the phone.

Doesn't their phone say "SAMSUNG" on the top of the frontside?

Surely Samsung wanted to mimic that sleek smartphone feeling that was all the rage, but try to confuse customers with a clone? They would be doing a terrible job.

That's true, but people are known to buy knock-offs because their looks are close enough to that of the genuine article.

In this kind of example, so long as it looked pretty similar and acted pretty similar, people might feel okay to buy the alternative product --whereas if it had the same functionality, or perhaps better fucntionality, but did not look like the genuine product, they might look elsewhere.

I don't know about Samsung's phones, but I've definitely held a Samsung tablet that did not say "Samsung"--or in fact anything--on the frontside. It was clearly designed to look as much like an iPad as possible.

And I now own a Google Nexus 7 tablet (in addition to an iPad). It also does not say anything on the frontside. It, clearly, is also designed to look from the front as much like an iPad as possible--only smaller.

... well, you know, except for the size, and those extra buttons. Of course, that takes us back to a black rectangle with rounded corners.

Btw, there are no extra buttons on a Nexus 7. The front of the Nexus 7 looks almost exactly like an iPad down to nearly every last subtle detail: The color and texture of the brushed aluminum trim, the black and proportions of the frame around the screen, the location of the forward-facing camera, the lack of any text or logo. Even the location of most of the connectors and switches is remarkably similar to the iPad. The only differences are that the headphone connector has been moved to the bottom, and the power button has been moved from the top edge to the right edge. But it is located where there is a button on the iPad.

From looking at the front of the Nexus 7, the only noticeable difference from an iPad is the lack of the round Home button that every iPad has.

To say that this is the only conceivable way for a tablet to look indicates either profound rationalization, or a true lack of imagination and knowledge of history. To assert that Google has such lack of imagination and knowledge of history is even more absurd. History is replete with examples of tablet computers that don't closely resemble the iPad. Even the Kindle Fire is noticeably different.

I'm constantly entertained by the amazing things that people will claim.

Don't overestimate the smarts of Joe Public.

>Surely Samsung wanted to mimic that sleek smartphone feeling that was all the rage, but try to confuse customers with a clone?

Confusing them with a clone doesn't necessarily mean having them believe they are buying an iPhone.

It's about having them believe: "well, this looks same-ish to me, it should be just as good as that iPhone thing".

Except software is really easy to copy. That should maybe enter into the calculation.

How is this about copying? This is a company taking a long hard look at how their product stacks up against the competition. It's called capitalism and competition. If you're not taking a hard look at how you compare to competitors then you're going to die. Notice development steps on each page point on how to improve their offering.

To me, what's damning is how similar EVERY SINGLE SCREEN looks to the iPhone. They also pretty much never point out that differences in their design are better than the iPhone. They only talk about how they need to make it more like the iPhone.

But that's because this is an internal memo about improvements, not "how well does Samsung stack up against Apple"?

I don't think that the slides are proof that Samsung is GOING to copy Apple, it's proof that they did.

They aren't. It's proof Samsung saw Apple as a competitor and tried to fix obvious flaws when comparing interfaces.

For me the most depressing part is that you have what I consider to be a pretty reasonable gap analysis with recommendations that has now become damning evidence showing bad behavior. This is unfortunate. I'd like all companies to profile their own products against others and own up to where they fall short and have plans to get better. If a company says, "Our phone gets only four hours on a charge but their's gets six, we should step it up", that's OK. But if they say, "The date display on the Calendar icon should match the current date on the phone", that's "slavishly copying".

Side note: where did Apple get inspiration for their should a reel-to-reel recorder image in the new podcast app? Slide 121? Answer: I don't know but it shouldn't matter.

>But if they say, "The date display on the Calendar icon should match the current date on the phone", that's "slavishly copying".

I don't think that's the case, if it's just showing the date on the icon.

On the other hand, if the instruction is to "Show the date display on the Calendar icon exactly like Apple's icon," that's a different story.

Wait, is this the same memo as http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4349519 ? If so, jesus, what a link bait title.

It is a link bait title even if it isn't the same memo, the document in this article (linked several times on the front page already today) shows that Samsung was looking at the marked leader and trying to figure out what they did right that Samsung wasn't doing.

Setting aside any legal aspects of this, I found the document really interesting as a User Experience tutorial.

It's a shame that every single screen simply talks about how they can make their products more like the iPhone.

It would have been nice to see them trying to make their products better than the iPhone, but, alas, they are only trying to play "catch-up", not "exceed".

I might argue that when you're that far behind, it isn't unreasonable to make the quarterly goal to "catch-up" and then finally to "exceed". These are not mutually exclusive goals, they are just situation relative.

I agree.

And we've seen time and time again, that just as everyone else "catches-up" to an Apple device, Apple go and release the next one that jumps them ahead again, because they have that 1-2 year head start.

Yeah, I know it has not always been the case, but I think it's pretty safe to say it was the case with the iPod for it's entire life, and it does happen with the iPhone/iPad/MBA/MBPr

I think it's Apple playing catch-up with Android for the past couple of years. The MPB is a big jump ahead for Apple with that screen though.

Some of these make it seem like the firm just wants an iphone clone.

For example, #52: No menu for going back to the previous screen when watching a video. Isn't this a trait of the android OS? Hard button to go back, and it's universally like this for all apps. Adding a back button just for video would break the continuity.

#56: Star to 'add to fav' should be replaced with a plus because users don't recognize what a star does. I'm pretty confident that people will understand what a star does in this context...

Pretty damning, I'm confident that all the mobile manufacturers do this against each other, why wouldn't they? It just sucks to be Samsung right now.

That said, this kind of corporate innovation is pretty broken, too. The way I interpret this document is not "how can we make a great product?" but rather: "How can we emulate a great product?"

Almost ironic, now that the iPhone app store is almost entirely comprised of mine craft rip offs.

Meanwhile, we basically nationalize Samsung's patents that are fundamental to mobile phone infrastucture...

Can't the same be said of many Moto tech and patents?

Maybe. I only know what I read on HN. My point is that the patent holder who invented the infrastructure should be enriched by their patent. but we have a gov't setting limits on how much they can charge to license their patent, somehow the design elements of the device are going to turn out to be worth more than the tech that enable the device to work.

I'm saying (poorly) that I think that reason should dictate that if apple pays X per device for the tech that enable the device then samsung should pay Y < X if found to be infringing on round corners and colorful icons.

I don't value the design that much more highly than the enabling tech. I was pretty satisfied with my old compact nokia phone - I had a midi of run to the hills as my ringtone. Life was good.

Everything is a remix:

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com