Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Aug 2012 10:28 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless In light of the jury verdict in Apple vs. Samsung, the one-liners and jokes flew back and forth. One in particular, by Dan Frakes, has been copied and pasted all over the web, and it goes like this: "When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone's design is 'obvious'." This is a very common trend in this entire debate that saddens me to no end: the iPhone is being compared to simple feature phones, while in fact, it should be compared to its true predecessor: the PDA. PDAs have always done with few buttons.
Thread beginning with comment 532471
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Reaching
by jared_wilkes on Sun 26th Aug 2012 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Reaching"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

The iPhone has around 32% share in the US. At best, 15-18% worldwide. It has 5-8% of the total mobile phone market.

The iPad does have a great deal of market share, but mostly because the competition sucks. It saw some losses of market share with the rise of the Kindle but since then it has regained share -- but the situation remains fluid. Apple actually lost on the iPad design patents.

What monopoly do you see Apple forming using litigation as a stick?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Reaching
by TM99 on Mon 27th Aug 2012 14:34 in reply to "RE[4]: Reaching"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

The iPhone has around 32% share in the US. At best, 15-18% worldwide. It has 5-8% of the total mobile phone market.


For now this is correct. Could this change if Apple continues to win cases such as this one? Sure.

The iPad does have a great deal of market share, but mostly because the competition sucks.


I quoted this line only because for me it is the most psychologically relevant to the discussion. Did you ever own an original Xbox? They were pretty sucky when they were released. They didn't compare well at all to the Playstation 2 or the Sega Dreamcast. But Microsoft could afford to release a 'not quite good enough' product. And they got a following with a few really good titles. Then came the first generation of the 360. It was much better, wasn't? No not really as it had a horrible design flaw which led to constant overheating issues. Finally, the newest generation Xbox 360 has these solved. It is a decent gaming console.

Apple and Jobs did not use a monopoly position with the introduction of the iPhone but they did use very skillful psychological manipulation in the form of marketing influence. The original iPhone sucked when compared to established smartphone leaders like Palm and their Treo680. Feature for feature, hardware and software wise, the original iPhone as a package was not that great of a device. It did get better with each evolutionary release of both the hardware (remember the antenna problems) and the software (wasn't till iOS 2.x that an appstore was released.)

The iPad is not the 'best' tablet out there with all of the competition sucking. If you step away from the influence and actually compare the technology, the software features, etc. there are a great many good tablets including the iPad, particularly now that it has, yes, here is that word again, evolved. My Zenithink is excellent. The Galaxy Tabs are excellent. The Asus Transformers are excellent. The Microsoft Surface looks like it is going to be excellent. I may hate 'Metro' on the desktop, but it is going to be exceptional on the Surface.

What monopoly do you see Apple forming using litigation as a stick?


As Galvanash correctly points out, if software patents are upheld that shouldn't be, and if trade dress issues are confused further with patents, and if Apple succeeds in getting first Samsung and then other phone manufacturers products barred from the US market, that will leave Apple and Microsoft alone in the arena. For now Microsoft and Apple hold cross-licensing agreements. If they are the only one's left standing, this will change as others have already mentioned.

So yes, for now, Apple seems far from a monopoly status, but it does not mean with the capital they have, the consumer popularity they enjoy, and now the legalities of a screwed up patent system, that they may not sooner than many would ever expected become the monopoly force in the hand-held and tablet markets.

We shall see.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Reaching
by jared_wilkes on Mon 27th Aug 2012 15:06 in reply to "RE[5]: Reaching"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You used an awful lot of words to say: No, Apple does not have a monopoly but I will keep repeating the FUD of someday in the distant future their may be a threat of them becoming one.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Reaching
by zima on Sun 2nd Sep 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[4]: Reaching"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

What monopoly do you see Apple forming using litigation as a stick?

Of course, I don't expect you to see that Apple, by exploiting corrupted patent system (largely broken exactly by such corps... originally, the system was meant to protect truly novel ideas, not every modest remix that comes along), wishes to create a monopoly (that's pretty much the definition of a patent, all about a legally granted monopoly) on the most vague and obvious of ideas... to stop all others from using what are pretty much the only sensible designs.

In doing that, Apple has an unstated wish of depraving most of the world, all the "lesser" people, from the advancements made mostly by the tech industry at large... (1. Apple openly states the desire to target only the few most "profitable" percentages of people 2. Apple also quite openly wishes to block any advancements they supposedly bring from being used by other manufacturers - when you bring those two to their logical synthesis...)

Edited 2012-09-03 00:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2