Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Mar 2013 15:51 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Thorsten Heins, BlackBerry's CEO: "Apple did a fantastic job in bringing touch devices to market ... They did a fantastic job with the user interface, they are a design icon. There is a reason why they were so successful, and we actually have to admit this and respect that. History repeats itself again I guess ... the rate of innovation is so high in our industry that if you don't innovate at that speed you can be replaced pretty quickly. The user interface on the iPhone, with all due respect for what this invention was all about is now five years old." Ironic, perhaps, that this comes from a BlackBerry CEO, but that doesn't make him wrong - although I'm sure the usual suspects will claim that it does.
Thread beginning with comment 555825
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Mon 18th Mar 2013 22:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple has defined two market segments and completely dominated both. It has $100 billion dollars in the bank. It is the most (or a very close second depending on market fluctuations) valuable company on the planet. Period.

I don't think they're suing Samsung out of desperation, in fact, its been shown that Samsung was given an opportunity to license the relevant patents -- a decidedly competitive move.

They're suing Samsung because they genuinely feel their IP has been violated.

I think the whole "Apple is only using patents because they can't innovate" is such a childish argument that it makes it hard to take people who make such claims seriously.

Apple does some nefarious things, but other companies do much worse, including Google trying to get exclusion orders on patents that are standard essential. That's anti competitive.

I don't mean anti competitive in shmerl's opinion, I mean in the opinion of the DOJ and various other governmental agencies around the world.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by cdude on Mon 18th Mar 2013 23:29 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

> Period

That was Apple with Jobs. Past. That's the central point. Can they keep on to invent, to build new products opposed to products they invented and build before with Jobs?

Having lots of money on bank may keep you running for a while but it doesn't automatically give you a place among the top players in sold products in the future. Just see what happened with IBM or what happens now with Microsoft and both of them where strong monopolists unlike Apple. Things can change and they can change fast.

> "Apple is only using patents because they can't innovate"

But that's the central question. Can they successful innovate without Jobs? We only see patent-wars innovations, no new product innovations for a longer time now while competition is accelerating and improving there products.

Customers don't buy your law-suites, they buy your products. Apple seems to beet on the wrong thing.

Edited 2013-03-18 23:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Tue 19th Mar 2013 02:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


That was Apple with Jobs. Past. That's the central point. Can they keep on to invent, to build new products opposed to products they invented and build before with Jobs?


I'm sure you're aware that a majority (read: almost all) of the pending and current litigation was initiated under Steve Jobs, right?

Steve Jobs is Mr. Thermonuclear, not Mr. Cook.


Having lots of money on bank may keep you running for a while but it doesn't automatically give you a place among the top players in sold products in the future. Just see what happened with IBM or what happens now with Microsoft and both of them where strong monopolists unlike Apple. Things can change and they can change fast.


There's no sign of Apple slowing down, at their current trajectory they can continue to essentially print money like this for another decade or two.

Who cares though? I only mentioned their cash on hand to illustrate that Apple isn't strapped for money not now or in the medium term. They have a lot of cash.


But that's the central question. Can they successful innovate without Jobs? We only see patent-wars innovations, no new product innovations for a longer time now while competition is accelerating and improving there products.


I do not think that anyone has announced anything innovative on the scale of Apple with the iPhone or with the iPad. Nobody. Not Google, not Microsoft, not anyone. (Cue some idiot replying about a Tablet from 2001, or some obscure phone that Samsung made, who the hell cares)

Maybe Google can execute their Glasses thing really well, and that certainly is a game changing, Appleesque product, but it remains to be seen how they maneuver it to market.


Customers don't buy your law-suites, they buy your products. Apple seems to beet on the wrong thing.


Yes, Apple has ceased its work on everything announced and unannounced and has become a patent troll. Is this really how your mind works?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 19th Mar 2013 05:30 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

They're suing Samsung because they genuinely feel their IP has been violated.


I have strong doubts about any "genuine feelings" when it comes to Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Tue 19th Mar 2013 06:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Ah, the classic OSNews-ian reply-to-two-words-of-an-entire-comment trick. Good to know you still got it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by gan17 on Tue 19th Mar 2013 06:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

I have strong doubts about any "genuine feelings" when it comes to Apple.


Why only Apple? Samsung "genuinely feel" that they don't copy anyone. Do you believe them?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by unclefester on Tue 19th Mar 2013 08:37 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple has defined two market segments and completely dominated both. It has $100 billion dollars in the bank. It is the most (or a very close second depending on market fluctuations) valuable company on the planet. Period.


Apple is not even in the Top 20 companies in the world. Virtually every state owned oil company is larger. Saudi Aramco is worth an estimated $7 trillion. Saudi Aramco's annual profits are almost as much as the net worth of Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Tue 19th Mar 2013 13:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

That's unfair. State run companies can hardly be considered companies at all. In addition, that $7 trillion figure is dubious and has been disputed. The low figure is less than a trillion.

I just don't think the comparison is fair.

Reply Parent Score: 3