Windows 8 knock-off tablets being promoted at IFA 2012
28. Raymond_htc (Posts: 430; Member since: 06 Apr 2012)
BICH PLEASE. Huawei is from china and they do great phones.
HTC is from taiwan, and their phone are a success.
STOP THINKING THAT EVERY FAKES ARE FROM CHINESE, AND THERE ARE MANY TYPES OF CHINESE OK!
A singaporean chinese like me is VERY different from a chinese from china.
30. JoeBelfiore (banned) (Posts: 79; Member since: 03 Sep 2012)
Singaporean Chinese is just as bad as some of those in China sorry, selfishness..
31. Raymond_htc (Posts: 430; Member since: 06 Apr 2012)
haha..but at least we are not like them shameless..
Yes we do do tablets.. but we don't copy. and oh wait. what nationality you're in.. let me guess.. American.
3. Birds (Posts: 918; Member since: 21 Nov 2011)
LMAO, now I want one just so I can claim I got a windows 8 device and be able to lie and gloat to my friends about it. Lol. I don't care how low quality the device is. I still want one of these poorly executed knockoffs.
4. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 627; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
They just won't stop. It's in their genes.
18. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 627; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Sorry. I meant MEMES, not genes :-)
5. MeoCao (unregistered)
Wow, the Chinese are geniuses in cloning things.
MS should take this as a lesson for being too slow in bringing their products to the market.
25. haseebzahid (Posts: 1762; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)
if u see couple of chinese together u will say damn they all look same probably cloned
6. Veigald (Posts: 222; Member since: 13 Jan 2012)
Chinese have no moral, simple as that. My wife is Chinese and I've lived in China for a few months, and they simply have no consideration for anything than satisfying their own needs and wants.
It's not like they consciously consider whether things like this is wrong and then not care; they simply do not even think about it. Extreme short term thinking.
7. karas (Posts: 33; Member since: 08 Jul 2011)
That Description seems more about wifes than chinese.:P
8. JoeBelfiore (banned) (Posts: 79; Member since: 03 Sep 2012)
Gave you a thumbs down. Its not all Chinese, look at those in United States, and Canada.
It all depends on the environment you are born in, and the rapid development of China for the past 50 years have indeed propelled China upwards but the society isn't mature yet.
10. SlimSoulja86 (Posts: 640; Member since: 03 Nov 2011)
Then again, it's amazing how these Chinise saves us money. Take a look, if Apple products were assembled in America. How much it would have cost. It's amazing how we only look at other races when we need to point out the negative, yet leave out all the positive things Chinese bring to this world. Every race has no morals, but that is idividuals, not the whole race as a whole. It's like saying all white people are racists. Or every Black man is a thug. So let's stop with the race thing cos it's not fair to generalize.
14. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 627; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
I disagree. Cultural and historical circumstances generate homogenous ethnicities and nations that can be more or less generalized by dozens of parameters concerning mentality and affinity. So, we could easily dicern the patterns in behaviour and if we are objective and methodological enough in statistical work, we can see that the exceptions are only deviations of some magnitude.
The "let's not generalize" phrase is just a political-correctness propaganda which has as a goal to eliminate such negative attitudes as nationalism, chauvinism etc., but it's basicaly incorrect.
15. Veigald (Posts: 222; Member since: 13 Jan 2012)
No one mentioned race, and obviously I have a knack for Chinese being married to one. So stop your political correctness rant, please.
I've lived in China and know the culture pretty well. And it is just a fact that they have no moral the way we in the West think of it. Stop denying that just to be politically correct.
9. cepcamba (Posts: 717; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)
Rockchip 3066 vs Exynos Quad vs Tegra3 vs S4-quad
looks evenly matched
12. w-t-f (Posts: 42; Member since: 21 Aug 2012)
called Windows pad and running android 4.1 LOL
16. groupsacc (Posts: 232; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)
Note to Apple: Now this is what you call copying. Sue the counterfeiters. Not your competitors.
17. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 627; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
It's only naive copying. Apple is not interested in that, rather in more sophisticated methods of plagiarisms that can jeopardize the profit margins that are fundamentally based on Apple's design paradigm innovations.
19. groupsacc (Posts: 232; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)
You are absolutely correct. No disagreement there. However, what you have said is exactly the point that I'd like to raise. If a company "sophisticatedly copied" Apple's ideas and as you say "design paradigm innovations"; can't we say the exact same thing about Apple's innovations? Full touch screens, icons arranged in grids, square icons, voice control, camera, mp3 playing capability, internet surfing, email client, virtual keyboard, ...... all these were present and existent well before iPhone was launched.
They've merely put together all these pre-existing technologies and innovations into one package; and even on this subject alone, they were not the first to do this. PalmOS, Symbian, and Blackberries were capable of doing all these, but just because IPhone managed to do what existing technologies could do in a new façade, that shouldn't allow them to own those said technologies and innovations.
I guess all I'm trying to say is, this is matter of what came first, chicken or the egg, as to who were the first to come up with these ideas. And the fact is that there is no answer. It's just not upto Apple to decide what came first, and attain the right to own these innovations. It's everyone's. And everyone's right to improve upon them. Innovation.
21. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 627; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
The concept of innovation for Apple is hard to understand for most people because most people think they (should) innovate technology and that ONLY technology can be innovated.
Apple has only one true innovation in its modern (2nd Jobs' Era) history: user's experience of a product. Or, in short: the product. Note that I did not say "device", or "object", or "technology". I said "product".
Product is the category that is, paradoxically, in our consumer society, most poorly understood. It is basically exactly the packaging of something under the sign (surplus value).
This is what Apple undestands as its goal and the most valuable innovation. They didn't invent the technology but the way this technology is wrapped up in a product.
For every technology they use, they pay for patent right. No stealing here. And what they patented themselves, is not technologies, but the product.
When they accuse someone for stealing its design, they mean that someone steal their way of "packaging" thing in a product.
I hope this was clear enough and that it also makes absolutely clear the difference between technological innovations and product innovations.
22. groupsacc (Posts: 232; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)
Right. Design-based innovations. User experience-based innovations. But aren't these subjective? Technologies and inventions are "real" and quantifiable and holds definitive qualitative properties, so black and white judgment can be made when granting such patents or its breach can be easily established.
But if you are patenting something for aesthetics and experience, how can one make a clear judgment whether there was a breach? Unless it's blatantly cloned, as clearly shown in this article.
And using my previous argument, one can accuse Apple of the exact same thing Apple is accusing other companies of "copying their feel".
If Apple's innovation was the clean, unified, beautified, simple, user-friendly, and minimalistic package of technologies, I can say the exact same thing to my designer calculator. But I don't accuse Apple of copying, because (not only that's ridiculous) that is my subjective analysis of design and feel of both items.
24. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 627; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
As a professional product designer, I know very well that technology is quantifiable and aesthetics and experiance are not. Instead, they are qualifiable.
Your phrase, I quote: "But aren't these subjective? Technologies and inventions are "real" and quantifiable and holds definitive qualitative properties, so black and white judgment can be made when granting such patents or its breach can be easily established." - is a contradiction.
Because quality is subjective category and cannot be expresed in quantification of technological specifications. In other words, that which objectively determines the innovation in technology cannot determine the innovation in quality toward consumers, beacuse when you want to measure quality, it is *a priori* not quantifiable, that is, it's very subjective.
So, patenting design and experience is not compatibile with the exact systems we are dealing with in law, science and technology. But it doesn't mean those innovations are not existent.
The evaluation must be therefore conducted by a team of experts in field of design and psychology, and not based on one single opinion but some kind of jury and qualitative methods of research, which differs substantiantly from quantitative research.
This is the area where Apple operates and knows the subject very well, and they have proven it numeorus times that those categories are not so much subjective and arbitrary as one might think. Designers can learn and also determine the global taste and experience for consumers, it's not something they are just speculating about.
It is based on subjects (in this case - humans), but it's not subjective in terms of complete indetermination.
26. groupsacc (Posts: 232; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)
Of course. I didn't intend to use the terms quantitative and qualitative applied to a single item of technology or science, as they cannot be applied concurrently (well, in most cases). I've used that term to explain that some patents have quantitative properties, i.e. patents that can be explained via numerical values or mathematics and its formulae, and some patents have qualitative properties, e.g. invention of Coca Cola (i.e. the distinctive taste of Coca cola).
To ensure there's no confusion, I've added the adjective "definitive" in front of the term qualitative. Since, the term qualitative is widely misunderstood to be associated exclusively with being subjective; however, it is not. Qualitative properties can be objective or subjective (for example colours. The background colour of this website is white. It is a qualitative property and is objectively white). However, when I say "The new iOS feels smooth, minimalistic, and user-friendly"; these are qualitative properties and are subjective.
27. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 627; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
That's right. And that's why I say that qualitative categories, like user-experience, cannot be expressed quantitatively. But your example with color is misleading. You are referring to qualitative and quantitative aspects of color but there is no qualitative aspect of color. There is no "good, better or bad" white color. Those stands for some other things other than color itself.
20. speckledapple (Posts: 877; Member since: 29 Sep 2011)
I dont blame the copycats. I blame the misinformed customers who purchase this thinking its the real thing. One thing these companies prey on are the ignorant.
23. GoBears (Posts: 278; Member since: 27 Apr 2012)
If you are dumb enough to buy one of these thinking it's a real surface tablet, then you are far too stupid to even enjoy one. Get an iPad.
29. pikapowerize (banned) (Posts: 1869; Member since: 03 May 2012)
ahahahaha LOL!!!!!why are they allowed on IFA anyway?