Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Oct 2011 23:17 UTC, submitted by jello
Apple So, how serious is the legal battle between Apple and the various Android phone makers, really? Surely, it's just logical business sense that's behind it, right? Calculated, well-planned precision strikes designed to hurt Android where simply making better, more innovative products isn't enough? Well, no, not really. We already knew Steve Jobs took this personal - now we know just how personal.
Thread beginning with comment 493703
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Jennimc
by frderi on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 10:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Jennimc"
frderi
Member since:
2011-06-17

I think you're confusing features with design.

Everybody can come up with features and implement them in a certain manner using the technology available in a certain period of time. But what really matters is how you turn those features into something that gets the whole story right and you end up with an actually usable and sellable product.

A lot of people don't seem to be getting this and take these things for granted once they are out in the consumer space. They don't realize that it actually takes a lot of effort to come up with these things in the first place and make it so it actually works well enough for the consumer.

The tech industry is a very volative space. Over the years, I've seen a lot of innovative companies go under because other, often bigger ones jumped on the bandwagon and released me-too products because they wanted a piece of the pie these companies created. I'm not referring to Apple specifically, although they've more than had their share of financial problems because of it. NetScape, SGI, Software Arts, ... are just a few examples of innovative companies who changed what people can do with technology over the years. These companies are no longer around, mainly due to the fact because others stepped in and ran away with the technology they pioneered.

Historically, this hasn't turned out very well for the consumer. IE dominance was one of the main reasons NetScape tanked, and when it did internet technology entered a dark age as innovation ceased.

Love Android all you want, but you can't deny that its the iPhone who set the bar and defined the market Android is going after. And I'm not saying that out of fanboyism. I'ms saying this as a technology enthousiast who likes polished, usable products. Look at the smartphone landscape before it came out. It was labeled as a "mature market" catering primarily to a certain niche. The iPhone changed all that. It put the bar higher for technology and what you could do with it, and lowered the bar for consumers.

So I'm not mad when a company which actually does the innovation behind it to make good ideas into a reality tries to fight me-too products with all they've got. Neither would I be mad if a company like VMWare decided to go after me-too companies that think the best way of doing business is mimicking the whole widget of another company. Because its when these guys succesfully enter the market, that innovative products become commoditized and its the consumer who ultimately pays the price.

Edited 2011-10-22 10:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Jennimc
by Nth_Man on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 10:52 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Jennimc"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

> I think you're confusing features with design.
I was talking about features that were said, like "combine the PDA with the smartphone" or the features that offered Palm Pilot, Ibm Simon, Apple Newton, etc.

> Love Android all you want,
If it's important: I don't love Android, I don't even have one.

> These companies are no longer around, mainly due to
> the fact because others stepped in and ran away with
> the technology they pioneered.
That "ran away with" expression is too similar to "stealing", they are not stealing, Apple did not steal anything from Xerox or IBM Simon or Knight Ridder(*), even if Steve Jobs says it:
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

That not-building-something-totally-different-for-the-sake-of-it was beneficial for people, and so there Apple was doing the right thing (tm).

(*) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridde...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Jennimc
by frderi on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 11:48 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Jennimc"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

> I was talking about features that were said, like "combine the PDA with the smartphone" or the features that offered Palm Pilot, Ibm Simon, Apple Newton, etc.

>That "ran away with" expression is too similar to "stealing", they are not stealing, Apple did not steal anything from Xerox or IBM Simon or Knight Ridder(*), even if Steve Jobs says it

I think making a clear distinction between features and design is very important in this debate. I do believe products that are designed too similar and clearly mimick the whole widget of an original product is theft. One could speak of product identity theft, corporate identity theft or theft of goodwill related to the original product or company, because a sale of the cloned product will not result in a sale of the original product. So is this stealing? Yes. Its theft of sales, thats what it is.

Consider human reproduction. Nobody will sue you for making another human and giving him the chances in life to become a fully developed individual. You will not get sued for having the same features of other people. We are all equipped with the same ones, some more pronounced than others in each individual, some working considerably well in some individuals, others sadly being impaired or defunct in some individuals. You will get sued, however, when you mimic another person so close that people cannot distinguish between the original person and the other properly, and you start receiving benefits associated with this original person, such as cashing in his monthly wage. This is considered identity theft and fraud.

Indeed, Apple did not steal from Xerox. They commercialized parts of the GUI ideas at Xerox, a market Xerox wasn't interested in entering in the first place. So they licensed these ideas and Xerox took a stake in Apple. They also put a lot of work in actually implementing and making the ideas from Xerox in an actual usable product. The Xerox Alto was a concept, not a finished product.

Edited 2011-10-22 11:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by Jennimc
by unclefester on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 11:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Jennimc"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Netscape tanked because it was a) not free for commercial use b) a POS that wreaked havoc on classic Macs requiring your dealer to reinstall the OS.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Jennimc
by frderi on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 12:51 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Jennimc"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

NetScape mainly tanked because Microsoft pushed them out of the browser market, then used proprietary technology to push them out of the server market, where its bread and butter were.

The result being an innovation stagnation for more than a decade because for Microsoft, well, the Web was a threat for its Win32 monopoly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Jennimc
by JAlexoid on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 16:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Jennimc"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Everybody can come up with features and implement them in a certain manner using the technology available in a certain period of time. But what really matters is how you turn those features into something that gets the whole story right and you end up with an actually usable and sellable product.

That is the very definition of marketing(with distribution part cut-out).

Historically, this hasn't turned out very well for the consumer. IE dominance was one of the main reasons NetScape tanked, and when it did internet technology entered a dark age as innovation ceased.

Are you saying that if Netscape had a patent on a browser, then we all would bask in the joys of innovation by Netscape for the next 20 years? (PS: Irony is, iPod is the IE of the PMP market)

Love Android all you want, but you can't deny that its the iPhone who set the bar and defined the market Android is going after.

Thus, iPhone revolutionised the market. But even thinking that it's their market, because they changed it is ridiculous.

So I'm not mad when a company which actually does the innovation behind it to make good ideas into a reality tries to fight me-too products with all they've got.

Sure... It's not even the fighting, it's the reason for the fight and overwhelming sense of entitlement. The me-too part of Android was the finger oriented touch.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Jennimc
by frderi on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 18:40 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Jennimc"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


That is the very definition of marketing(with distribution part cut-out).


Its the definition of good product design. It all starts with the product.


Are you saying that if Netscape had a patent on a browser, then we all would bask in the joys of innovation by Netscape for the next 20 years? (PS: Irony is, iPod is the IE of the PMP market)


I'm saying that if NetScape would have been around, the internet would not have been the stagnant place dominated with a browser that didn't get any noteworthy updates in a decade.


Thus, iPhone revolutionised the market. But even thinking that it's their market, because they changed it is ridiculous.


See my above post on humans.



Sure... It's not even the fighting, it's the reason for the fight and overwhelming sense of entitlement. The me-too part of Android was the finger oriented touch.


If you had followed the Apple versus Samsung case, you'd know they are suing Samsung for way more than that.

Reply Parent Score: 1