While a lot of these design elements are the same, they are not the same product. Basing a mac pro off a radio is not the same as basing a tablet off of another tablet. Not to mention they ripped so many aspects of apples ios

I see what you're saying, but the difference with samsung and apple are that they were making the exact same device. A computer and a radiator do not serve the same function at all, not even similar. The isight also looks remarkably like an old microphone, which was apparantly the inspiration for the design. The radiator looks a lot like some 50/60's modern speakers...

An argument could be made about the calculator, but seriously, look at calculators. The design doesn't have that many options for layout, just like a telephone. My iphone calc doesn't look like the one in the picture, anyway...

Excuse me, that is, in fact, the speaker I was referring to from the 50/60's.

I've also seen radiators that look like that which pre-date the imac by decades.

Come on people ----- they copied the yellow equals button on the calculator!

Yes, it's exactly the same thing, copying the design from an out of issue product from 50 years ago and copying your direct competition today. Exactly the same.

@jsenpai,

It's not just the slide to open function or the rectangle. It's the whole thing. Windows was able to make a phone interface that isn't at all similar to Apple's, and they did it well. I think that building on good design is a good thing, but outright copying needs to be discouraged.

It can be argued that if we were allowed to copy each other there would be such slow innovation because there would be no incentive for it. Not being able to copy drives these companies to pump money into developing new things and solutions to problems.

Apple/Braun is not at all the same as Apple/Samsung.

"Is as little design as possible." Perfect.

Direct copies, I'd say.

Apple does not follow the 10 principles "religiously". They fail on being environmentally friendly, on being long lasting, and on being thorough down to the last detail (iPads need too many add-ons to be fully functional in the real world, and the software-- an integral part of the device -- is wonky).

Samsung (and Android) obviously copied Apple and being sued is just the cost of doing business (1. They can still appeal. 2. They made more than a $1b on this stuff). I'm not kidding when I say companies price out potential lawsuits in their projects. So Samsung will eventually pay up something less than $1b, they get a write down and they end up pay less taxes. So total cost: way less.

Apple products are great. I am using a macbook right now. I have an iphone and ipad. I have no interest in android products (thanks itunes for locking me in). However, Apple should not have been able to patent some of the dumbest possible things in the world. The patent office is pretty much a rubber stamping sham. The touch slide-to-open feature is not an entirely original idea for one thing but since Apple patented it, they own it. It's not a reward for innovation but a reward for having good IP lawyers and a team who is organized enough and take the time to file all the patents they can. Motorola used to reward staff that submit to the company a patent application (with bonus, gift card etc). That's why Google bought the company, because they had so many patents. But not that many innovations.

And let's not forget that Apple's first computer was copied from Xerox back in the days...

And Dieter Rams is a genius. The stuff he designed are streamlined and appealing even now. You have to give credit to Apple and Ive's for recognizing good design. Something that Google/Samsung/MS generally fails at.

CATHERINE_G: "And let's not forget that Apple's first computer was copied from Xerox back in the days..."

Which Xerox was rewarded handsomely for.

Samsung looked at the iPhone and said, this thing looks/works that way, let's make ours look/work in the exact same way.

It's funny how the black rounded rectangle became the "obvious" way to design a phone only after Apple did it: http://www.redmondpie.com/evolution-of-the-smartphone-design-changes-before-and-after-the-iphone-image/

Little screens surrounded by boxes of aluminum...So original!

same difference. and seriously...how can you even be allowed to copyright the rectangular shape when all smart phones are rectangular. they all copy each other.

These comparisons are for the most part ridiculous and this article seems to be trying to tap into the cynical and resentful anti-Apple crowd purely for viewership for this site. It's a trend I have been noticing lately, and not just on this site, and it is a real shame to see it.

On the matter of Braun. There is this bizarre obsession from certain segments of the media over Braun supposedly having so much influence over Apple's products and it is rather silly. Braun and Mr. Rams did not invent any of the design concepts listed under "good design." They are simply common sense. Designers take inspiration from many things in life, just as Steve Jobs did. Braun also, did not invent metal screens with holes in them for ventilation.

As for Mr Ive. I have nothing against the guy but people need to keep in mind that there are many talented designers, and non-designers, at Apple that have contributed to the way Apple's products look, not to mention the late Steve Jobs who always had a crucial rule in the design department. The idea for using the famous scroll-wheel on the iPods, for example, came from none other than Apple's CMO Phil Schiller, a non-designer. Apple then designed how it should look and work and Synaptics perfected the hardware itself.

@jazzminephoenix Addressing the comment about Apple having patents on "rectangular shape" devices, Apple does not have or pretend to have any patent on something so simple nor have their lawsuits been about that.

@Catherine_g Please read up on the history between Apple and Xerox before making Apple seem like a bad company.

@Rural and rueful Outside of the buttons on the calculator, they are not at all "direct copies." Apple is also one of the most environmentally friendly electronics manufacturers out there. They actually helped write the standard that companies in the industry are judged by for their environmental friendly practices.

The thing about copies is that you can't tell the difference. The thing with Apple/Braun and Samsung/Apple is that you can immediately tell the difference.

You'll never find someone who uses a portable Braun radio, claiming it works the same way and with the same features as an Ipod. And you won't find anyone who doesn't care whether they have a Samsung or Apple phone, citing identical features and interface.

As similar as the (specific) Iphones and (specific) Galaxys are, they're plenty different enough. And that degree of similarity is accepted with pretty much everything else you can buy.

i am from the future and i traveled in the past to design things and they have all copied me

Apple's designs are HOMAGE to Rams, while Samsung designs are RIPOFF to Apple's.

@bruintoo, REALLY?? so plagiarism isnt plagiarism when Apple does it?

If you don't think Mr. Ive is thorough and proficient you are not paying attention. Rams has inspired a generation, and it is the WAY of thinking that is important.

Apple did not copy another device to become a direct competitor. Not the same at all.

Apple products are not long-lasting. The obsolescence cycle on their operating systems, in particular, is revolting. And with some computers locked into a particular OS due to the architecture, you'll get a very well-designed paperweight in a few short years.

One thing I do have to say for Microsoft is that their operating systems (the ones that are any good, anyway) tend to last longer than the hard drives they're installed on.

Or, you can just switch to Ubuntu, upgrade your OS whenever you need to, and run your machine into the dirt without having to change a thing until 64-bit becomes so ubiquitous that 32-bit is no longer available as an option.

properly can resemble but are different things, I think

@TexanMarmot My iPod that I use everyday is going on 7 years and still works with the most current OS X and iTunes. The same holds true for my 5 year old iMac. Lets not take recent isolated cases with OS X Mountain Lion's lack of AirPlay support for some Macs as something that is normal for Apple's products.

That said, I am glad that Apple moves on quicker than Microsoft does in supporting new capabilities and technologies instead of wasting effort and focus on things that people should have moved away from some time ago.

I have been an Apple user for twenty years, and still think they make the best gadgets. But I hate the way the company is squashing competitors. Many of these patents just seem ludicrous to me. It's anti-competitive, and I think that is bad for everybody. Part of why Apple holds an emotional place in people's lives is that they represent creativity and innovation, and for a long time they were the little guy going up against the giants. Apple's current behavior is hurting its brand for me.

I would say that what Ive did was a tribute to Rams and his designs at Braun. He took inspiration from those old designs and used them for different products in the future. And it was a complete success. The calculator may be a bit close for comfort. Still a good call in terms of style, but maybe they ought to pay out some royalties to Braun, depending of course on whether Braun copyrighted that style.

Samsung vs. Apple though... that was blatantly copying the current style of a successful competitor in order to draw business away from that competitor

The problem is not that they copy each other, designers have done that for years, the problem is that these things should not be protected, technology will stand on its own for its own value, weather that is a portable electronic music player, a computer, a bicycle or a car.

Apple didn't innovate, they did not invent what they did was patent things that were already in existence, it is a patent race not a innovation race the world we live in has become.

I wonder what did inspire Rams. Maybe there are more apples down the line.

@Jhonas There is nothing revolutionary or inventive about his points on good design. Common sense inspired Mr. Rams.

@SocialCow By *definition* Apple has greatly innovated.

@quincyscott If you are truly concerned about companies "squashing competitors,"innovation and competition I would suggest you look into Samsung's business practices in South Korea and throughout Asia. Apple is an angel in comparison.

Defending or overlooking obvious copying (not inspiration), as a defense for competition and innovation does not make sense. I would also suggest you read up on the many cases that all big companies in the tech industries go through and exactly what they entail before you cast specific, unreasonable and unfair judgement on Apple.

@LITTLEMOUSE Watch the movie "Objectified." Rams himself said only one company today pays much attention to design, and that company is Apple.

That's not true, Bruintoo. Apple isn't the only company to pay attention to design. Samsung pays great attention to design - Apple's designs, which it blatantly rips off (right down to the docking connector).

I'm delighted that Apple sued the crap out of Samsung, and hope they take them to the cleaners.

>And let's not forget that Apple's first computer was copied from Xerox back in
>the days...

Wrong. See The Mother Of All Demos. The concepts Xerox was working on in the late '70s had already been around the better part of a decade. Apple paid Xerox for a look at their work, then went off and developed the Lisa and Macintosh based on those ideas, but with major differences, revisions and improvements.

>Apple products are not long-lasting.

When it comes to computers and consumer electronics, I've never found products which last LONGER than Apple's. I have an 8 year old iPod that's still going strong - use it every day. I have friends using Macs that are 10+ years old - you're lucky to find a PC that still works after 5.