Print 41 comment(s) - last by Myrandex.. on Sep 5 at 12:10 PM

ATIV S could be unveiled at IFA 2012

Samsung may still be in shock over its $1.05B loss to Apple in a U.S. court, but that isn't stopping the company with moving forward with fresh new products. Microsoft's Windows Phone mobile operating system has been treading water in the smartphone space for well over a year, but Samsung is hoping to liven things up with a sleek, fresh entry to the fray.
The Samsung ATIV S features an 8.7mm brushed aluminum chassis and will come packing a 4.8" HD Super AMOLED screen, 1.5GHz dual-core processor, and an 8MP rear camera. For those that actually bother using the front-facing camera, that unit dials in at 1.9MP.

[Image Source: Microsoft]
There will be both 16GB and 32GB models made available to the public, and a microSD slot will also be included if you choose to expand storage on your own. A generous 2300mAh battery is included to ensure that you have enough juice to last through the day.
You can check out more pictures and thoughts on the Samsung ATIV S on the Windows Phone Blog.

[Image Source: Microsoft]
The launch date for Windows Phone 8 will likely be announced next week.

Sources: The Verge, Windows Phone Blog

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: But
By Tony Swash on 8/29/2012 2:49:35 PM , Rating: -1
Isn't that still the now illegal rectangle-with-rounded-corners form factor?

I fear you may have fallen pray to an already entrenched myth about the Apple - Samsung trial which is that one of the reasons Samsung was found guilty of copying was because of a patent that related to rounded corners.

Apple claimed that Samsung infringed on four design patents. The D677 patent covers the overall design of the iPhone while D305 covers the layout of icons. These claims were upheld. But the jury rejected infringement claims based on patents D087 and D889, which deal specifically with the rectangles-with-rounded-corners design of the iPhone and iPad respectively.

Of course Samsung made a headline grabbing reference to the rectangles-with-rounded-corners patent in it's post trial press release but that was just PR crap. Unfortunately some people swallow such crap and then say 'more please'.

RE: But
By StevoLincolnite on 8/29/2012 3:02:52 PM , Rating: 3
In the end the lawsuit may be the best thing for Microsoft, less of a good thing for Google.

Samsung may see it as a way to protect itself against Apple and it's bans, lawsuits, crusades to remove Android et all by adopting Windows 8 across the board.

RE: But
By NellyFromMA on 8/29/2012 3:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you don't sound smug AT ALL! So, arranging icons in rows and columns is patented. Wow, thank you for clearing that up, we must ALL feel SO stupid knowing we thought it was about rounded corners!

Arranging rows and columns of icons is clearly PROPRIETARY BUSINESS. What was your point again?

RE: But
By MadMan007 on 8/29/2012 3:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's an incredibly visionary invention because they did it ON A SMARTPHONE!!

RE: But
By TakinYourPoints on 8/29/2012 3:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Apple actually lost on the "rounded rectangles" thing and lost with the Galaxy Tab (the latter surprised me), but people are gonna keep making the same herp derp points that they are "illegal" because Apple says so

RE: But
By zephyrprime on 8/29/2012 5:38:11 PM , Rating: 2

Apple won the rounded rectangles patent for the Samsung S and Vibrant.

RE: But
By RufusM on 8/29/2012 3:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well that makes so much more sense. Of course an icon layout of icons in a grid with static icons below should obviously be patentable. /s

Wait, everyone and their dog did that before Apple.

<Two handed facepalm>

RE: But
By nocturne_81 on 8/30/2012 5:28:00 PM , Rating: 1
Really, this has nothing to do with patents.. it's just a legal means to prove the obvious -- the first Galaxy S series, while maybe not an entire 'knock-off', were obviously designed to mimic the iPhone in order to feed off of it's success. While the phone itself didn't exactly mimic the design and functionality, it intentionally took the same approach as Apple -- simplicity being the key.

The actual patent arguments are ridiculous -- and do indeed signify the many faults of our patent system. I'll admit, Apple was perhaps the first to adopt these obvious designs into a majorly successful commercial product, but they were in no way 'original'. The rectangle argument is ridiculous -- should be thrown out by any court the moment either side tries to bring it up. The 'bounce' animation..? I've seen this in dozens of apps ranging back many years, but first in content rich flash sites back in the early 00's (I actually have a photo gallery I made in flash back in '01 featuring the same 'animation', an idea I admittedly stole after seeing it in many other projects at the time). And the icon layout.. I was part of a project back in '00 or so that ported WinMobile to Casio's extremely cheap BE300 PDA. The cheap touchscreen never worked too well with the start menu and the list format was already the major downside of the default UI; so what did we do..? We created a grid-based icon layout, displaying 5 rows of 3 icons representing installed apps, listed on consecutive pages. I'd like to say we were revolutionaries.. but that'd be ridiculous -- we were admittedly mimicking palm's current implementation (though a bit more elegantly), which was based on the basic idea of displaying icons on a grid that computer ui designers have been doing for nearly 3 decades.

Was the Galaxy S series meant as a knock-off..? I honestly can't see how.. Did Samsung pour over every feature causing the success of the iPhone, intentionally seeking to implement them into their own phones to try to pander to the market that Apple could be credited as creating..? Obviously so (should say, I have two Samsung feature phones right here that are guilty of violating all the mentioned patents -- but lacking android, have not been named in any suit). Is the simple philosophy of embracing the utmost simplicity in designing a product patentable..? I personally think not, otherwise whoever coined the term K.I.S.S. would be suing any successful manufacturer into oblivion..

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki