People have been comparing the similarities between Apple products and older Braun products. However, there are big differences between that and what Samsung has done.
But to me, it’s about the difference between drawing inspiration to create something new, versus slavishly copying to create something derivative.
Ive’s designs for Apple apply the Braun aesthetic to devices that depart widely in purpose and function from the original Rams-crafted products. Samsung took Apple’s design for a smartphone and applied it directly to…a smartphone. And then tried to pretend that they didn’t.
Exactly.
Design-wise, it is still copying. That’s what designers do. They are inspired by something and they mimic it. I do get the argument on it being different products and decades apart but at the core it is the same: see something…mimic it.
This doesn’t excuse Samsung for some of the things they did but in the design sense it does.
I’m a designer. If I mimic someone else’s book’s design, the result will be a book. If I use someone else’s book design as an inspiration for, say, a magazine? That’s something else.
There’s a difference between outright imitation and aesthetic inspiration.
Seeing the samsung internal 106 page powerpoint comparing iphone to the samsung prototype, i have no doubt that they werent inspired by, but tried copying apples product.
Mimic is not synonymous with copy. You could easily mimic a book design on a magazine cover and it would be the same thing in a different format. That’s what Apple did.
Any thesaurus says “mimic” IS synonymous with “copy”. And as a person, a mimic is synonymous with a copycat.
Semantics.
Perhaps you’ve created a new definition of the word “mimic” we don’t know about. One that doesn’t mean “to imitate or be an imitation of.”
No – there is a world of difference between mimicking, drawing inspiration and simple copying. Samsung slavishly copied.
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=mimic
I’m not meaning it isn’t a synonym, although I can see your point, but rather they are different by nature. Copy is a duplicate. Mimic is not. That’s my point and yes…semantics.
Point is…Apple copied Braun. It is lightened as “inspiration” so all is well, right? (Rhetorical)
Still not proving your case.
Just showed you the definition I used. I’m not proving a point…just stating my opinion.
I have an opinion about the color “blue.” I think it should switch definitions with “green.” Just an opinion.
http://bibliolingua.blogspot.com/2007/03/meaning-of-words-according-to-humpty.html
Braun made iPods? Braun made desktop PCs?
Braun’s products were inspired by Dieter Rams design philosophies. Apple’s products were influenced by Dieter Rams philosophies and by Brauns interpretations of Dieter Rams philosophies.
Claiming Apple copied Braun is disingenuous at best.
We’re talking design, not products. Read my comments fully and you’ll see I was clear about that.
Oh and being influenced by philosophy does not mean you’re resulting products look exactly like someone else’s design.
We are talking influence, not copying. Unless you really want us to believe that Apple set out to purposefully make the Power Mac look like a radio from 1967, or that Apple needed to see that T3 pocket radio to know that the iPod would have a screen (not a grill, in case you din’t notice) above the scroll wheel?
So they accidentally made the products look the same?
And we’re talking about design influence vs copying.
Apple is really a copycat.
So disgusting…
Stop blaming others and look at yourself.
And please pay your TAX!!!