Same for me. Been looking to replace my dell notebook and was looking into the Macbook Air with ubuntu as the alternative. Was just comparing prices and specs on the Apple's website last week.
I used to think Apple's success was great for us consumers because it's more choice, and competition is why companies are innovating in the first place, right? But this latest injunction made me realize, if I give money to Apple, there will be less competition and not more. They're unfairly anti-competitive and will use any immoral hole in legislation to make sure consumers have no options. To make sure there is no competition. That is driving innovation backwards, not forward. Summing the pros and cons. Their own technological innovation is not worth their effort to stop the whole rest of the world from innovating. Their balance to the world is on the negative.
I'm not gonna give money to a company that is driving humanity backwards. My 0.00001% missing contribution will have the same value as my vote for the country's president. I'm voting with my wallet.
Currently typing from a ~13" "ultrabook", I think having an extra inch of space is probably the best compromise between this and a bigger laptop, especially if it's light. And that resolution, in my experience, is exactly what I need for programming comfortably.
Finally, and this is obviously subjective, but I've always liked the way touchpads look best. There's something about matte black which just appeals to me.
i actually returned a macbook pro retina yesterday over this. i know it's insignificant to apple's bottom line, but their tactics against competitors seem to be growing increasingly unsavory.
i think in many tech patent cases if someone were found in violation, as the nexus apparently is, the normal strategy would be for the violator to pay the holder of the patent some licensing fees. maybe it doesn't always work out this way...
but even if licensing were an option and google and/or samsung were willing to pay to license the technology, with apple's very publicly stated goal of destroying android, i don't think they'd ever go along with it.
so this is basically bad for non-apple consumers and good for apple. i mean, it's rational that they'd try to maintain their competitive advantage, and even though multi-source search has existed in android as far back as donut and longer than that as a programming/computational task, i guess apple planted their flag first with this [IMO, obvious] patent
regarding the X1 carbon, ... i'm very excited about it myself. i currently have a T420 and thinkpads have great support for linux, which is my primary operating system. i'm just hoping they give the X1 carbon a decent display. the one on the T420 is pretty lousy.
They have a 256 gb ssd / i7 model for $1800, and a 128gb / i5 for a cheap $1300 (both are on Amazon, look for model number np900x4c). We played with one in a Best Buy before purchasing online, it definitely felt pretty comparable to the mba's I've used.
Just skimmed the review and that does indeed look like a fine device.
Completely unrelated: Why do vendors (including Apple) insist on plastering their ugly company logos on the back? Both the macbook and the zenbook would look much better without that white scar.
Branding in the strongest selling point of Apple products. They may have their flaws, but they're genius in their branding. They put an Apple logo in the back, for the same reason they give out Apple stickers for your car. For the same reason they put "sent from my iphone" at the end of an email. For the same reason their billionaire campaign insisted to "think different". Even their pixel placement choice has branding in mind. Apple engineering sacrificed multi-tasking to make sure scrolling could be displayed at 60fps, just so that holding a competing product "just doesn't feel like an Apple". That's ingenious branding being consistent at every layer of the company.
They want to you feel emotionally and better than others, and proud to show off the Apple logo. And they're the best in the world at doing this. That's why you saw all those posts angry at instagram when they launched for Android, claiming it wouldn't be as great now that the unwashed masses could touch it.
Maybe that's great for getting people to like the brand, but it's incredibly annoying to non-Apple users. Frankly, I think the whole "sent from my iPhone thing" is extremely obnoxious.
My roommate had a macbook freshman year. Whenever he used it at night (with the screen turned away from me), the stupid logo would light up the whole room. Really? Not only is it garish, but it's actively inconvenient.
I like what Thinkpad does here--they have a relatively unobtrusive logo in the corner with a red led for the dot over the i. It's cute and unobtrusive. My Vaio is also good in this regard--it has an elegant logo made up of metal on a matte blue background. Quite importantly, it does not light up. It might be a little pretentious, but it is elegant. It also has too many vowels, but that's not really related to the discussion :P.
There is a cut off for that, the moment the market hits a reasonable tipping point on that understanding, they will have to come up with something fantastic. Can't wait.
What do people think about Toshiba z930? Haven't done much research, just saw it (or the z830 - predecessor, not sure) in a shop and liked the look and feel (apparently lightest Ultrabook).
There are plenty of innovative laptops if you don't mind spending some money. Most of the options you see at stores like Best Buy are cheap consumer devices--of course they're not going to be innovative!
Take an example--I have a Vaio Z-series (and I've had it for a while now). It's lighter than an MBA (yay for carbon fiber), has two SSDs in Raid 0 and up to 1080p on a 13" screen. It also has a good touchpad and a dock with an external graphics card connected via a light peak port. That part is admittedly wonky without drivers (that is, it doesn't work great on Linux or Windows 8), but it is really cool nonetheless. It also looks just great, and nothing like a mac. If that isn't innovative, I don't know what is. You just don't see it competing with the $600-$800 Windows laptops at Best Buy.
There are some other similarly innovative laptops like Thinkpads that you can get. Apple is not the only company with interesting notebooks!
I'm getting Galaxy S3 instead of iPhone - easy decision now. Just more proof that shows that patents slow innovation, increase costs, and reduces/limits the amount of people who can get access to the technology; Innovation will occur if people have the tools they need to build the innovation, design new tools, and reach the public who would 'vote' on the technology by mechanisms like pre-buying. Patents need to go. People need to stop fearing competition. Controlled ecosystems are bad for everyone, including the people stressing over maintaining the control.
I've been using Macs since the 80s and I'm with you. I've felt so ashamed of what Apple has become I covered the Apple logo on my MacBook Pro. I use Linux instead of Mac OS already but that's more of a preference thing than anything else.
I'm doing this too. My current Mac is dying and it's going to be replaced with a PC. (If only ARM based laptops were available already).
I moved to Apple with OS X back in the G4 era on the basis of OS X, and it is going to be a pain to leave, but with the trends in OS X development being what they are it had to happen at some point.
Happily, there are some very compelling options on Linux these days. If you happen not to like Unity and Ubuntu, I suggest you check out KDE--the later iterations of KDE 4 are marvelous. I've been extremely happy with it.
Well, you chose to avoid good product because of the stupid ideology. Why stupid? Because you can easily find a reason to hate Google the same or even more (the whole FRAND thing e.g.).
OTOH, people are not rational, nothing new here so this love/hate boils down to subjective preferences rationalized a lot.
I like Apple because they make damn good products. Damn good products make them damn good money.
Google makes money from ads. I hate ads. But strangely enough I feel neutral about Google.
As for the patents and this case: it was said more than once there—hate the game, not the player.
Sure, the MBA is a good product. But most of its competitors are also good products: there's not clearly a best one, at least for my needs. Indeed, I've been wavering back and forth for over a month over what I should choose: each has its own set of pros and cons. These recent events have emphasized one of Apple's cons and pushed me to other choices.
I won't lose any sleep over the switch: I don't feel that I'm missing out on some life changing experience just for the sake of ideology. Now I'll likely end up with an ultrabook with a better screen but inferior battery life and build quality. A definite trade-off, but the amount it will affect my day to day life probably isn't significant.
> it was said more than once there—hate the game, not the player.
No. This line of argument is so dumb it makes my head hurt. The "players" choose to participate in the "game". Apple could have quite easily decided not to pursue injunctions against Samsung, but they did.
I can quite easily hate "the player" for choosing to play such an idiotic and stupid "game".
I don't think it's in any way unreasonable or stupid for people to avoid products of a certain company based on disagreement with that company's business policy, no matter the quality of those products.
I can't come up with something catchier than hate the game, not the player, but I think the game is always going to stay shitty if people support players who show no interest in changing the game.
I am not saying it is unreasonable, just that it is not rational. The whole disagreement thing is just what wee chose to pay attention to and what to ignore. You can take any tech company and paint it however you want just by cherry-picking.
I agree, actually: most tech companies have some blood on their hands (though I genuinely think it's fair to say Apple has had a particularly bad track record compared to its competitors, at least on offensive patent litigation).
That's why I'm constantly looking for new non-evil options, and my next phone is going to be B2G, if at all possible. Guess I won't be putting it on a Galaxy Nexus, though =)
Why would I hate Google for that? Motorola was cooperative and competitive with partners and despite all of their innovation they ended up -- like most of their traditional smartphone partners -- with most of their creations ending up in standards. Getting attacked by Apple and Microsoft they try to force a settlement with what they have. there is nothing in that that makes me dislike Motorola cum Google.
it was said more than once there—hate the game, not the player.
The xbox may be blocked because of critical, foundational patents, but I'm supposed to feel bad about the parties because they tried to be cooperative about them. The Galaxy Nexus is blocked because of laughable patents.
There is no question who the worse party is in this, and it's only a matter of time before something sticks and the iPhone/iPad is blocked from importation. We'll see how people like the game then.
Why would I hate Google for that? Motorola was cooperative and competitive with partners and despite all of their innovation they ended up -- like most of their traditional smartphone partners -- with most of their creations ending up in standards. Getting attacked by Apple and Microsoft they try to force a settlement with what they have. there is nothing in that that makes me dislike Motorola cum Google.
Actually, what really did Motorola in was years of getting ripped-off both in design and carrier sales wins by Samsung. Have a good look at the product line that Motorola sold from about 2000-2005. Then look at what Samsung was selling during the same period.
This is just what Samsung does. Good engineering, and let someone else do the design.
The xbox may be blocked because of critical, foundational patents, but I'm supposed to feel bad about the parties because they tried to be cooperative about them. The Galaxy Nexus is blocked because of laughable patents.
Apple's patents are "laughable" and Motorola's are "critical" and "foundational" because you're a software person, not a hardware person. You'll find that a lot of hardware patents, including Motorola's, suffer from the same obviousness when evaluated by EE's that Apple's do when evaluated by SE's.
This is laughable wrong. Motorola has never been cooperative with Microsoft. They are the ones being the aggressor and have used FRAND patents to do so. They've been nothing but underhanded at every opportunity.
And if Google/Motorola are so cooperative then why are the FTC/EU investigating them for anti-competitive behaviour ?
Microsoft sued Motorola after they couldn't extort them into making uncompetitive Windows Mobile devices. Motorola responded with standards-based patents and non-standards based patents, with the clear intention of trying to get a stalemate settlement. The "cooperative" part was that Motorola has thousands if not tens of thousands of patents that play a part in standards because they are a part of the whole moving things forward.
And if Google/Motorola are so cooperative then why are the FTC/EU investigating them for anti-competitive behaviour ?
Derpedeederp derp. The government investigates almost everything that any large multinational does. There are active investigations of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle....if it's a big company there's probably an investigation of it. Secondly that EXACTLY goes to my original point -- Motorola made the "mistake" of daring to be a good innovation citizen before some upstarts came along and started extorting and patent trolling for every hilariously trivial patent.
1. Motorola is obligated to not use standards based patents against implementers of the standard. Under ANY circumstance. It undermines the entire foundation of the industry and without standards we all lose.
2. No government is investigating Microsoft or Apple for patent abuse. And it is ridiculous to assume that the government just investigates any multinational company.
You talked about:
"And if Google/Motorola are so cooperative then why are the FTC/EU investigating them for anti-competitive behaviour ?"
But now the goal post moved to patent abuse investigations, keep in mind that monopoly investigations and patent law can be engaged by diff state institutions, depending on the most effective engagement method, so you may have patent law dispute in the courts in any country and monopoly investigations conducted by an European entity. So while at any given moment, not having one corporation under investigation or defendent status does not push the innocent/guilty pendulum anywhere when acessing any given case. Or is it an indication of antagonistical reversable jurisprudence. The case at hand comes to mind.
Also, any multinational company is under the scrutiny of any government or substitutive supra governamental entity with attributed powers to do so and that is the way it will stay. There is nothing ridiculous about it. It is a needed lawful check for international law and the required balance for the implementation and usage of the Uniform Commercial Code.
If we're going to talk about obligations... I seem to recall that Microsoft and Apple had made some promises with respect to the Nortel patents they bought (triggered by a DoJ investigation).
Wow. What is wrong with everyone here? Let's look at what despicable means.
(from Dictionary.com)
Despicable : deserving to be despised
Hooker Chemical poured tons of hazardous waste into the ground - waste that they knew would cause health problems - and then sold the site to the City of Niagara Falls to be developed into subdivisions. That's pretty despicable.
In China, in 2008, a factory making baby formula sold thinned-out product to make a quick buck. It's estimated that about 54000 children under the age of 3 became sick from drinking the formula. That's really quite despicable.
Does anyone here really despise Apple? More than Google? Or Samsung? Or any other faceless, unaccountable corporation? Really? Because there's going to be a 1 or 2 week period during this trial where you might not be able to buy some shiny new telephone? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Building tools is what makes us human. If I believed in sacraments, that would be one. And we're seeing the early stages of a proxy war, crippled appliance culture against toolmakers, which could push civilization off course. It's hard to see atrocities confined to 0.001% of our species in the same light.
People downvote you, including myself, because you're disrupting a thread by discussing the semantics of the word 'despised' in an impolite manner than brings nothing to the story.
Being right or wrong has little bearing on what is a rude and unnecessary derail.
Come again? What could be more self-indulgent and irrelevant than posting to the root of a thread announcing your opinion that a company that makes shiny gadgets is "despicable"? And you're down-voting me for pointing that out? What?
Yes. Ironically it's even less "firstworldproblems" than you might otherwise think, because a lot of the jobs lost etc go to people who are very much not first world.
It's hurting people if millions go to waste. People lose jobs, worry about money, can't pay medical bills and so on.
You're totally right. Despicable. Just like Stalin. We can only hope that we discover Apple's diabolical plan, and the location of the plutonium, before it's too late.
Stop arguing on HN and go help those starving children in Africa
Oh gee, I sure would - but how will I find Africa now that I can't buy a Galaxy Nexus with it's enhanced turn-by-turn navigation and barometric elevation sensor?
Compare Android to Windows Phone, Android tablets to the Surface, and the Lumia to the Galaxy Nexus.
Google and their partners could have taken the high road and created their own take on what a touch screen phone OS is, but instead they took the low road and did a wholesale look and feel copy and paste job of iOS to get scale.
Copying look and feel isn't actual wrongdoing, but it's certainly not the high road.
Now Apple is taking the low road and trying to smack the fuck down Google legally, instead of taking the high road and competing on its own merits.
Both companies have taken the low road, and both companies are culpable here- no one comes out looking good in this story.
>>but instead they took the low road and did a wholesale look and feel copy and paste job of iOS to get scale.<<
You take this as a fact instead of a subjective opinion of few that it really is. I've never seen anyone mistake an Android for an iPhone. The user-experience is entirely different and different people like both for different reasons. Also I don't think copying "look and feel" is how you build scale... maybe a cheaper, poorer quality alternative that sells on the down-low in some guerrilla market.. but definitely not a viable competitor that scales faster than the originator of that "look and feel"
If we're comparing current iterations. Android now looks nothing like ios and in actuality ios is looking more like android. Adding polish and bigger icons for touch to existing ui was all Apple did. Objectively look back at early Blackberry and Nokia phones. Where they they completely innovated on was multitouch and getting rid of the stylus.
I didn't mean to discount their accomplishments as I do think they made huge strides in the pushing of manufacturing of mobile components along with pushing the competition. But the look of grid icons, and pim applications has relatively remained unchanged.
I really don't want to get into a stupid religious war about whether Android is a blatant copy of iOS or not. Let's grant, just for the sake of brevity, that Android is an identical copy of iOS.
There's still a world of difference between that and using government violence to ban a competitor from business.
I don't understand why Apple is going after the Galaxy Nexus. In terms of UI, it's not really very similar to anything Apple makes, and to me at least, I don't think that either Apple or Google are trying to exploit consumer confusion to sell it.
The Galaxy S2 and S3 with TouchWiz, OTOH, are a different story. I would imagine that what Apple is really pissed off about is being the target of Samsung's shameless copy-and-undercut strategy that's worked so well for them in mobile in the past. TouchWiz is a really gauche copy of just about everything iOS. I'm actually quite happy that Samsung is getting called on this bullshit.
I think I understand why, having just bought one when I went to the US for WWDC last month (seems to have been fortunate timing).
Unlike some crapware-laden blatant iOS-wannabe Android phones, the Galaxy Nexus is a pretty great phone that is different and better than the iPhone in many ways. But, unlike most Android phones I have seen, it still provides a fairly elegant and clean user experience that is attractive to the same kind of user that the iPhone is (me, for instance; so far, I buy a new iPhone every time Apple introduces one).
Of course, better means different things to different people, but here are some of the things I found to be superior, per my preferences as a user:
• much bigger screen (I strongly prefer the tradeoff of making it marginally harder to reach the top opposite corner with my thumb in exchange for being able to see more usable information with my eyes) for better book reading and web browsing
• typing feels better and is more accurate (due to larger size & haptic feedback I think)
• incomparably better maps navigation; even when I already have my iPhone 4S in my hand I get the Galaxy Nexus out of the backpack if I need directions
• no worrying that Apple will rip me off retroactively, by disabling an app I bought from them (the Airfoil Speakers debacle) to protect some fucked licensing arrangement to make my phone work only with expensive proprietary hardware and not with standard commodity hardware
• can load any software I want, not just from the maker's app store, without requiring me to exploit a bug in the OS to jailbreak
• integrates with Google Voice
It does have deficiencies, too; it crashes much more than my iPhone, the OS lacks the level of polish in a lot of ways, camera isn't as good, etc. Which is better depends on the user, and still would probably be the iPhone for most.
My point is just that the $349 unlocked Galaxy Nexus has some aspects which could be considered advantages over the iPhone, but it is still appealing to exactly the kind of user that the iPhone appeals to. Somebody who wants a smooth, uncluttered, pretty pocket computer that "just works" with minimal hassle. Google removes the crapware, gets rid of the funk-ass nonstandard UI skins, provides all the system updates, automatically links up with whatever services in their ecosystem you use... so with this phone they've done the best job of creating that type of product.
Therefore, to the iPhone, I think the Galaxy Nexus is the most directly threatening Android phone yet produced.
So, supposing you were an asshole with some bogus patents to go trolling with, that's probably where you'd want to start.
Isn't it ironic that the Galaxy Nexus (along with the rest of the Nexus line) is almost the only Android phone that Google can quickly update the software, remove/change the stuff that Apple supposedly "own" and sell it again quickly? If the ban happened for almost all other Android devices the pain would be much bigger. I am an Android phone and Macbook owner and I am really ashamed by Apple actions, I will not buy anything of them again until they change their attitude.
Florian Müller has failed to disclose when he is consulting/working for companies he is writing about and has been pretty seriously wrong in his "predictions", most notably the Oracle v. Google case over Java/Android.
There's tens of similar surveys published online. None of them include "search-as-u-go". In fact Apple doesn't seem to think that it's that big enough of a deal to promote. They advertise tens of features & this isn't one of them. And that's because it's expected (everyone uses it already) or it's not that important to a buyer when choosing a phone to purchase.
It's just not reasonable to assume that the "search-as-u-go" technology could give any sort of significant advantage to Samsung to be the cause of a shift in market share or something with similarly "unascertainable" consequences, which is precisely what the ruling of irreparable damage relies on.
> Irreparable harm seems to imply that this could hurt Apple in a major way
Yes, this is what bothers me most about it. Litigating bogus patents is one thing, but this grandstanding about the impact of tiny features is sickening. Especially after we had the ruling from Posner that it has to be the specific feature in question that is causing the "irreparable" harm. It seems to me that the irreparable harm is drastically tilted in Google's direction here, as they are unable to market the latest version of their operating system, potentially for months until iOS6 is released. Compare that to the tiny (non-existent?) lost sales on Apple's side - supposedly due to customers saying "hey, since Google's phone can search for apps and contacts on the same screen, I'm buying that one!" - of their nearly obsolete iPhone4s, it seems ridiculously unfair to me.
First of all this makes me want one even more. Secondly I wonder if Steve Jobs would have cancelled this BS? I've been curious about Android development for the nearly four years I've been doing iOS development. I'll start porting my free ad-supported app to Android now. Bye Apple!
"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson, in the book, which hit shelves last October.
"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this," Jobs said.
He always spoke in such certain terms that it seemed like everything was black and white to him. His actual behavior tended to be much more tempered than his rhetoric.
I think there's a very good chance he wouldn't have actually pushed the button on stuff like this, as much as part of him may have wanted to.
I was of the understanding that he switch positions pretty suddenly. eg, he could go from telling you why some idea was shit to the same idea being the best thing ever over the course of 30 minutes (often then taking credit for that idea).
What? Apple's aggressive use of patents started on Jobs' watch. He crowed about Apple's patents in keynotes. He swore (on record to his biographer) that he was going to destroy Android even if it cost Apple every penny they had.
Why in the world would you think that he would be cancelling this, or any other kind of patent action?
Sorry just ignorance on my part as I haven't read the biography. If Steve was really into this type of behavior I'm curious who in the company still thinks this has a net positive effect for Apple?
Jobs started, and was the driving force behind this nonsense. If anything, I hope his absence will allow Cook et al to "gracefully" withdraw themselves from his idiotic/evil plans to sue everyone into oblivion.
Apple can't simply drop all of the lawsuits, as to do so would be an admission that it was a bad idea from its conception. Instead, they can wait until they suffer one of these judgements, then push for a cross-licensing deal.
I don't think so. There are many pages online that say that Steve Jobs was absolutely against Android. As in, he wasn't in it for the money. He literally wanted to obliterate it. So, I think, if Steve was in charge, there would actually have been no "bond" or anything. He would just want a blanket ban, and that is all.
I'm working on a new iOS app and I've started porting it to Android as a result of all this. As an iOS developer I feel complicit in what Apple's doing lately.
I actually had added the Galaxy Nexus to my shopping cart yesterday and then tried to buy today but couldn't. It was only in reading this that I realized why.
Does anyone have any insights into how many days/weeks before Google will be able to sell it again?
Other than my own prejudice against the absurdity of patenting common sense software features, I don't understand why this suit doesn't affect all Android products?
It seems like the patented feature in question is pure software available on other Android phones.
Unlike with trademarks, patent holders get a lot of leeway about whom to sue and when without immediately endangering their patents through estoppel. I don't know what makes waiting more effective and evil, but that's why they have the option.
I believe the original title said Galaxy Nexus. Way to be misleading by implying it's the Nexus 7.
Also, people still read Foss Patents, the guy paid by Microsoft and Oracle to write negative stories on Google, and who was completely wrong on anything he said or suggested about the Google and Oracle trial?
Yes people still read FOSS patents because he is the ONLY one actually covering the cases in detail. And I actually find him to be 100x more professional than Groklaw e.g. their latest article, "Another Spanking for Apple From Judge Posner".
The Galaxy SIII is still available and basically the same phone. Seems like there are just too many Android devices for Apple to block them all, they're just picking on the Galaxy Nexus to take a pot-shot at Google directly.
Even if they were "basically the same phone" (which they're not, the S3 seems to be somewhat better hardware-wise), the price difference is quite significant:
How is banning a product that might possibly be in violation of an absurd law be in anyones best interest other than Apple's? Patent laws were intended to benefit consumers, not predatory capitalists.
Patents can't be justified on the basis of consumer benefit. While it's true that some consumers benefit from patents, they're not the sole (or even primary) beneficiary: the patent holders are.
Patents are justified because an individual has the right to the product of his mind [and his body (labor); in reality, there is no difference, but I'm emphasizing the mind here because the context is IP]. This is because survival as a human being (whether alone or in a group) requires thought in order to make the things needed to sustain a flourishing life. This is damned hard work!
Copying the product of someone else's thought (not the same as emulating another person's method of thought, and applying it to a new situation) deprives the originator of what is rightfully theirs: the untrammeled market for their innovation, which would not exist were it not for their thoughts and action.
(And no, not every idea is patentable, and not every patent applied for should be granted. No, patents can't last forever. But those are comparatively minor details that are incomprehensible if the fundamental idea stated above is not understood.)
Please let this case turn into a hideous disaster, so that the patent system is revealed to the public at large as the hideous disaster it is. Many a small company's dreams have been quietly smothered by this patent system; the public only starts to care if something nasty happens to a big corporation.
It needs to go the other way for the public to get it. A grand unveiling of a gee-whiz apple project that everyone obsesses about having, only to be denied because of a frivolous patent.
The elephant in the room is that Samsung did, and is still shamelessly trying to make a carbon copy of the iPhone and the iPad. The similarities go beyond casual coincidences. Right from the charger to the packaging to the layout to .. almost everything. It is so obvious they are doing that. It is no surprise Apple is going after them, and of course they should.
Please, for the love god, you and all people who think like this - take one second please to actually look at a Galaxy Nexus. It is so ridiculously unlike an iPhone. Samsung did do a pretty straight ripoff of the iPhone with the original Galaxy S. Since then their designs have deviated in major ways and really look completely different.
I know, I know: no one cares about nerd ideologies. But I'll do my part and lower their monthly revenues by 0.00001%.