Did Samsung copy Apple? I think so!

I was reading a blog of RealDan called "Enough with the Samsung bashing", which defends the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit that Apple claims Samsung copied its products (iPhone and iPad).

I couldn't help to leave a quick comment, but I thought I would share my view in my blog as well:

For the "did Samsung copy Apple?" question, I look at this from an abstract level: Consider A and B are two students taking an exam with only one question (consider the exam is about solving consumer problems). They both got stuck at the question. A took it on by himself, thought really hard, made a few mistakes, and scored 80% on that exam. At the exam, B constructed a few thoughts, but rejected all his ideas. (Assume) he had an opportunity of checking on A's answer before the end of the exam ("looked over the should"), and he liked A's approach of the problem (before A finished the answer). B continued to solve the problem based on A's idea, but added his thoughts to complete the answer. B scored 95% on that exam.

In the above scenario, I think both Apple and Android fanboys would agree that B cheated A during the exam. However, if one ONLY compares the scores, no one would believe B cheated on A at the exam because B had a higher score! But sometimes, science or engineering solutions only takes one simple idea to make a huge difference. Everyone who's taken an exam had that "Oh, aha" or "Duh!" moment - you only need a "tip" or a "reminder" to get a complex puzzle solved.

Although Samsung offers more phones to consumers than Apple, most of their touchscreen phones and pads can come out from a single platform. Given Samsung's engineering resources, they literally can make hundreds of phone models per year, leveraging a single platform seed (e.g. "cheated") - adding buttons, changing button sizes and positions, changing screen sizes and display technologies, etc. But the originality remains in single digit.

Comparing Apple's iPad vs. Samsung's Galaxy Tab, the simple home button, the USB connector and charger, the tight software interaction between Apps...it only takes a few tweaks to improve and make products intuitive for the end user. Yet, these ideas take years of thoughts and experiments. Apple might have been cooking some prototypes for years. When they finally "got it" (as Steve Jobs said), Samsung and other mobile phone OEMs just take the ideas as is.

Granted, I must note that the South Korean market was way ahead of the U.S. for smart phones. Touchscreen phones were common (resistive-technology) and existed long before the iPhone was introduced. However, the hardware was still cumbersome and the software was not as intuitive (e.g. slide to unlock, and click on a phone number in an email to dial, etc.). Apple solved these user issues with a companion industrial design that's unique. I also should add that Samsung never had a "pad" before the iPad was launched, so no one should argue that the "pad" was Apple's idea.

Most importantly, arguing about a patent or an intuition is not about the exact screen size or the thickness of the phone, it's about how the solutions approach the problems and solves them. Just like the exam scenario I presented above.

Did Samsung copy Apple's industrial design? I believe so - they added own thoughts, made more phones, perhaps scored higher in the exam, but they copied and cheated on the originality nevertheless.

Google is Becoming Microsoft Starting with the New Google Reader

Google updated their Google Reader interface today, and I was really disappointed with it.

I remember I was extremely disappointed 10 years ago, after installing Windows ME on my Windows 98 PC. After paying $60+ of my hard-earned money, only I realized that my PC ran slower with more useless features offered by Microsoft. In that era, Microsoft was a monopoly. I was not as angry with Microsoft as people at Netscape were, however, I was sometimes annoyed when Microsoft took every possible opportunity to "stir" their users stay with their software - things like Internet Explore and Microsoft Office.

I feel Google is now doing the same thing. I wouldn't mind as long as they keep their products innovated. However, I feel they're following the same pattern as Microsoft did - less innovation, more bad products, and tighter controls or less choices for the user.

I suppose Larry Page got some good advises from the legendary Steve Jobs, before he passed away. One of the best managing traits for business of Steve Jobs is that he can stay focused - he carefully chose the top priority projects that Apple should work on, and he made sure to execute. I feel Google is doing the same thing. Shortly after Page replaced Schmidt, he killed many dangling Google products (one of them was Google Desktop Search) and attempted to consolidate the rest and shift them towards Google's "social network" solution competing Facebook, the Google Plus. The PROBLEM is, along the way of this consolidation, Google did not bring out any innovation - they products are remained with the same set of features (or less), and they're turning less user friendly.

Take Google Reader for example - have you seen the new interface yet? It sucks. The previous Google Reader interface used blue and gray for distinguishing unread items - new items are well highlighted in color, and this makes the page simple, colorful and easy for navigation. The new Google Reader interface, on the contrary, has 3 fundamental design issues.

First, the interface wastes valuable space. Take a look at the following snapshot, the "A look at what's new in your Reader" logo is taking 3 rows of space! Combing it with the search bar, and the tabs for my browser, the user looses about one fifth of the screen size on a 14" laptop monitor.





Second, the navigation panel's color scheme is boring. Google is very much an engineering-driven company. With all due respect to the talents, they just don't have much marketing sense. This is why I, and many other people like Apple products. (No, I do not consider myself an Apple fanboy. I try to speak an objective opinion from the user's perspective.) Apple truly integrate technology intuitively - their product interfaces are welcoming. Google's product interfaces are typically simple - even Android. They can either be elegant or extremely boring, like the new Google Reader.




Third, again, color scheme. However, this is sever because it impacts my reading experiences. Take a look at the following picture - I have one unread item, but I cannot distinguish it from the rest because, well the BLACK looks very similar a DARK GRAY (as oppose to blue vs. gray in the previous interface). Seriously Google, are you assuming your customers are all color blinded?!





It's even more sad that I just spend 30min to write my rant. That's because I liked Google's products and enjoyed using them. As Google is turning into a new Microsoft, its arrogant would never allow it to care an end user like me. I lost Google Desktop Search not long ago, and I now just have to start looking for an alternative RSS reader.

Did Apple Make a Mistake Naming The New iPhone 4S instead of 5?

Apple announced Tuesday (10/4) of their latest iPhone product, the iPhone 4S. A lot of people anticipated that Apple would release an "iPhone 5" with radical updates from the existing iPhone 4 design. Thus, many called the iPhone 4S a "disappointment".

However, I do think the iPhone 4S is a radical update from today's iPhone 4 (perhaps many would disagree), it's a matter of whether Apple should have called the new phone "iPhone 4S" or "iPhone 5". I believe the outcome of the launch event could be oppositely different in an "imaginary world".

If we look at the following table, prepared by Engadget, the iPhone 4S features a new Application Processor, a new baseband radio, a new camera, and a wholly upgraded operating system. Come on, I think that's basically the entire gut set of a Smart Phone! Even though the form-factor/industrial design of the new iPhone 4S looks quite similar to that of iPhone 4, I'm almost certain that Apple has improved, if not completely solved the antenna reception issue associated with the iPhone 4.




Let me give an alternative example using car models. Given the same model year, a BMW M3 looks the same as a BMW 335 to an "average Joe", who doesn't know much about cars. However, to an auto enthusiast or a professional, a BMW M3 is almost a completely new car, designed from the ground up, compared to a standard BMW 3-series - The tires are different, chassis is different, the engines is different, the transmission is highly tuned, the intake, the exhaust, the interior material, etc., and the list goes on. On the opposite, sometimes automotive manufacturers offer "different year models" using the same car, perhaps with tiny external and internal updates. Porsche 911 is a good example, and more commonly and specifically, a 2008 Camry LE looks almost identical to a 2009 Camry LE - same engine, chassis, tire, etc.

So, what is my point, coming back to the mobile discussion? You see, mobile OEMs like Samsung, they develop a platform mobile design, but they create many mobile models using that platform and sell them at different regions for different prices. This is very common. Even if two models share exactly the same main control board (PCB) inside, they would have different "home" buttons, colors, or slightly distinguished external design. To an "average Joe" or consumer, they are different products. My question is, did Apple make a marketing mistake for not calling the new iPhone "5"?

I think Apple made a "rational" and "engineering based" decision. I guess their internal arguments are Apple is a company strongly focuses on industrial design, but the new iPhone's exterior did not change drastically from today's iPhone 4. (Jonathan Ive, what's up?!) In addition, the new iPhone does not support a brand new 4G LTE cellar network technology, and it also misses the (previously) highly anticipated NFC feature (which is already promoted by both Google for Android and Windows for Windows 8). In the end, Apple's marketing department (i.e. Jobs or Cook or Ive?) decided to follow the "iPhone 3G" to "iPhone 3GS" approach and named the new product "iPhone 4S".

However, I think Apple made a "marketing" mistake that affected the new iPhone's "product positioning". First, people or consumers were expecting "iPhone 5". Like I said above, since Apple has replaced most of the critical components inside the new phone, it's really nothing wrong with calling it the "next generation" product.

Second, I think Apple might have failed to understand (some) consumers' psychology of buying the new iPhone. For example, in the rapid growing China market, some people buy iPhone 4 for showing off because it looks different from iPhone 3GS. (I saw many Chinese used iPhone 4 as a standard mobile phone, taking no advantages of its Apps and "intelligence"!) Similarly, many Chinese are waiting for "iPhone 5", and they "need" the "iPhone 5" to look different from iPhone 4. It's "sad" or weird, but it's quite common among the people who got rich too quickly. I use Chinese consumers as an example because I travel to and do business in China often. However, I think similar cases exist everywhere in the world, only different by how often they occur. Apple can easily meet this expectation by, for example, making the home button square, larger, or shift the back-camera's position. Such little mechanical update is very similar to many mobile OEMs' practices I described above, and it would cause little impact to Apple's supply chain and manufacturing costs.

Third, I think Apple's biggest marketing mistake, which unfortunately is impossible to reverse given today's facts, is that Apple did not have Steve Jobs to present the new iPhone. Steve Jobs is a genius pitch man, bar none! I believe Jobs would have humbly position the new iPhone as a radical improvement from today's iPhone 4 (at least from a software standpoint), although they look similar, they are NOT the same. The new iPhone is a better product massaged to perfection. I believe Apple's executives sort of mentioned these during the product announcement, but they were not as smooth as what Jobs would deliver, not even close.

In summary, I think iPhone 4S is an excellent product. (No, I am not an Apple "fan boy", although I do have and use an iPhone 4.) Its hardware is great (I like my iPhone 4's form factor), the new camera looks awesome, and the new iOS5 features are really attractive. However, I think Apple made several marketing mistakes when they introduced the new iPhone. Very few knows if Steve Jobs was deeply involved and even watched the launch event of iPhone 4S, let alone if there is anyone knows whether he'd satisfied with the outcome. However, in an imaginary world, I wish I would do the following:

• Make relatively minor exterior design adjustments to the new iPhone, be similar to iPhone 4, but has a distinctive difference that can be identified easily by a consumer;
• Call the new iPhone as "iPhone 5";
• Invite Steve Jobs to present the "iPhone 5".

Of course, nothing I said above really matters because whatever happened has done. The only way to evaluate and measure the result of the iPhone 4S launch is to check Apple's iPhone shipment numbers during it's next shareholder update.

I thought about writing this blog on the day of Apple's product announcement. Unfortunately, Steve Jobs passed away on Wednesday. Now, I only wish iPhone 4S would be a fantastic success, for Apple and for Steve Jobs.

Acer Chairman is Wrong - Tablet is Here to Stay and Prosper

According to DigiTimes, Acer chairman JT Wang believes "tablet PC fever" is "cool down". When this story was reported by Slashdot, it was called "Acer CEO Declares a Tablets Bubble". I think Acer's chairman is dead wrong.

I talked that HP made a fatal mistake when the company decided to enter the tablet market. The situation is perhaps better in the Android world because most of other tablet OEMs adapt Google's tablet OS. The combined mass creates a comparable Apps developer community to Apple's. However, just because HP decided to quit the tablet market, it does not imply that the consumer no longer need tablets. And certainly, there is no "tablet bubble"!

Looking at Apple's iPad sales in quantity, the numbers grew quarter by quarter and year by year. Apple is projected to sell 30Mu iPad in 2H'11. There are many out there waiting for the iPad 3 coming with higher resolution, from existing iPad and iPad 2 owners, as well as those "I don't have an iPad" consumers. I believe consumers love and want to buy tablets, at the right price and with iPad-comparable performances. The reason I say so is because in the tablet market, there is only one player dominating with huge profits, Apple. That says market demand is larger than supply, and competitions cannot keep up.

Apple basically caught their competitions by surprise. No one knew Apple worked on the product for several years. After iPad was released, Apple's competitors scramble to follow, but they had much less time for both the hardware and software development. In combination, the final products are offered at comparable prices to the iPad, but with sluggish software performance. Just because the PC OEMs cannot compete, it doesn't mean there is a "bubble". Nobody is throwing money away like crazy as in a true "bubble" situation. And for those who can deliver a tablet fitting consumer needs, there is still plenty of money to be made.

I believe in the next a couple of years, we should see strong contenders to Apple's iPad (3?). I think that pack would be led by a Nokia-made tablet running Windows 8 and a Motorola Mobile-made tablet running Android. For the rest, Samsung, hTC, LG, Asus and even Acer, they should either quit tablet and stay with PC, or become much better in their designs. Just don't call it a "bubble".

HP did what others not dare

The story of HP quitting the tablet market is no longer news. Tech world has a much faster clock rate than many other industries. Things happened a week ago can be obsolete, but I think this story will remain as a marketing textbook classic.

The truth is HP made a fatal mistake. Just because almost every other competitor attempts to take a slice from the "iPie", it does not mean HP can win a feasible business out of the competitions. The TouchPad was poorly designed from an industrial standpoint. Its WebOS does not have the critical mass compared to iOS and Android. Thus, there is much less commitment from the developer community to contribute 3rd party Apps. And Apps is what makes Apple iPad stands out among the competitions. Releasing the TouchPad and fighting the battle against Motorola, Samsung, hTC and many others simply means HP would have to continue pouring money into the business for the sake of keep its gambling seat.

There of course is a blame war ongoing. Many would say HP should have not purchased Palm in the first place. Arguably, Palm's later mobile phones are not that great also, let alone the TouchPad. And the general manger whoever decided to enter the table competition should get fired. Many would also say that HP's board should also take responsibilities. All true, but it does not matter anymore. In business, this is considered as sunk cost. Mistakes were made, resources and capitals were spent, and nobody can reverse it. The key is what To do now. I think HP's board made a plausible decision that they have the guts of calling for a quit without further wasting of company's resource.

In many business opportunities I saw, some companies do not have the dare to admit their marketing mistakes. The marketing people didn't do the job properly (e.g. draw a "big pie") or didn't dare to stop their management from madly chasing competitions. They kept fighting the war even though they knew there would be no money made no matter how long it lasts. Companies do not easily quit for many reasons. Beyond the internal politics (a money-losing business is always a trap topic in the board room), companies are typically hesitate because quitting early often leads to credibility damage at the customers. However, sometimes, admitting a mistake and re-strategize the company can save huge amount of resources and set things right once for all. That's what I believe HP did. For an innovation driven company like HP, living with 20-30% gross margin for a product is not acceptable. HP has to "up sale" itself as a technology provider, a solution vendor, and a business partner for their customers. Killing the TouchPad and easing out the PC marketing marks a transition point for the company.

No one knows if HP's new CEO and the board can pull this off. For a company that's worth $60 Billion (before the 20% stock price drop), steering this gigantic ship is no easy job. There are the two obvious possibilities in ten years. If HP succeed of transitioning itself and become another IBM-like company, quitting the consumer electronics market would be marked as a classic business success story. Else, this move will be considered as a self-sabotage action that severally damages HP's business future.

Either way, I believe HP did what many others not dare.

Steve Jobs spotted on Apple campus - Is he back?

Arnold Schwarzenegger is not the only celebrity who said "I will be back" - Steve Jobs said that too.

Multiple sources say Steve Jobs was at Apple's campus today.  I wonder if he will be back on the drivers' seat for Apple, and maybe the company's stock will go nuts again.

I bet he's practicing on the iPhone 3.0 announcement pitch.

Awesome Handmade Macbook with Pull-out Software Applications!