I think differentiating the pro and max is a big part of it, but it also seems like they're trying to spread out the benefits of the switch to 3nm over time. I would expect performance cores and bandwidth to go back up next year to maintain steady performance increases year over year.
What was supposed to be a quick first iPhone project, turned into many months of hard work. So tired, happy, and relieved to have this out in the public.
You're using a very weird definition of the word "copy." They are similar in that they depict a similar object from the same angle using a "flat" artistic style, but nobody is going to look at them side by side and mistake one for the other for even a second. This seems a bit like saying the iPhone is a copy of a slice of bread because they are both rectangular with few surface features. If you were asked to copy something in a drawing class and gave such an unrecognizable result, you'd likely get an F for failing to follow the instructions.
There aren't any examples of identical artwork from the two sources that I can see. There are links such as http://cl.ly/image/3Q181w0b1u2K that show substantially different artwork side by side. Do you really mean to tell me you can't see any difference between those? The only substantial similarity in either of those is the placement of the pins of the map. Notable differences:
The clock:
* The FlatUI one has a drop shadow
* The length of both hands is different
* In the Dribbl artwork the hands are all the same size, while the FlatUI one has a "skinny" minute hand and an even skinnier second hand
* The colors are not at all similar
The map:
* The width is different
* The landmasses are completely different
* There is a different number of landmasses
* The colors are, again, quite different
* The Dribbl art is of a map with three folds, with both ends facing downwards so it forms an "M" shape, while the FlatUI one has four folds, with one end facing down and the other facing up
Beyond details inherent in the objects and art style (e.g. clocks are round and have hands), there are more differences than similarities. I would hardly call that "identical."
There are substantial similarities between the two. That it's not a 1 for 1 copy doesn't change the fact that they are substantially similar.
Case in point. The text below has more difference contained within it then the list of 9 specific difference you listed in your post. Taken individually, they prove that I did not copy your post, and that what is below is original.
However, any reasonable person would take a look at the two and find that they are very similar in terms of style, presentation, and intent. That they are copies. Identical, no, but copies nonetheless.
---
There aren't any examples of identical artwork from the two sources that I can see. There are links such as http://bit.ly/13IvNcq that show substantially different artwork side by side. Do you really mean to tell me you can't see any difference between those? The only substantial similarity in either of those is the placement of the pins of the map. Notable differences:
The clock:
* The FlatUI one has a drop shadow.
* The length of both hands is different.
* The colors are not at all similar.
* In the Dribbl artwork the hands are all the same size, while the FlatUI one has a 'skinny' minute hand and a skinnier second hand.
The map:
* The landmasses are different.
* The width is different.
* The colors are quite different.
* There are a different number of landmasses.
* The Dribbl art is of a map with three folds, with both ends facing downwards so it forms an 'M' shape, while the FlatUI one has four folds, with one end facing down and the other facing up.
Beyond details inherent in the objects and art style (e.g. clocks are round and have hands), there are more differences than similarities. I would hardly call that 'identical.'
No, that is much more similar. You changed a couple of words and punctuation and reordered a couple of paragraphs. Those are minor changes. It is substantially the same as what I wrote, with far more similarities than differences. The similarities are so overwhelming that without careful inspection, it could be mistaken for an exact textual copy of my comment with some of the paragraph breaks omitted. The same is not true of the graphics in question. A cursory glance at those will reveal obvious differences.
A better refutation would be to produce a well thought-out comparison of the two graphics that shows substantial similarity. I compared them as best I could and most of the artistic decisions seemed to be different between the two. If you have reached a different conclusion, I would love to see your analysis to compare.
If you haven't analyzed them in as much detail as I did and reached a different conclusion, I don't see why you felt it was intellectually honest to take a computerized copy of my comment and claim it as containing "more difference."
Would your same hypothetical "reasonable person" file a DMCA takedown notice if they are able to discern "substantial similarities" between their work and work that has been given away to the world on Github?
>A thing made to be similar or identical to another.
So... couldn't we argue that LayerVault copied the design of actual clocks? Using your logic, the inventor of the wall clock would be just as justified sending LayerVault a take-down notice, right?
Right. The linked commit that is the subject of this thread is a DMCA takedown notice, which is a legal instrument designed to allow holders of copyrights to prevent their copyrighted materials from being distributed. Setting aside the merits of the DMCA, it has nothing to do with any definition of "copy" (yours, Oxford's, or Wikipedia's) at all. It is a remedy for copyright infrigement, which, again, is a legal term with a very specific definition[1]. No matter how creatively you define the word "copy", designmodo's actions simply are not equivalent to "copyright infringement" by any legal definition.
I'm not defending the DMCA. Did I mention it? I pointed out that DM copied other works I saw previously on dribbble. Adding information to the discussion, that spawned more threads.
"What exactly is the point you're trying to make?"
The point I am trying to make is that you are not adding information to the discussion. It's obvious upon inspection that a small portion of the graphical assets, and even the color scheme are similar. It is equally obvious that they are not identical. This thread is about the appropriateness of LayerVault abusing the DMCA's takedown provisions in order to stifle an open source project in response to perceived "similarities" that do not satisfy the standard for copyright infringement, the only situation in which it is appropriate (or legal, for that matter) to issue a DMCA takedown notice. The original point I was trying to make (and the point that basically everyone else responding to you is trying to make, that you don't seem to understand) is that this is true regardless of whether or not designmodo is "copying" their "style", "feel", or color palette, and that throwing around a DMCA takedown notice so casually is unacceptable behavior, regardless of how injured they feel.
I have been trying to communicate a concept to you, specifically that copyright infringement is not the same as copying a design. I fear that I have failed. Perhaps you can't hear me, and don't want to. Maybe you understand what it is that I am trying to communicate, but lack the tools with which to articulate your dissent. Either way, it appears that you're now simply arguing for the sake of arguing instead of responding to what I'm actually trying to say. As fun as that sounds, I think I'll pass.
At this point, I'd like to refer you to pg's essay on how to disagree[1]. You might want to pay attention to sections 4 and 5 in his hierarchy of dissent.
Don't mind Alex, he made a fuss about the guy on the right jacking his design on the left a few months ago - http://cl.ly/image/1g3q372r1c2F/shot.jpg. Information designers would have a chuckle at that.
The clock in question, aside from being an exact copy, was an example of a trademark infringement not copyright infringement. It's very different. In fact trademarks must be defended against infringement or they can be considered void.
If he had copied, even in just a similar way, LayerVault's logo to use as an icon (and assuming LV trademarked it) then this discussion would be pretty different.
Apple's clock was an exact copy of the swiss railway clock. In this case, the rounded corners are different, the color is different, the shadow is different, the lengths of the lines are different.
Thanks, I figured that part out.
I was more replying to this response in the context of the grandparent, which made little sense to me at first, and even less sense when he edited it in some strange attempt to distinguish between "copying", which he seems to be accusing the Flat-UI creator of, and "copyright violation", the legal prerequisite for filing a DMCA takedown, which is what the rest of the comments on this post seem to be discussing.
Copyright means you literally copied the design. Are you maybe confusing copyright and trademark? With trademark, you can get in trouble for creating brand confusion, which has a more to do with the look and feel than the actual copy.
Copyright also grants the exclusive right to create derivative works. Using another work as the basis of your own, even with zero direct copying, can be an infringement of that right. I doubt that happened here, and proving it would be near-impossible, but we should be cognizant of what copyright actually is.
All it manages to show is that as a designer he is not very original and maybe influenced a bit too much about what he is inspired by. But this in itself is not a copyright violation.
If it were ONLY the colors, or ONLY the look and feel of the widgets (which, come on, are almost exactly the same as well), or ONLY the icons… different story entirely. But it's the SUM of all of those things.
I'm less concerned with the allegations of copyright trolling, etc (IANAL; I don't really know whether or not this qualifies for a DMCA takedown notice, although I suspect it does not) and more with the general opinion among commentators here that this was anything OTHER than a blatant ripoff of LayerVault's UI.
To me it seems like more of a trademark/trade dress issue, which as far as I know doesn't fall under copyright, but it's extremely silly to say that the resemblance between FlatUI and LayerVault isn't uncanny.
Ripping off someone's design isn't grounds for a DMCA takedown notice unless you actually violate copyright(the legal definition, not some hand wavy "I did it first" definition). If LV had filed a trademark claim no one would be complaining b/c A) they would definitely lose(there's no issue of brand confusion here) and B) the guy would get to decide himself whether he wanted to risk leaving his stuff online (instead of github deciding for him).
One of problems with copyright is that the statute basically says you can't copy original works under certain conditions, but it doesn't define what constitutes copying. As far as I can figure out (IANAL) only a judge or jury can make that determination. You can try to figure out what has been considered copying by reading through other cases but it is not definitive until declared so by a court.
I don't think it's a copyright issue, but between the colors, illustrations (some of which almost match exactly), and the appearance of the widgets, you could make a very strong case for trademark/trade dress violation.
> I don't think it's a copyright issue, but between the colors
The only thing you can file a DMCA takedown notice for is a copyright issue. That's it. By filing a DMCA takedown notice you are asserting there is a 'copyright issue'.
Trademark and trade dress have nothing to do with a DMCA takedown though.
And besides, establishing an infringement of trademark and that it was then infringed will require an absolute mountain of cash and lawyers and time. I'm assuming they have nothing relating to the IP they're annoyed about on paper and so they'd need to show that they 'owned' it in equity. They'd almost certainly go bankrupt before they have a chance of winning a case in court.
Thank you for bringing this up. It's often looked over from those not experienced with mental illness. A close relative has been affected by mental issues and is too paranoid to get help from it. She's still well enough to talk to me and remember who I am, but is so far in another reality that there is nothing you can do to help. It's a terrible illness and for a lot of people it's all downhill.
It's hard to get more optimal than "read a page of text" "press button for next page". Scroll wheels require some combination of
* Have to move it more to travel the same distance
* Have to fiddle with it to get exactly one page
* Have to track your position during the scroll
* Have to scroll more often than once per page
This (among numerous other near-universal UX transgressions) has gotten to the point that my first action on almost any internet article is to hit ⇧⌘R.
I've always read at the center of the page while scrolling. It's what I've noticed most everyone my age doing. Maybe it's generational, I've only been at this since windows ME.
I use space for page down and shift+space for page up. Scrolling means tracking where I am as I go, when I hit page down I know where to start reading, the top. It feels more like reading a book.
Maybe because he wants to go exactly one page down as easily as possible, and this is something that has generally worked for decades. It's pretty simple, really.
To the extent that anyone said the same thing about Nintendo, which I assume is what your intent was, they were wrong and Nintendo had the sales and profits to refute such a claim.
In my opinion the trouble with Zynga is that it's a game company which doesn't make games, it makes loops of engagement tricks culminating with calls-to-action for buying virtual widgets. And then make those people who play their games look like idiots by spamming their friends. The kind of people who were engaged by this were the lowest common denominator of the gaming market, but have either become too sophisticated or too jaded for Zynga's tactics. Additionally, Facebook is choking Zynga's main channel, I'm guessing because aforementioned tactics were so pervasive and repugnant that they were ruining the Facebook UX.
Given the above speculation, Zynga would have to either try to double/triple/quadruple down on monetizing cheap engagement loops, or try making and selling real games that deliver actual value (insofar as any game delivers value).
Making things that are actually fun is hard, and selling them is harder. Even if they succeed, they'll have a brutal transition period while they learn new skills and build a new market.
But the alternative looks no better. As you say, the well of credulous idiots is running dry. I haven't done any user tests lately, but a year ago our subjects were incredibly suspicious of any Facebook auth dialog. If you asked them why, it was clear that everybody had been burned, and Facebook had become too important a social context to end up looking like a fool.
The only upside I see is that we have a good reminder that that "you can fool some of the people all of the time" is not actually a good entrepreneurial strategy. Even if a hype bubble does get you to IPO.
Except Nintendo's primary revenue stream was not derived from ripping off other people's hard work, and slapping on their own artwork and calling it their own.
Nintendo created/creates a novel hardware platform, enabling other people to deliver great and compelling entertainment.
Have you ever listened to John Siracusa's Hypercritical Podcast when he remises about Nintendo, Nintendo hardware, and Nintendo games?
I do not expect anyone ever has, or ever will, wax on enthusiastically about any of the addictive little feedback loops that Zynga has sucked people into engaging. None of my friends who work there are particularly proud about the company they work for.
Zynga is one of the few (non toxin/polluting) companies in the world that I can't wait to see walk off the stage. The sooner the better.
While I agree with your analysis, I would add that the sheer entrepreneurial will and effort required to take Zynga from zero to IPO is incredible. Yes, a lot of stars had to line up in just the right way, but let's not discount the motivation of a person like Pincus, no matter how misdirected we think it is.
For that reason, I would not consider it a foregone conclusion that Zynga will disappear. To the extent that a rise-from-the-ashes is fueled by grit and determination, he has what it takes to do it. Despite the stock option clawback efforts, I don't buy the story that he's a soulless leech. He's still in it to win.
I agree with you pretty much on everything you're saying here. I haven't met Pincus, or spoken with him, so it's unclear to me whether he saw the intervening period of Zynga's "Let's get everyone hooked on addictive little feedback games, and let's speed up our product delivery (and justify our massive valuation) by rebranding other people's games" as anything more than a step to something truly great.
But, I can't judge Zynga on what, or who, Pincus might be, I can only judge them on their actions and behavior.
Who knows, maybe Zynga will go down in flames, but Pincus arises from the ashes to go off and do great things elsewewhere...
He's had some amazing ones. Here's a good selection.
First, start out with Blue Ocean. If you are a geek, and you love hardware/video games/nintendo, this is a classic episode that speaks to you in so many ways. It's not so overly technical that our eyes glaze over, but it's narrated by someone who is one of us, and is entertaining, and deeply deeply loves his topic (and Nintendo).
I'm not a gamers as much as I used to be, but Siracusa brings back the wonder of it all. Seriously the one podcast I look eagerly forward to every week.
This is a fair point, but I think its also fair for the parent to point the potential for bias out, given that some people may have perused the article quickly without realizing that its posted to the blog of a company with a large stake in the issue at hand.
