Yes, Nokia officialy admits that they are copying the iPhone: http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/29/n...-no-seriously/
Is Nokia now a Chinese company or what? :eek:
Fredi
Yes, Nokia officialy admits that they are copying the iPhone: http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/29/n...-no-seriously/
Is Nokia now a Chinese company or what? :eek:
Fredi
What is so surprising about this?
Before the iPhone launch EVERYBODY, let me make this clear: EVERYBODY said the iPhone was good for the phone industry, because it was going to bring some innovations, and other phone companies will need to follow, copy and come up with new things.
The iPhone is not the first touchscreen phone, but it did bring a nicer interface, and cool ideas. It's obvious companies will follow with what they see works.....like the Sony coming up with a wii type controller.
A copy is not an innovation.Quote:
Originally Posted by argonauta
Fredi
isn't this exactly what a technology trend is?
come on subby...you really don't want me go down the millions of products that have been ripped off by other companies do you?
Ok, so ripping off other products is ok these days? Great! Next time I do a design for a client I'm just going to rip-off someone elses work as well, it's so much easier!
And just because other people/companies to it, does'nt meen it is ok.
Fredi
PS: Where is the huge rolleyes smilie if you need it?
jesus. i never saw it before, but know i realize why you left so long ago. you're so stubborn you don't even see the flaws in your own argument.
http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/8...1776716mt1.png
The video shows that they are similar but you can't say that it's a copy until you see the feature list. This phone has a lot of potential if they pickup the features that Apple dropped the ball on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
Nokia itself states it is a copy. No need to say it's not.
Just answer me one question: Do you think it's ok to rip-off other peoples innovation, mainly because everyone else does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by lefteyewilly
Fredi
What innovation did Apple have with the iPhone. They mostly took a lot of functionality that was already available and put it together into one device with a nice interface. The iPhone didn't really introduce anything new.
Multi-Touch and Visual Voicemail, both a first in a commercialy available product.Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonsplace
Fredi
last time i knew, phones, media players, GPS units, cars, restaurants, brochures, websites, game consoles, clothing, sinks and toilets have all been copied in one way or another...Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
so to answer your questions...yes, that's how competition is born and bred...who wasn't expecting someone to copy the iphone... this is not news.
Multi-Touch was new but Visual Voicemail is a concept that i've been using on my phone since long before the iPhone. Callwave let's me install a program to view and listen to any voicemail on my computer with a lot of other features. Sure the program can't be installed on a phone as of yet but they could definately port it over to a phone app and have many more features than the iPhone. Right now it even sends me a text version of each message right after it is left on my phone so that I can read it if i'm in a meeting or in class and what not.
yeah, but they ripped those ideas off of other products, they may not have been cell phones, but they still 'stole' the idea from somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
Ok, lefteyewilly, I quite like your photoblog layout ... as soon as I have some free time I'll use it for my soon to be released photoblog. From all your comments, I think that's exactly what you want me to do. ;)
Fredi
I meant the iphone would bring innovations that others would follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
You can't deny the iphone brought something unique, no other phone has. It is showing that touchscreen phones and big screens may be the future of cellphones.
I'm pretty sure the second phone that implemented an mp3 player was considered a ripoff of the first one, as well as the second phone that had a flip case, and the second phone that implemented predictive text, and the second phone that incorporated a camera.
Once a cellphone was thinner than a sheet of paper, all companies tried to go that way.
If you check out the generations of phones out there, you'll notice that all phones kinda look alike, or can be grouped in 2 or 3 phone types. Once something innovative comes, a few months later old trends get forgotten, and all phones look alike that innovative phone.
That happens in all fields: clothing, gaming, flatscreens, cellphones, phones, chairs, cameras, etc.
What would you think if you could only have one product that has THE different feature. Like only sony having remote controls for their tvs, because if samsung does the same, it's a rip off????
Apple came up with a fantastic interface and ideas, yes, and they are copying them, yes. But if you don't see beyond that, excuse me, but your brain has a tumor the size of an Apple. Apple created a new standard, and it has to be followed. Apple just did the same as when phones had that big dial ring and somebody thought it was better to put buttons instead. That same thing is happening here. Standards are changing, and I see it as a good thing.
Call Nokia thieves, but I think this is good. Apple started the revolution, and others will follow, first copying, then putting more things on it, and it the end, making phones better.
I'm actually happy Nokia admits this, they are the best phone makers out there. They'll complete the iphone, because you can't deny the 1st gen iPhone is just a trendy toy, but in some aspects, it's a step backwards, eventhough they made 4 steps forwards with the interface.
After all I've written, I'm pretty sure you won't change your mind. I wish I could be infront of you and slap you, and scream 'wake up!!!!!'. Things are not black and white. Copying is not always a bad thing.
I'm also sure Nokia, being a legit company, or at least pretty prominent, has its address published somewhere, and Apple lawyers can send them a lawsuit notice if necessary. I'm sure if Nokia is using Apple's patented ideas, they'll pay the licences, and if not, I still expect they keep using them, as it's dumb to stop development of a new technology because of patents.
By the way, though wikipedia is not the best source, but I'm not willing to do a lot of research, I have this idea that maybe, just maybe, the iphone wouldn't exist today, if ideas weren't copied, or people work improving on somebody else's ideas.
Just by reading this, and seeing how you think, if you were Antonio Meucci, you'd had sued Bell, and wouldn't have let anybody copy your great sound telegraph.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepho...ly_developmentQuote:
* 28 December 1871—Antonio Meucci files a patent caveat (n.3335) in the U.S. Patent Office titled "Sound Telegraph", describing communication of voice between two people by wire.
* 1874—Meucci, after having renewed the caveat for two years, fails to find the money to renew it. The caveat lapses.
* 6 April 1875—Bell's U.S. Patent 161,739 "Transmitters and Receivers for Electric Telegraphs" is granted. This uses multiple vibrating steel reeds in make-break circuits.
* 11 February 1876—Gray invents a liquid transmitter for use with a telephone but does not build one.
* 14 February 1876—Elisha Gray files a patent caveat for transmitting the human voice through a telegraphic circuit.
* 14 February 1876—Alexander Bell applies for the patent "Improvements in Telegraphy", for electromagnetic telephones using undulating currents.
* 19 February 1876—Gray is notified by the U.S. Patent Office of an interference between his caveat and Bell's patent application. Gray decides to abandon his caveat.
* 7 March 1876—Bell's U.S. patent 174,465 "Improvement in Telegraphy" is granted, covering "the method of, and apparatus for, transmitting vocal or other sounds telegraphically … by causing electrical undulations, similar in form to the vibrations of the air accompanying the said vocal or other sound."
* 30 January 1877—Bell's U.S. patent 186,787 is granted for an electro-magnetic telephone using permanent magnets, iron diaphragms, and a call bell.
* 27 April 1877—Edison files for a patent on a carbon (graphite) transmitter. The patent 474,230 was granted 3 May 1892, after a 15 year delay because of litigation. Edison was granted patent 222,390 for a carbon granules transmitter in 1879.
that's fine, i downloaded that theme for free, steal away.
I don't see you're rationale here Subby. There is direct copying and then there is feature copying. From the video the new Nokia phone has similarities but it isn't a direct copy. They looked at the iPhone and saw a great phone with a lot of short comings. They decided to take that and run with it. If you were to visit lefteye's photo blog, see a feature and decide to improve upon that then it isn't a problem but direct copying is. So far we know that the phone has a widescreen and can rotate like the iPhone but other than that not much has been released.
What's really bothering me is not that Nokia makes a phone similar to the iPhone, what's really bothering me is their exact comment, it gives a bad sign to the industry IMHO. I can imagine the next meeting at compny X: "Hey, Nokia, Microsoft and almost all Chinese companies ... they all do it and make huge amounts of money, let's do the same, copy the next product that's successful!".
Fredi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
Check every site on the web. Most of them have: a logo on top, a navigation bar, a content area, a sidebar for less important info, and a footer.
Infact, some sites are so similar, that you can know in two seconds if it's a search engine, or a portal, or a porn site, or a blog, or a photoblog, or a store.
Infact, you can identify trends, old and new, like the use of dropshadows, diagonal lines for the background, all blogs have a blogroll. ALL sites have similar items in them. I'm sure that if you decide to code your own photoblog, which I'm sure you have the ability to, you'll have some basis as using the best concepts of other photoblogs, or the cms's out there, even your own previous versions of your own previous cms.
There's a difference between copying ideas, and copying. A rip off of a site, as we understand it, usually consists in someone stealing the sourcecode, open a pirated copy of photoshop, and put your logo on top of the old logo. Leave some links unchanged, so the original author knows that other dude ripped off his site.
Talking about web. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with this, but remember the old blue 2advanced site? Remember how many people ripped that site off? like, they had the same color scheme, the same effects, the same logo. There were good copies and bad copies, all hillarious. And there were other legit designers and companies that took the best ideas of that site and put it into their own sites, and most of them became an annoying trend. And even that 2advanced site, so cool, so innovative, was based on somebody else's ideas (I don't remember the story, but I think it's known).
I'm done discussing, because I think you still won't see it otherwise.
I just hope one day you have twins, so you can name one 'Sonia' if it's a girl, and 'Apollo' if it's a boy, and the name of the other kid would be 'F*cking Ripoff'