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 493754
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Jennimc
by JAlexoid on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 16:49 UTC 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

RE[7]: Comment by Jennimc
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 19:38 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Jennimc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


Gosh, you weren't around when IE achieved its dominance, were you?

IE achieved dominance because it was better than Netscape. Netscape became stagnant, IE surpassed it - in the same way Firefox surpassed IE when the latter became stagnant.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Jennimc
by JAlexoid on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 01:09 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Jennimc"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

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

And product design comes out of marketing. Marketing is not PR.

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

So... Samsung is Android.... Hm.... Noted.

Reply Parent Score: 2