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'
Like Microsoft and Sony saying: hey, Nintendo makes money from games, lets do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
Or Sony saying, hey, Nintendo has a nice controller, lets do the same (and I'm not talking about the wii controller).
Or a thousand chinese and us companies saying: wow, that walkman thing sony invented, lets copy it, looks like it's going to sell well.
Or Sony Music executives saying: 'ok, we need a new hit. What's trendy right now...hmm, we need a 18 year old girl that's hot, enlarge her breasts, hire a producer, and record a hit that sounds like every other "artist" we have. Nobody will notice'
Or Taco Bell saying: that mexican food is good. Lets copy it and we'll make money. Let's make it bad, and we'll sell even more.
Or Every Hamburger Restaurant copying Burger King.
Or Hollywood movies copying French, Latin, italian and japanese movies?
Or other sites starting to make deals with record companies to sell downloadable music, just like, just like, omg, iTunes?
Let me quote again because I had another response for this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
YOU ARE SO RIGHT. Consumers are so stupid, that they WILL prefer a $100 Korean copy of an iFone (that's how it works right, they just change a letter of the name) than a real iPhone. Or worse, consumers are soooo stupid, that they'll go for the bad copy of Nokia, that (hypotetically, just to make my point), still costs less, has a gps, mms, flash, it's open for developers, lets you change its batteries, has expandable memory. I'm pretty sure you're mad because you bought Vista thinking it was Apple's new OS, and now you don't want this happening again.
The chinese companies are in another field though, but I'm pretty sure that if Nokia, Microsoft, Samsung, Motorola and others decide to copy the iPhone, they'll choose one of these 3 paths:
1. Copy Apples technology, infringement its patents. Shame on them, opposite to poor Apple that has never done that, to eventually make an economical arrangement.
2. Licence apple's technologies.
3. Apply their own technologies, which I'm sure these big companies can develope. Like, I'm pretty sure if Microsoft makes a multitouchscreen phone, they'll probably sue themselves from infringing on the patents of that surface multitouch table they have.
Talking about ripping off and copying....shame on Apple, they COPIED and infringed on Creative's patents for the UI. But it's ok, because it's Apple, and they later apologized and payed who knows how much for their 'mistake'
Designing a website and building a mobile device are two different things. Nokia isn't working on the same OS and has to spec everything out themselves based on research, they will inevitably have their own twist on things. It may be better in some ways, it may be worse than others. They also know what's patentable and what's not. Apple is used to being copied by now.
Let's just hope they make one in Bondi Blue.
So, if it was up to you, Jeans should be sold only by Levi's, cigars only by cubans, razorblades only by gillette, bikinis only to Louis Réard and Jacques Heim, powder by the chinese. Do you own a car? I'm sure it's american, and it's a Ford, right, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
Neither Ford nor another American invented the car. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by argonauta
Oh and to answer the question: No, I don't own a car right now.
Fredi
*unsubscribe from thread*
I agree with Subway on this one: Anything that Apple or Sony makes is holy and should not be questioned or have its flaws pointed out.
That is what you want us to say, right?
No. I just hate this mentality so many big companies have these days: "Oooohhhh, that's a popular product that other company made, let's do the same exact thing, just a little bit different so we can't be sued."
And now I "hate" half of FK for not sharing that "hate". ;)
Fredi
I'm trying to work out where the idea came from that there was actually anything original created anymore??
Stop hating people for disagreeing with you. If everyone agreed with you, then you could never be right ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
BTW, whats your opinion on the SIXAXIS, which gained motion sensing abilities right after Nintendo first showed the Wii?
Who invented the car? :p
In the first place, Apple didn't invent the phone. They came to play and try to steal the market that others were enjoying. Their reasons to create and sell the iPhone are not altruistic at all, are they? What Apple did, and how Nokia is responding is all about money, and gaining more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
The thing is, there are difference in how some companies "copy"
I'm sure you've seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_8wuVEYMZ8
That phone is designed to smell like an iPhone, but as you see, besides the logo and external appearance, there's no iPhone there. Still, what's its purpose? profit from iPhone's success. Even if it's has some improvements like an sd slot and removable battery, but still, you can't say that product can compare to the iPhone. Let me repeat myself: all they want is profit from somebody else's success.
In Nokia's video, I see the iPhone features there are what? flip screen and touchscreen, neither of them easy to 'copy', right? The interface looks different, and it looks sweet. I guess you could say it looks like an iPhone, but the iPhone also looks like a pda or a gps, just a screen, a button and nothing else, so the 'look' of the iPhone is not an issue, and it's not original. It's simplicity is, comparing to other phones, but I don't think you can say a phone is a rippoff because the maker decides he wants to make it simple and remove all buttons. You'd be left with exactly that. Back to my point, I don't think Nokia is just going to copy the good ideas of the iphone, it's going to work on them, make them their own and improve of them. Why? not because they want to profit from somebody else's success, but because they need to keep up so that they don't lose their place in the industry. Palm is the perfect example of this: i think they should be the ones enjoying this success. They already had it all: touchscreen experience and phone experience, but they never woke up, and they basically are dead. If Nokia keeps developing their phones, but other companies move towards these ideas, Nokia would die as well. So, it's a matter of competition, not just copying. iCopy, iMakeItBetterThanYours. Why hate? companies make money, yes, but who benefits as well? I'm pretty sure consumers will. Having an "iphone like" phone with symbian or maybe linux would rule for me as a developer. Having a phone with flash (lately, nokia is in love with flash lite), having all the features of a nokia phone, plus all the features of an iphone (which are few) would rule. It's not like Nokia is a beginner in this, they've made some of the best phones (N95, if it wasn't for the battery, is way better than any phone out there) and have also been very innovative, revolutionazing the cellphone industry already a couple of times. That's why they are where they are.
Even microsoft, if there wasn't linux or apple, they wouldn't make an effort to make a better OS (though yes, Vista isn't that).
As I see it, you 'hate' because other companies are making money. It's not your money. Yes, if it was my company, I'd be mad as hell, but I'm not the owner of Apple, nor a shareholder. I'm a consumer. And as I see it, the more companies copy each other, the more options I have, and the more chances I'll have to have the perfect device for less money. I don't care how much they copy this or that product, as long as the byproduct of this competition is better products for me.
What angers me, and that's to hate, is the ways some companies try to stay on top via shady strategies like legal strategies or not letting others play in the same field by restricting consumers to use propietary technologies, or making alliances to use what companies want and not what consumers want (see war between bluray and hddvd). And the three companies that come to my mind when I think of examples of that are, in order:
1. Sony
2. Microsoft
3. Apple
I'm glad Nokia is taking on this, and I'm sure they'll come up with a better phone. They're embracing wifi, and even free telephony (my n95 came with Gizmo preinstalled), they let you develop applications. Copying files to or from the phone is a piece of cake (via bluetooth, wifi, infrared, or taking the memory card out). They are playing with gps in the same device now. They're also embracing linux.
By the way, I'm wating for Sony Ericsson to come up with an iPhone-like device (meaning simple phone with no buttons and touchscreen interface)....That'll probably create a paradox that'll reboot your brain in an endless loop :D
Don't worry, Apple will always win over Sony. The only Sony line of products that I like are the PlayStation's. ;)
Gyration has been making motion sensing devices for like 20 years now, other companies already used it for input devices and you could say that the good sales of the Eye-Toy made Nintendo risk the step of using such a control scheme exclusively for their console.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihoss.com
Fredi
Karl Friedrich Benz, Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_BenzQuote:
Originally Posted by argonauta
Fredi
the eye toy came out after the gameboy eye camera. sony copied it and as such should be sent to hell.
So now you agree with Argo, that everyone is copying each other? Are you at least acknowledging that Sony blatantly ripped off Nintendo when they realized pure graphics wouldn't be enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
i thought sony invented the car?
Oh, that was never the question, my point was always that I hate this practice, not that it was'nt common, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihoss.com
Fredi
how do you feel about sony ripping the spiderman font for the playstation 3
There will always be copying, the question is just ti what degree. If nobody copied each other, then only to products could ever be made, because they would have had to be completely different. If 3 products were made then you could find some common traits between them, and one would be marked as a copy. The more products you have, the more they have in common. All phones are generally the same, so are websites and cars. As long as they are not too similar, you can't claim that they are copying each other. But as more and more products are being made they will look more and more like each other, and that requires us to be able to recognize more details when differentiating them. Could you, for example, tell the difference between two swans? No, you probably couldn't. But an expert on swans could, and would be able to point out all the differences. And if you study them for a long enough time, then you too could be able to see the difference.
My point is that what you might see as copying is actually the natural progress of design. In any given era, most design will look very much the same.
As developers and designers, I think we all see the problem in rip offs and copies. But we all have double morals, this is good if someone does it, it's bad if someone else does it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
So, for this specific cases , companies, big or small, copying each other. How does this affect you in a bad way? I trully don't see what your problem is. For the iphone case, do you lose any money if iphones sell less? are you mad because Apple is losing money? Are you mad because someone else is making money and not you?
The only issue I can see is that suddenly a company (say apple, which won't happen) goes bankrupt because another company copied its product, and is more popular than the original. This, however, never happens with simple ripoffs. Usually they take on a market that wouldn't buy the original product anyway. And ripoffs as such, are never better than the original. However, if a copy is better, or is exactly the same, but cheaper, then those by themself are good reasons for a product to be more popular than the original, and again, as a consumer, I don't see any problem with a company going bankrupt, because I only care about the products I buy, and if I buy this 'ripoff' that is way better, or at least the same as the original, but cheaper, then I'm happy with that.
How else could this copy between companies affect you?
This line of thought is very similar to what I've read from a lot of newbies here at fk: oh, i won't give my sourcecode, because it'll get copied. How can i encrypt my sourcecode so that nobody can copy me.
More experienced developers usually deal with: yes, newbies can copy me, but still, their final code won't be as good as mine, and no matter how hard they try, I'm still better, and clients will still prefer working with me, because I provide a better service.
I'm on the second group, but I indeed started on the first one. Now I think: I don't care if people copy my work, because I can always do better than them. If someone comes, and it's better than me, even if he learned from me, then I deserved to be replaced by him.