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 532597
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Reaching
by TM99 on Mon 27th Aug 2012 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Reaching"
Member since:

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:

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[7]: Reaching
by TM99 on Mon 27th Aug 2012 16:12 in reply to "RE[6]: Reaching"
TM99 Member since:

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.

Please read this article on monopolies and at least attempt to educate yourself somewhat before you embarrass yourself further.

Read this:

Notice that Asian mobile manufactures are 'scared' of this verdict and the ramifications including future Apple patent lawsuits. So if Android becomes 'unsafe', where do they turn?

Well, of course, Windows mobile. However, Windows mobile is currently a distant third compared to Android and iOS. Consumers want phones to be like the iPhone and iOS which means the current phones even with Android that 'infringes' patents. If Windows mobile does not gain ground, what is left? Yes, Apple only. That then leads to a monopoly. Reading the Wiki article you will see the other important features of monopolization and its effects on markets.

Again, please look at history. No one knew that Standard Oil would become a monopoly or when exactly. No one knew that AT&T would become a monopoly or when exactly. No one in the 1970's when Microsoft was founded knew that within 25 years, they would hold a monopoly in the OS on PC's and that they would subsequently be sued by the DOJ for predatory monopolistic practices.

But, those in the field of economics learn from studying such case studies and learn to predict the probability of such things happening again with other companies in other markets. That is all I, and others far smarter than myself, are doing with regards to Apple. Many of us do not like what we are seeing at all.

FUD my a*s! I am not trying to sell you something. This isn't a team sport for me where I want to have my team win and your team lose. This isn't a 'fanboy' my genitals are bigger than your genitals game.

Monopolies are bad for markets, consumers, innovation, invention, etc. It will be no more advantageous for all of us to have Apple in the monopoly position in the 'post PC world' any more than it was to have Microsoft in the monopoly position in the desktop world of the 1990's and early 2000's.

One reason I don't post very often on forums is that real thinking and discussion does require an awful lot of words. To reduce it to pithy sound-bytes, tweets, and short Facebook comments dumbs down intellectual discourse.

Reply Parent Score: 3