Well argued rebuttal of Apple's claim about Samsung copying its tablet design. Although I disagree on color. Before the iPhone, and after, electronic devices have been all sorts of color. For example, the Kindle debuted in off white. Moto Razrs came in pink. Black is not the only logical solution.
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.
There is probably a reason why most TVs come in black - it makes the colors and the picture to stand out more.
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/
I've been shopping for a new large screen tellie for a few months and while what you say is generally true, ironically given the situation, Samsung TVs are noticeably different from the bulk of the competition from their ultra thinness to their silver colour. Samsung tellies are noticeably unique. When it comes to small cameras one can easily say that a camera is a 3d rectangle with a lens but if you look at Sammy's NX100/200 series you'll see they went out of their way to make the camera look unique by giving it a curved face rather than flat.
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.
The article goes even further and makes the claim that "every TV has a black frame", implying that Samsung had no choice for their tablets, and shows a mock-up of a tablet with a red frame for comparison.
In fact, Samsung makes TVs with red frames, which they brag is a feature:
The author invested quite some time to make his point, however, I disagree.
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.
Yeah, I thought some of the points contradicted too. At one point he says a curved edge is better for holding, but it is "impossible" to engineer it that way due to batteries. Then he says the Sony S tablet's curve makes it unusable. hmmm....
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.
His drawing of the "optimal" shape clearly shows that while the back is curved to follow the curve of the hand, the back is still symmetrical, so when the Pad is placed on the table, it lies flatly on the surface, and the front of the Pad is completely horizontal.
And its easier to grab it. with flat surfieces one would be forced to push it till the edge of the surface, like when I try to pick up coins from table, PAIN!
Maybe, but how successful were those Microsoft tablets.
"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.
Complete nonsense. The iPad design only seems inevitable in hindsight. If you want to appreciate the iPad's originality, look at the crap tablets that existed before the iPad
This article is probably falling for the cognitive bias (whose name I forget), where what actually happened looks inevitable in retrospect, but looked much more undecided in prospect.
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.
That picture, which is shown much too often, is a perfect illustration only of selection bias.
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.
The HP Slate didn't come before the iPad, in fact it came to market 10 months later. Neither did the Joojoo, unless you think Apple developed the iPad in one year's time.
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.
Incorrect. Once capacitive screens that could detect a finger were invented, they were immediately incorporated into tablet PCs. Many tablets incorporated an active digitizer underneath a resistive one, allowing both fingers and styli. As for a custom app-based OS, look no further than any tablet running Windows Mobile, like the HTC Shift X9500.
You can add to that the Uren V1, the Samsung Q1, the i7210, the HTC Advantage, the Samsung Mondi, and the W1090, just for starters. Apple did absolutely nothing when it came to device innovation, they just made brilliant, easy to use software to go along with it and gave it a good price point.
I think Apple definitely have a claim to revolutionising the tablet, but its much more to do with building a decent OS which is relatively simple to use, and making sure its backed up by decent hardware so it responds without a huge amount of lag. The physical design, whilst nice, was never the ground breaking element, but perhaps it is easier for the lawyers to claim patents over....
In my experience the main problem with older tablets (pre-2006) was that they had a horrible usability/cost ratio. If you had lots of cash to blow (from corporate IT budgets) on gadgets you could get a slow, awkward version of windows to browse the web and work with your powerpoint presentations. The touchscreens were finicky, power-saving features were crude, there was no 3G wireless, and multimedia capabilities weren't impressive.
The iPad wasn't feasible until those technical problems had been solved.
Your examples aren't particularly good ones; it would appear none of the post-iPad images are of a Samsung device. The point can best be illustrated using the same approach that a judge did in one of the hearings; if you hold up any of the devices prior to the iPad and an iPad and ask a typical consumer to identify which one is the iPad, there is no question as to which one they'd instantly pick. Do the same with a a Galaxy 10.1 and iPad and I'm not so sure the same individual could immediately differentiate the two, in fact Samsung's lawyer couldn't identify which was which, kind of proving Apple's point. Do the same with pretty much every other tablet on the market and there is a significant enough difference to recognise which is an iPad in an instance, as illustrated by your picture. That's not to say Apple's approach is either valid or particularly warranted, however as an industrial designer looking at both products in the knowledge that one followed the other, I find it hard to believe that Samsung haven't be substantially "influenced" by Apple's design language; to the extent that were these design degree submissions, I'd be investigating plagiarism.
Did they hide the samsung brand on the front and had it turned off? I mean most people are aware of the Apple brand and would know it's not and iPad just based on the lack of the apple logo.
Actually there is a lot more that differentiates these two devices even on a first inspection. If I asked you to tell me the brand of two tires with no branding could you tell me which is which? I don't see people talking about bridegstone and Michelin having serious issues.
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.
What I see is an excellent example of how tablets before the iPad did not look anything like the iPad, and those after have clearly been inspired by it.
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.
Many people usually looks at design from design features perspective rather than the subtleness of it. After all, they're all rectangular with bezels and screen in the middle. It can't be much different, right?
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.
So basically you are calling out people for their "design blindness" while at the same time you imply that no competing electronic device has ever been designed as well as anything Apple has ever made.
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.
Before I give some examples, just remember that claiming one device has an overall better design is highly subjective. However, build quality is more easily recognized.
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.
all windows tablets needed a stylus. ever used one of those? horrible, horrible stuff.
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.
If you did a chart of how typical websites looked through those years, they would similarly change towards minimalism with rounded corners. Picking one and putting it in the middle wouldn't mean much. Popular design styles change over time. This diagram doesn't prove anything.
The author is not giving Apple credit for the design it deserves. Why did no other tablets look like the iPad before the iPad then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
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.
There are fair points here but in terms of the bezel having to be black - neither my Kindle (grey) nor the screen surround of my Macbook (brushed silver) are black and they're both completely usable.
Our eyes don't "see the world as a rectangle". The reason that newspapers, etc. are rectangular has more to do with efficient space packing (and linear text, as the author mentions) than the inherent capabilities of the eye.
I can't help but disagree. The implication here is that there is no other way to design a tablet, as if progress is officially halted now, and Apple's design is the only design can ever exist.
He mentions the New York Times suing over the design of a newspaper, but if someone else used the same fonts, sizes, layouts, and more to exploit customer confusion and make a newspaper that looked like the New York Times, the New York Times probably would sue them.
Besides, Samsung's tablets are a very obvious case of copying. It isn't just the shape. Everything is a clone of Apple's designs--the chargers are the same, the cables are the same, the packaging is the same, the home screen icons look the same (Samsung even stole Apple icon artwork and used it in their store)--it's completely obvious that the goal was to make a knock-off of Apple's design. Anyone with common sense can see that just by comparing the two devices.
Bad, cheap knock-offs can damage the original brand. I don't blame Apple for going after Samsung at all.
See, to me, Samsung does have an issue here, but it's not about the "rounded rectangle" shape or the "reasonably thick black bezel": it's the fact they have both of those, like the iPad, but then also surround them with a marginal silver border.
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.
Design patents cover design, not function. As this article points out, minimalist designs are highly constrained. They wouldn't be minimalist if there were lots of other ways to do it.
Perhaps this is somewhat off topic, but what do you actually use so many tablets for? I can definitely see the appeal of a tablet, but I can't really imagine a usage scenario that requires the specific features of one of four different tablets.
Consider cross platform development, online services, or end user support.
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. :-)
Many of them were free. The Galaxy Tab 10.1" is from Google I/O, the TouchPad is from HP for development, although I bought the iPad and Kindle Fire myself. I do use them for development too, where it is useful to have a device for the platform you are developing for.
Doesn't matter. Design patents are about non-branded aesthetics. (A typeface can be design-patented because coming up with a beautiful typeface is hard. In many countries, including the US, typefaces can't be copyrighted.) But trademarks are about consumer confusion, i.e. consumers accidentally buy a Samsung tablet because they think they're buying an iPad, which has a reputation.
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.
Yea, I was lumping "aestetics" into "functionality" as opposed to trademarks, which are "informative". That was wrong terminology. I also was thinking that the readability of a typeface would be covered under a design patent, but upon reflection it would not.
Which is one reason why I think Apple will have trouble here. Samsung only needs to show that there is a functional basis for their design decisions (rounded corners => more comfortable, black bezel => better contrast, metal band on frame => stronger, more scratch resistant, etc). and the issues of design patents and trade dress fall away.
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.
"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."
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?
I'm not quite sure what your point is - certainly Samsung was making laptops with the same black design theme prior to the iPad's release. I very much doubt they changed their whole line of laptops to look like the iPad.
"certainly Samsung was making laptops with the same black design theme prior to the iPad's release"
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.
I'm not convinced that rounded corners are anything more than a trend right now.
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.
Obligatory folklore.org [1]... design is often how to incorporate what we already know and see in the digital world... regarding your comment about folders, if you do a google image search for "folder" you'll find most of them are rounded. In drawer at home, most of the folders have rounded edges where possible (ie, not at the hinge of the folder due to increased tear potential).
' 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. '
Apple need be careful what they insist others do - it may be done, and well, and Apple prohibited from doing it too. Example:
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...
Apple never suggested that the margin should be the same as the background colour of the content. The author of the article is stating that would be even better.
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.
In reading his description of the inevitable black border, I was thinking about Philips Ambilight[1] and how useful it would be for the border to be page color (white or black) when reading, or even to pick up the bgcolor or background from web pages.
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.
Oh for frak's sake, Apple. This design came out before the iPad and looks identical to it. HN readers, you especially should know about this since it was all over the front page forever:
No, it also looks like the border is slightly raised more like the Kindle.
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).
Problem is, the iPad was designed for finger input. Raises bezels would mean you can't touch a segment of the edge of the screen without pressing hard enough to force your finger into that triangle. Any designer working with finger input would recognize that and design a screen flush with the bezel.
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.
on the other hand, like it is suggested to developers to not look at existing Patents, the same logic would be applied to design patents as well. If this is followed, any design can be reinvented - the more minimalistic the design is, higher would be the chances for its reinvention; this was also the central idea behind the article.
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.
The appearance of TV's have converged upon the current form of minimalism and simplicity given the current technology available--all screen, small black border. Isn't this simply what's happening in the tablet market?
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.
Do you have any evidence that the European design laws were intended to protect against consumer confusion? All the evidence I have seen is that the laws were intended to protect designers of a product sold in country A from copycats in country B. That way you can start on a small scale in Denmark (say), and if it catches on, ramp up and sell throughout the EU.
That's amazing - this site managed to come up with CSS that prevents the font from getting bigger even when I ctrl-+ the page. Thanks for making it impossible for me to read, asshats.
It's `-webkit-text-size-adjust`. This property, at its original intent, was introduced as a way to tell Mobile Safari (and other WebKit mobile browsers) to not auto-adjust the font size on orientation change. However, there also exists `-apple-text-size-adjust` that used in several WebKit views in Apple softwares (e.g. Safari's RSS reader use `-apple-text-size-adjust` for its sidebar). At one point they deprecated `-apple` prefix for `-webkit` and the collision occurs.
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.
Thanks - very informative. Why would they bother trying to prevent font re-sizing on orientation change? Surely that's done to make the text more readable.
Behavior for resizing on orientation change is kind of annoying sometimes because it adjust some font size but not all. When you create a mobile optimized site, for example, this behavior make it a lot harder to style page elements.
240 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 219 ms ] threadAs 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/
Not all flat monitors come in black thought. I actually I prefer them on white or light gray.
And for Flat TV's .. what about these ones?:
http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/dcbint/cpindex.pl?scy=TH&...
http://www.techfresh.net/philips-aurea-ii-enhanced-fhd-1080p...
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.
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.
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.
http://www.gladwell.com/2003/2003_03_10_a_dots.html
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.
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...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/06/the-hp-slate/
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://pastebin.com/6NKYY3Bf
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)
https://www.msu.edu/~luckie/gallery/images/2kopen.jpg
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.
(Cue poorly-drawn comic of Bill Gates hurling a TC1100 through Apple's front window.)
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.
Not very rectangular. :-)
He mentions the New York Times suing over the design of a newspaper, but if someone else used the same fonts, sizes, layouts, and more to exploit customer confusion and make a newspaper that looked like the New York Times, the New York Times probably would sue them.
Besides, Samsung's tablets are a very obvious case of copying. It isn't just the shape. Everything is a clone of Apple's designs--the chargers are the same, the cables are the same, the packaging is the same, the home screen icons look the same (Samsung even stole Apple icon artwork and used it in their store)--it's completely obvious that the goal was to make a knock-off of Apple's design. Anyone with common sense can see that just by comparing the two devices.
Bad, cheap knock-offs can damage the original brand. I don't blame Apple for going after Samsung at all.
"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."
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...
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...
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.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCrKVKT-b1k
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.
"Best design is least design."
"Best design is invisible."
"Give less a chance."
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.
http://userstyles.org/styles/54719/ctrl-plus-text-zoom-fix
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...