I guess I really just don't care. If people are buying products based on style, then anyone should be able to produce a product with that style, and you can't argue that people aren't getting what they want. "Style" should not be patentable, or we're entering a dystopia where you have to figure out who to pay royalties to when you decide what color tshirt to wear.
bought a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone because they thought both phones basically did the same thing is also unconvincing. Salespeople say this kind of shit all the time no matter what the product looks like. "Our version is better!" - it's practically their job. Except in egregious cases of salesperson misbehavior (ie fraud), the customer isn't confused about the origin of the product. Uninformed customers will make uninformed decisions, caveat emptor.
I've owned both early iPhone and Samsung models and seriously they look and feel very different. The whole thing is a joke, and just irrational Apple "thermonuclear" sulking and foot-stomping.
Don't forget that before the iPhone, there were a TON of competing models of regular phone on the market, often very similar. Nobody was stomping their legal foot and sulking about patent violation for how the corner of a phone was bevelled or not. So please stop apologising for Apple's ego-fuelled temper tantrums.
The argument at play here seems to be: you can make something that looks like a Braun device if Braun doesn't already have a design-patented device that does the same thing. And you can make a device that does exactly the same thing as a Braun device as long as you don't try to make your device look confusingly similar to Braun's device. What you can't do is make a direct substitute for a design-patented Braun device, and then go out of your way to clone the design so that people have a hard time telling the difference between the two.
Another simple way to look at this (it's incomplete, but might settle the issue for you) is that a lot of people pick their phone based on how it looks.