First Samsung came for Apple's interface design, then it came for Apple's philosophy

Galaxy S4, the phone we didn't know we wanted until they showed it to us.

Samsung rolled out its all-new GalaxyS4 on Thursday night and its decision to launch its latest smart phone in New York is a clear sign that the South Korean technology giant isn't afraid of the Big Apple. 

The Galaxy S4 comes with enhanced software and hardware features, just ten months after the launch of its highly successful predecessor. According to excited reviews and tweets, the new S4 has miraculous qualities: it responds to body movements, switching songs or pictures at the wave of a hand. And thanks to a special camera, it can also pause a video whenever the user stops looking at the screen. It is slimmer than its predecessor, but has a 5-inch touch screen and a 20 per cent longer-lasting battery.

So, the Galaxy S4 - daughter of the S3 and already-expecting mother of S5, has done what Apple has singularly failed to do since the invention of the iPad - it created something the we never knew we wanted. Or, in Steve Jobs’ words: “People don't know what they want until you show it to them.”

In other words, the S4 is an innovative product, but it’s mainly an excuse to launch a good marketing campaign

After filing a complaint in April 2011, Apple has famously won a lawsuit against Samsung over design user interface and style characteristics patented by Apple for the iPhone and iPad.

However, what Samsung is managing to steal now is the entire philosophy behind Apple’s extraordinary success. And this is not exactly the sort of issue you can appeal against in a tribunal.

Former Apple creative director Ken Segalls, says that, through its advertising, Samsung has succeeded in reinforcing a point (whether it’s true or not): that it has successfully positioned itself as the company delivering innovation, “striking a nerve, and stoking the anti-Apple flames.”

Segalls quotes several figures to back up his opinion. Samsung outspent Apple on marketing last year, and telecoms industry insiders say the S4 launch is setting a new high water mark for smartphone ad spend.  Marketing budgets in some countries will run into tens of millions of dollars, with Samsung’s total spend on the S4 expected to exceed $150m globally. That compares with $108m spent by Apple on marketing the iPhone 5 last year, according to Kantar media monitoring.

Despite the Broadway-style launch, investors gave the launch a chilly welcome, sending Samsung shares down, up to 2 per cent. On the other hand, financial markets follow the same rule: it’s not about what you sell, but what you think you are buying.

The Galaxy S4. Photograph: Getty Images

Sara Perria is the Assistant Editor for Banking and Payments, VRL Financial News

Getty
Show Hide image

Britain has built a national myth on winning the Second World War, but it’s distorting our politics

The impending humiliation of Brexit is going to have a lot more in common with Suez.

The Crown, Peter Morgan’s epic drama covering the reign of Elizabeth II, ended its first series with a nemesis waiting just off-stage to shake up its court politics. In the final episode, Egyptian president Gamal Nasser gives a rip-roaringly anti-imperialist – and anti-British – speech. The scene is set for the Suez Crisis to be a big plot point in Season 2.

Suez has gone down in history as the great foreign policy debacle of postwar Britain. The 1956 crisis – which saw Israel, France and Britain jointly invade Egypt to take control of the Suez Canal, only to slink off again, nine days later, once it became clear the US wasn’t having any of it – is seen as the point at which it became clear that even the bigger states of Europe were no longer great powers in the world. “President Eisenhower’s humiliation of Britain,” Jack Straw wrote in his 2012 memoir, “had been total.”

This was, though, a fairly limited sort of humiliation. Britain was not invaded or occupied; there was no sudden collapse in living standards, let alone a significant body count. Our greatest national debacle is nothing more than the realisation that Britain could no longer do whatever it wanted without fear of reprisal. As humiliations go, this one’s up there with the loss of status men have faced from the rise of feminism: suddenly, Britain could do what it wanted a mere 80 per cent of the time.

The Crown begins in 1947, when Prince Philip gives up his Greek and Danish royal titles and becomes a British subject, so that he can marry Princess Elizabeth. That year saw another British foreign policy debacle, one on which the show remains oddly silent. In the partition which followed India’s independence from the British Empire, 70 years ago this week, upwards of a million people died; in the decades since, the borders drawn up at that time have been the site of numerous wars, and Kashmir remains a flashpoint.

All this, one might think, might count as a far bigger regret than Suez – yet it doesn’t feature in the national narrative in the same way. Perhaps because partition was about the withdrawal of British forces, rather than their deployment; perhaps it’s simply that it all happened a very long way away. Or perhaps we just care less about a body count than we do about looking bad in front of the Americans.

I think, though, there’s another reason we don’t talk about this stuff: the end of empire is hidden behind a much bigger part of our national myth. In the Second World War, Britain is undeniably one of the good guys; for 12 months, indeed, Britain was the only good guy. Never mind that it still had the largest empire the world had ever seen to fall back on: Britain stood alone.

The centrality of the Second World War to the national myth warps our view of history and our place in the world in all sorts of ways. For starters, it means we’ve never had to take an honest account of the consequences of empire. In a tale about British heroes defeating Nazi villains, British mistakes or British atrocities just don’t fit. (Winston Churchill’s role in the 1943 Bengal famine – death toll: three million – by ordering the export of Indian grain to Britain rarely comes up in biopics.) In this dominant version of the national story, the end of empire is just the price we pay to defeat fascism.

More than that, our obsession with the Second World War creates the bizarre impression that failure is not just heroic, but a necessary precursor to success. Two of the most discussed elements of Britain’s war – the evacuation of Dunkirk, and the Blitz – are not about victory at all, but about survival against the odds. The lesson we take is that, with a touch of British grit and an ability to improvise, we can accomplish anything. It’s hard not to see this reflected in Brexit secretary David Davis’s lack of notes, but it’s nonsense: had the Russians and Americans not arrived to bail us out, Britain would have been stuffed.

Most obviously, being one of the winners of the Second World War infects our attitude to Europe. It’s probably not a coincidence that Britain has always been both one of the most eurosceptic EU countries, and one of the tiny number not to have been trampled by a foreign army at some point in recent history: we don’t instinctively grasp why European unity matters.

Once again, Suez is instructive. The lesson postwar France took from the discovery that the imperial age was over was that it should lead a strong and unified Europe. The lesson Britain took was that, so long as we cosied up to the US – Athens to their Rome, to quote Harold Macmillan – we could still bask in reflected superpower.

Until recently, Britain’s Second World War obsession and national ignorance about empire didn’t really seem to affect contemporary politics. They were embarrassing; but they were also irrelevant, so we could cope. Brexit, though, means that hubris is about to run headlong into nemesis, and the widespread assumption that Britain is a rich, powerful and much-loved country is unlikely to survive contact with reality. India will not offer a trade deal for sentimental reasons; Ireland is not a junior partner that will meekly follow us out of the door or police its borders on our behalf. The discovery that Britain is now a mid-ranking power that – excepting the over-heated south-east of England – isn’t even that rich is likely to mean a loss of status to rival Suez.

Morgan says he has planned six seasons of The Crown. (This looks entertainingly like a bet the Queen will be dead by 2021; if not, like Game of Thrones before it, he might well run out of text to adapt.) It’ll be interesting to see how the show handles Brexit. It began with the royal family facing up to a vertiginous decline in British power. As things stand, it may have to end the same way. 

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Brexit. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear