I was supposed to be on CNN last night to comment on the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial that just started in San Jose, but then Mitt Romney insulted the Palestinians and I was bumped. The way these things work is CNN calls the day before so I have time to think up something pithy to say. The question now is what to do with all that pith? So I’m dumping it on you. Consider this the long distance view of this legal battle in the context of what it really is — brands at war.
As a practical matter, I think it is very unlikely that Apple can win based on its accusation of “slavish copying.” We have laws based around copyright and patents for that, and if patent or copyright had been broken, this would be an easier case. I suppose there may be laws that cover “slavish copying,” but my guess is that it is something that is hard to prove. Even if the products look similar, the internals are likely to be quite different, as is the OS.
If I were Apple, knowing that Samsung is the only other game in town (just as Sony was in the iPod days), I would use every method possible to slow them down. Lawsuits show a sign of desperation frankly, and that is likely to be the case here. Consumer electronics is characterized by commoditization and Apple had better get used to that fact. Just look at the DVD — invented by Sony and Toshiba, yet commoditized by Samsung. Who won there? Same with TVs, feature phones, VCRs, monitors.
The weapons available to Apple are, as they were for Sony in the Walkman days, difficult stuff like continuous innovation, building a brand and maintaining it (that is what I think this lawsuit is really about by the way), distribution, getting a lock on the supply chain, getting a lock on content, and very occasionally using the International Trade Commission and lawsuits.
Apple needs to do all of this and not just rely on innovation because, unfortunately, as Samsung and previously Microsoft have shown them, they can’t win on innovation alone.
Apple needs more retail outlets for iPhones and iPads and should use their muscle to get exclusives where they can. They need to lock up supply of certain components. They should buy content and possibly its distribution (more on this below). That is, if Apple is smart.
Apple not smart? Yes, Apple not smart.
Steve Jobs was resistant to some of these tactics because of his notorious fear of distraction. Well Steve is gone, Apple ledership has broadened somewhat, and the people today running the place have to get beyond Steve’s legacy… if they can.
So the first thing Apple should do is buy Disney.
Samsung doesn’t have to do anything different. Samsung is the Borg.
And that’s what I would have said on CNN.
Copying is merely one way that a company’s trademarks, trade dress, and/or patents can be infringed.
While Apple cites “copying,” and it looks like subpoenaed emails at Samsung admit as much, what really matters is whether Apple had legal rights to intellectual property that Samsung expropriated.
Samsung, which is NOT accusing Apple of copying its work, but rather expropriating its patents, will not get to raise the issue of Apple copying others. It’s pretty obvious that from before the dawn of history, we have copied one another. It’s just that for a few hundred years, society has set standards for what KIND of copying is OK, and what’s not.
“If I were Apple, knowing that Samsung is the only other game in town (just as Sony was in the iPod days), I would use every method possible to slow them down.”
Funny, I thought the object of the exercise was to compete on products and services, not to try and get an advantage by any means, no matter how underhand. It just goes to show that the commercial world only plays lip service to competition being important and would prefer it didn’t get in the way. Bankers, people who run large companies and now apparently Cringelys all have these bad habits. Exactly how far down does the rot go?
It’s always been that way. Capitalists in name always claim they love the free market, etc, etc, but backroom collusion happens all the time because true competition is a threat to their power. Power is what they really want to keep.
That argument is pretty unfair. If you develop a product only for some upstart to copy it then that’s hard to compete with.
Apple’s argument with Samsung is different to the one they have with Android.
With Android, Apple are suggesting that Apple’s patents have been infringed, that non-obvious features Apple invented for iOS have been used within Android without obtaining a licence.
In Samsung’s case all that’s true, but additionally they accuse Samsung of making products that deliberately LOOK LIKE Apple products (trade dress). Both physically AND graphically (TouchWiz does look a lot like iOS).
So have you ever seen a Samsung device from a distance and thought; “an iPhone” or “an iPad”? Do you believe that Samsung made their devices so similar to Apple’s to create that confusion?
That’s is what the court must decide. That is a breach of “trade dress”. It is not enough that they look like each other, you have to prove that the new product is aping the original to gain an unfair commercial advantage.
This isn’t about patents, this is about protecting the uniqueness of Apple’s product’s appearance.
Think this is Apple doing something other companies wouldn’t? Imagine Coca-Cola’s reaction if you put your Cola in a can that from 4 feet away looked like theirs…
Exactly.
That argument is pretty unfair. If you develop a product only for some upstart to copy it then that’s hard to compete with.
Apple’s argument with Samsung is different to the one they have with Android.
With Android, Apple are suggesting that Apple’s patents have been infringed, that non-obvious features Apple invented for iOS have been used within Android without obtaining a licence.
In Samsung’s case all that’s true, but additionally they accuse Samsung of making products that deliberately LOOK LIKE Apple products (trade dress). Both physically AND graphically (TouchWiz does look a lot like iOS).
So have you ever seen a Samsung device from a distance and thought; “an iPhone” or “an iPad”? Do you believe that Samsung made their devices so similar to Apple’s to create that confusion?
That’s is what the court must decide. That is a breach of “trade dress”. It is not enough that they look like each other, you have to prove that the new product is aping the original to gain an unfair commercial advantage.
This isn’t about patents, this is about protecting the uniqueness of Apple’s product’s appearance.
Think this is Apple doing something other companies wouldn’t? Imagine Coca-Cola’s reaction if you put your Cola in a can that from 4 feet away looked like theirs…
Exactly.
Sony bought a content company back when they were on top and look where it got them. It provided leverage to push adoption of certain standards such as DVD and Blu-Ray, but to what end? They got some royalties, but are now irrelevant. In fact, royalties/rents from controlling standards/patents may actually make a company complacent. Why go through the trouble of making stuff that people want if you can just tax other companies’ production?
Apple buying Disney will signal the peak of the company. They may have many profitable quarters after that, as Sony did after they bough Columbia, but it will indicate the management has lost its way. Sony was great when they were just a gadget maker. Apple today makes massive profits from selling great gadgets, not standards/platforms.
I think Apple actually peaked sometime before Steve died, but the content strategy is sound for Apple.
Apple isn’t Sony. This isn’t the 1980s. Sony overpaid for Columbia Pictures then didn’t know how to run it. Buying Disney gives Apple effective control of Hulu, for example. They can’t make Hulu do anything but then can keep Hulu from doing anything, which might be more valuable. Comcast acquiring NBCU is already paying-off and Apple would be doing the same, just coming from the Internet direction. Think of it as an intellectual property play, which Sony never did.
Sony’s downfall was bad management resulting in lack of technical innovation. After PS2 it was all over. VAIO laptop? Better cameras? Media players? All were out competed. All the best creative staff left. Media company or not did not matter.
What Apple needs to do is buy Time Warner Cable, put together a competent team of field technicians that actually give a shit about the consumer and show the rest of the industry it’s not all about the bottom line, that if you install cable and modem boxes with good hardware and well integrated software, you can turn the worst cable company in the US to something that can go head-to-head with the likes of Verizon FiOS and do so in short order by actually caring about what you do and how you do it.
We live in a third world country when it comes to content providers and this is especially true where Internet service is concerned.
There is nothing you can do to a propeller aircraft to make it fly like a jet.
Apple’s innovation has always been insanely overrated. If “slavish copying” was actionable Xerox PARC would have reduced them to a smoking crater plowed with salt decades ago. Apple waits until the 3-4th generation of a product and then markets the hell out of their well designed version of a product. And it also stops any real innovation dead.
Shame about being dumped Bob. I believe Mr Romney might have caused a stir over here in the UK too recently…
Though I’m not qualified to make legal statements in any way, just looking at the clipart at the top of this piece – the Samsung and the iPhone – makes a clear illustration of the similarities Apple are probably talking about.
A lot of companies copy ideas when they are percieved as successful. The majority of cars have four wheels though many work perfectly well on three. Computer-monitors are mostly black screens with a thin row of buttons along the bottom…
Can an idea be legally protected? If so then no two manufactured items can look the same. Clearly this would be a daft extreme to take things to.
And as for this constant litigation – can these big guys stop fighting and wasting money and bring their technology down to a price level we mere mortals can afford? Surely possible if they stopped wasting funds in this way. Quality would then decide the winner, not exclusivity or a perceived degrading of an ideal.
Thank you! 😉
Litigation is being used here as a time machine — in Apple’s case an attempt to freeze Samsung in time. Rather than being a waste of money, spending $1 million per month to inhibit $1 billion per month in Samsung sales is actually quite efficient.
Apple’s legal team has been overreaching by claiming damages to it’s business from Samsung. If the SF judge is keeping the ruling by Judge Richard Posner in the back of her mind, Apple’s legal strategy maybe coming to an end.
Apple’s litigation has slowed down Samsung and other Android manufacturers like Motorola/Google, but this has provoked counter-attacks that are slowing Apple down.
Apple might now be regretting Steve Jobs over-reaction to the way that Android copied iOS. In his conversation with Google’s Eric Schmidt shortly before he died, Jobs seemed really bothered that Android was stealing from Apple, as if Apple had never stolen any ideas from anyone.
Ideas can be freely copied so long as they are not patented. A trade secret can be copied if it is re-engineered from the outside in, not inside out. Trade Dress is protected like Trade Mark, for the purpose of avoiding confusion in the market place, and so brands have a reason to pursue the accumulation of good will amongst customers, which Apple has done in spades.
Apples argument here is that Samsung’s copying their ‘trade dress’ or external design, causes confusion in the market place. They are obviously wrong here – but they could press that Samsung’s copying their design water’s down the value that they have built up in consumers for the good will in their brand. Apple’s products are conceived as well thought out, how quality, elegant in look and function and internal operation. When Samsung copies Apples design, they are trying to imply the same of their products, confusing the customer and stealing some of their good will without having to have earned it. This seems like a decent argument, something worth fighting about in court, anyway, though I don’t think it will carry the day.
However, Bob’s comments about commoditization of electronics would seem like a very big deal here.
The value of all the parts inside of an Iphone is not very high, and shrinking every day, which means their high, boutique level of mark up is going to be forever under assault. Bill Gates envisioned a computer in every home. I’m old enough to remember thinking that as being absurd: but Microsoft was properly positioned for the commoditization of their product.
The Apple Iphone represents a sad fact that Apple is not. Apple fans will talk about how a 3.5 inch screen is the perfect size. Well maybe for some. Maybe for most. But not for all. So Samsung has android devices out there in every size under the sun: 3″, 3.1″, 3.2″, 3.5″, 4″, 4.8″, 5.3″ and soon, 5.5″ and that’s just in phones. Apple’s Iphone 3, 4, and 5, should be describing the size of the device, not the version – and people who love the Iphone should have a choice.
(Personally, I like the Note’s profile of a 5 inch + screen, because I’m into digital convergence: all function in one device, and 5+ inches makes if functional for me as a reader – I have big pockets for carrying lots of junk around, so it’s not too big for me, and having one device that does all things, even one as big as the Note, actually frees up space in my pocket and saves me from having to lug around a tablet and/or netbook and/or laptop.)
So while Apples trying to slow down Samsung in court, what they need to do is plough some of their massive money into developing a commoditized business unit, or subsidiary, that will ultimately crank out huge numbers of devices at thinner margins.
The price of devices will collapse toward the cost of the fabrication and assembly of the components, and android is free. Samsung only has to look across the Yellow Sea and see plenty of manufactures pushing that dynamic. So they are positioned for commoditization, in fact, driving it.
Meanwhile Apple needs to be pushing the envelope on the design and utilization side quicker and more imaginatively.
Why can’t I have a wrist watch type of device that has a quick disconnect blue tooth ear piece, both the watch and ear piece being tethered to my phone in my pocket?
Say I’m standing inside a crowded subway car in Seoul, one arm is occupied with holding me steady, the other has a bag holding merchandise in it. I get a call on my phone: I look on my wrist device, it tells me who it is. If’ it’s my buddy wondering why I’m late meeting up with him, I can just tap the watch and talk into it al a Dick Tracy, if it’s my Girl Friend who’s been hinting at dumping me, I can detach the ear piece and attach it to my ear like any other blue tooth device, and now the rest of the subway car doesn’t here that she is dumping me, or is thinking of me and wants to get naked. Meanwhile, my oversized phone, the hub of all this, remains in my pocket.
Suddenly a seat opens up, and I can sit down: then I pull the phone out of my pocket or bag, and read, watch a video or play a game… all on a large screen.
Somebody will make this device sometime. Nothing here is outside the current technology and Sony has a device that’s very close. Samsung’s larger screened devices push them farther down the road.
Meanwhile the guy with the Iphone has to put down his bags, reach into his pocket and pull out his phone just to see who is calling him. Apple shouldn’t be coming out with an Apple 5, it should be coming out with many Apple 5s of different sizes and configurations.
Some one will do this, at some point. And when they do, they’ll get the good will Apple currently has now, for having a device that imagines the way we use things and harmonizes with that.
“They are obviously wrong here”
That is a completely baseless personal opinion.
When I first saw advertising for the Samsung phones I thought, ‘huh, when did Apple license the iPhone to Samsung?’
Apple should secretly setup R&D with the next best prospective competitor to Samsung LCD’s and buy them outright when the technology is equal then tell Samsung they won’t need them to manufacture screens any more for their iProducts or Mac’s and cut Samsung’s revenues in half (aka nine bililion dollars) without any notice whatsoever.
Do not rip off the 800 pound gorilla without thinking about how your going to get pummeled.
Just because if performs the same functions and bears some resemblance does not mean it was illegally copied.
Apple is not just accusing Samsung of copying, they are trying to stifle all competition by preventing anyone else from making a rectangular screen using the legal system as a ban hammer.
The richest company in the world throwing their weight around and people defend them for it… Sickening.
Fans, aka unpaid shills, are an integral part of creating a brand. It can be done expensively (through product quality) or cheaply (through hot air). Sony may have been one of the last companies to rely more heavily on the former than the latter in making a name for themselves.
But you can hardly get into a C-suite anymore without demonstrating psychopathic behavior, so I’ve learned better than to expect good communitarian behavior out of them.
My little sister’s first job was as the assistant to the legal counsel at Esmark, a food conglomerate now long absorbed into another but best known at the time for Smith Premium hams. She did all the work and he got all the pay, according to her. One expedition upon which Esmark spent $200K in legal fees was trying to trademark the word “soup.”
Companies will spend money on the craziest things — often just to disrupt competitors. Win or lose, look how this is disrupting Samsung.
I’m sorry, what did smart phones look like and how did they work before the I phone came out?
Rumors of the phone (and the iPad) were floating around for years before they came out giving competitors plenty of time to beat them to market with something superior.
But that’s not what happened, is it?
They waited to see what Apple was doing, then copied it, taking, in the case of the iPhone, two years to do so because they needed that kind of time to even come close to the hardware and software behind it.
when Samsung’s own lawyers can’t tell the difference between these products from ten feet away you know there was some pretty intentional duplication going on.
Not sure of the significance of ten feet. One would never be mistaken for the other by any reasonable shopper. We should not confuse functioning devices with status symbols or art.
Actually the most common reason why Samsung products are returned is because consumers thought they were buying iPads
http://allthingsd.com/20120726/documents-in-apple-v-samsung-give-reporters-plenty-to-chew-on/
That’s probably because the use of the terms iPhone and iPad have become substitutes for smartphone and tablet. When it turns out not to function like the branded Apple product some will want to return it especially if it was a gift. There is not much one can do to avoid this misunderstanding except for Apple to do what Scotch has done: “Scotch brand cellophane tape”.
Apple does need to innovate, but not just within existing products. They need to invent new products like they did with their music player and their cell phone.
If the smart phone is now a commodity, it’s time to move on to the next big thing.
I agree with Charles. Buying Columbia created a nasty conflict of interest for Sony that hurt them in the long run.
Imagine if Hyundai/Kia or Lexus(Toyota) or Infiniti(Nissan) were sued by Mercedes or BMW for copying their designs, which they freely admit they do. The Hyundai still isn’t a Mercedes. It may give a good approximation of the ride quality and performance of the Mercedes, but underneath the skin it’s still a Hyundai. It may have a Bosch air conditioner, a ZF transmission, and Continental tires like the Mercedes, but the engine is Hyundai. In the automotive world, it is still considered to be the severest form of flattery. Hyundai sells more than twice as many cars than Mercedes (here in the U.S. at least), and yet I don’t recall Mercedes suing Hyundai to prevent them from importing their cars here.
Apple is desperate to protect their niche they’ve built up with their one phone a year strategy, while Samsung is flooding the market at every price point with multiple unique models.
Who is the real innovator here?
“I agree with Charles. Buying Columbia created a nasty conflict of interest for Sony that hurt them in the long run.”
Which Apple wouldn’t have since their whole business is based around technofacist lockdown. Forcing Disney access only thru iTunes fits perfectly with that.
The USPTO has pages and pages covering “design patents.” Is that what we’re dealing with here? Does any such protection extend to the international realm?
Lost in Apple’s patent lawsuits is the effect it’s had on small companies that operate mobile phone retail outlets and websites. Apple served many of those small companies with take down notices, forcing them to stop selling the Galaxy Nexus (i believe this has been over turned) and various Samsung tablets. Samsung is not Apple’s only victim, just look at what they are doing to HTC. US Customs officials are seizing shipments of certain HTC phones, and not allowing them entry into the country (some have been held by customs for months).
Apple still seems to have a steady line of customers willing to overpay for their mediocre products, so I’m not sure we’ll see them decline in the near future. Not sure how Apple still manages to avoid harsh scrutiny from the shill tech media, both for their actions and their products. Instead of suing companies because their phones have rounded corners, why don’t they look within and ask why they’ve essentially been making the same phone for 5 years (sure, they increase processor speed, and add things like 3G and video long after other phones had those features, but apple is not really “innovating” here are they?)
Now that smartphones are reaching the stage of commoditisation, innovation isn’t really all that important any more. It’s mostly a case of tweaking the design and adding whatever features that new technology makes possible. Apart from these incremental changes, I can’t see any way of creating a new product out of the iPhone or iPad, not even if Steve Jobs were still around to show the way.
I’d always assumed big corporations bought movie studios so the executives could meet actresses.
I keep seeing the word “desperate” used in the same sentence as “Apple”, “lawsuit” and often “successful” or “richest”. Apple’s motive for legal action against Samsung may have more to it than we know, considering that they are partners. But the news for the little guy is that should Apple succeed in legally preventing blatant (“slavish”) copying then everyone will be protected from same.
To stop Samsung from copying a hit product is to stop everyone else. Or certainly to discourage. To expect anything less is just weird.
I keep seeing the word “desperate” used in the same sentence as “Apple”, “lawsuit” and often “successful” or “richest”. Apple’s motive for legal action against Samsung may have more to it than we know, considering that they are partners. But the news for the little guy is that should Apple succeed in legally preventing blatant (“slavish”) copying then everyone will be protected from same.
To stop Samsung from copying a hit product is to stop everyone else. Or certainly to discourage. To expect them to do anything less is just weird.
Apple’s new TV ads are really terrible, like something John Sculley would produce. I predict the suits + MBAs will displace the designers + engineers and history will repeat as Apple declines until the ultimate deja vu … Steve Wozniak kicks out Tim Cook and returns as CEO.
moohaha! Woz as CEO. That will happen shortly after he builds a hell-freezing-over device. 🙂
Woz doesn’t want the CEO gig. And why should he? He’s enjoying life being Woz.
You nailed it Cringley!! Apple has to change the playing field. How many times does it have to be said…..The best technology or innovation don’t always when it the marketplace. For example PageRank alone didn’t cause Google to dominate the search engine market.
I think Apple might have done Samsung a favor by starting this war!!
It is like Voldemort singling out Harry Potter as the person who would be most dangerous to him — and in doing so, he made you the person who would be most dangerous to him!
http://setandbma.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/apple-vs-samsung/
“Samsung is the Borg” – I love you Bob! 🙂
Sounds like Bob is saying Samsung will win in the end anyway and Apple is just trying to forestall the inevitable.
Maybe. Seems like Samsung could screw Apple on the 29% of iPhone parts that it supplies if it really wanted to.
The lawsuits just seem like bad behavior. Bob seems to say it’s part of the game, but why does it have to be? It feels more like the spoiled brats trying to screw the hard workers.
“So the first thing Apple should do is buy Disney.”
… and the second thing is to buy EMI Music. It doesn’t hurt owning the Beatles masters.
Apple is understandably upset that Android managed to catch up to iOs so quickly. Imagine a world where that hadn’t happened. They knew someone would catch up eventually, but probably reckoned it would be Microsoft and they’d take as long as they actually did.
Apple can disrupt and annoy Android manufacturers and not much more. They know that, but it’s still worth doing. That’s just corporate hardball and to be expected.
Samsung is a little different though. If someone brought out a sports car that looks as much like a Porsche 911 as the galaxies do an iPhone, Porsche would blow their top and rightly so. Even if Apple can’t win, they want to call out Samsung and shame them for it as publicly as possible. I say fair enough.
Regarding Apple buying Disney.
This would instantly make Apple a direct competitor and enemy of every other film studio, music, book and game publisher on the planet. It would only make any sense as a desperation move by a company unable to get access to such content any other way (Wave and smile to the nice people at Sony!). But Apple’s online digital store offerings are best in class, and slowly but inevitably expanding.
Apple already seems to have friends at Disney that are receptive to working with them. Far better to use that to demonstrate to other content companies that, if Apple and Disney can work together, the others can work with Apple too. Forcing Disney to sell through Apple by buying them sends the opposite message – that such a relationship can only work through coercion.
This would doom Apple’s online sales channels through iTunes, the App store and the iBookstore to decline and irrelevance as Disney property ghettos. Terrible, terrible move.
Sadly there are a lot of dumb comments here, albeit some balanced ones also. This case isn’t about copyrighting a shape (of you think that you are displaying your ignorance of the perhaps more subtle facts of the case). Simon Hibbs says it right when pointing out that if, say, Hyundai made a car that REALLY mimicked a Porsche, then Porsche would flip. Of course they would. But Hyundais don’t mimic Porsches. Not even close. The sad thing about the Apple/Samsung case is that only a company with pockets as deep as Apple could even try to fight this situation. I know people who designed and sold their own innovative products, but got ripped off because a bigger company just copied the product and the innovator couldn’t afford to sue them for it.
In this case, Apple clearly innovated with the original iPhone. They turned the mobile phone arena upside down. Android is clearly a knock-off. But too many people think this is ok because Microsoft got away with this against Apple in the early 90s. That set a bad example–the idea that actually you can imitate someone else’s product and make a fortune. What many don’t seem to realise is that Apple sued several companies in the early 90s for copying the Mac OS and beat them all, except Microsoft. Why did MS get away with it? Because Apple had previously done a deal with Microsoft that allowed Microsoft legal access to Apple’s IP. Apple didn’t intend for the deal to have the consequences it had, but the bottom line is that microsoft exploited it to their advantage. THAT’S why Microsoft got away with copying the Mac OS.
Was that a good thing? Debatable, but it can be argued that the Windows licences wouldn’t have cost so much and the product might have advanced faster if there had been better competition (yes, Apple failed here). Look at the competition now that Apple is competing with MS in OSes. Watch as Windows licence fee drops, just as Apple has dropped OS X’s fee. Yet the innovation is great, better than what we had in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Samsung and other copiers can actually destroy the market for all those involved because they commoditize the products, creating a game where it’s a race to the bottom in terms of price, and potentially quality. It means that when companies do innovate, it is either something that they can develop cheaply (so that when others copy it there isn’t much lost and they hope they made enough profits in the meantime from the gimmick) or is very hard to copy. Samsung make some great TVs, but they also make decidedly iffy ones. They can do that because they make a huge range and the poorer ones benefit from the halo of the better ones. They do the same with their phones. The Galaxy S3 is no doubt a great phone. It probably is as great as it is because, despite copying Apple, the iPhone remains the one considered the best (considering sales of specific models). Samsung are innovating in the S3, but they are able to do so from getting an initial leg-up copying iOS and the iPhone.
The whole issue here is to reward companies that put effort into research and design. There is a window in which you can exploit your R&D and make back money. In the case of drugs, this seems skewed to favour the drug companies, but they do spend a lot on R&D (though I think the whole drug system could be better done other ways). In the case of Apple, they developed an original product which has been hugely successful, and Samsung are now benefitting from copying that product. Is that fair? Certainly at some point Apple can no longer hold on to their innovation and it is then in the public interest that the innovation cease being protected. The existing competition is good but to have ongoing innovation means that prior innovation must be seen to be rewarded appropriately. What incentive is there for any innovation if it can be just ripped off? That is a definite downside to commoditization of certain products, it can kill innovation. Unless you can really do something different, there is little point in wasting money on R&D.
Apple have already made many billions of dollars in profit and will make many more thanks to the momentum of their brand. They deserve that but don’t deserve to be given any additional reward by being allowed to block out their rivals.
It’s not Samsung who have commoditised smartphones and tablets. Those products have been commoditised by the fact that Apple has stopped innovating. They started innovating with the iPod, transformed that into an iPhone and transformed that into an iPad, but that life cycle is now over.
If Apple thought that they could create a genuinely innovative product (not just a slightly improved version of an existing one) they would not hesitate to spend money on the R&D for it because it would be guaranteed to sell to their huge number of customers.
>They started innovating with the iPod, transformed that into an iPhone and
>transformed that into an iPad, but that life cycle is now over.
So you don’t believe they can come up with a true Apple TV? I think once they integrate that into the App ecosystem so you can run games on your Apple TV, it’s game over for the other console makers. Suddenly every iOS developer becomes an Apple TV console developer overnight. Bye, bye Nintendo, it was nice knowing you.
After that, cameras. A nice prosumer Apple SLR or micro four-thirds with in-device camera apps would be killer.
Those are just wild guesses, but there are still loads of businesses out there that are wide open for disruption this way.
Please don’t comment on the games industry when you know nothing about it.
A load of iOS games running on AppleTV will have no effect on Nintendo, gamers hate free to play and iOS can’t support games that carry a price point that current game developers require to make “involving” game experiences.
It’s even debatable that smartphones have had an effect on the Nintendo 3ds and that’s with a billion of them already in the marketplace.
Gaming is different and relies in content not hardware.
I need some clarification to understand what you mean by “iOS can’t support games that carry a price point”. Do you mean expensive to develop? Or do you mean iOS is too low powered on current processors to run the expensive games? But you also said it’s about content not hardware. However, both iOS and Microsoft’s version, WinRT, are both underpowered currently due to the hardware compromises made by ARM chips.
Thanks to Rick for noting this is a reprise of the Apple vs. Microsoft suit in the 90s, with Samsung now substituting for MSFT.
However, I disagree with: “The whole issue here is to reward companies that put effort into research and design.”
The reward of R&D is in exploiting the R&D results into products and services that succeed in the market place. Xerox PARC isn’t comparable in this case because they chose not to exploit what they researched and developed, being, as they were, “copier heads.”
In the words of Steve Jobs in “Triumph of the Nerds.”
I should have clarified, my example of Windows not developing more quickly in the 90s and costing more than it should was because Microsoft made the whole package cheaper, undermining the money Apple put into developing the Mac OS. But Apple fell down because they failed to continue to compete. Partly because as Windows took off it sucked the application oxygen from the Mac, partly because Apple lost their way, partly because they also tried to go the ‘cheap’ route by allowing Mac clones, instead of innovating better (and why should you when you get ripped off?).
I wonder what the antitrust people at DoJ think of all this? If Apple wins they will have an effective smartphone monopoly. They are already known for raising prices and restricting usage, two things which get the antitrust crowd at DoJ upset.
[…] frοm CNET, ABC News, AllThingsD, thе Wall Street Journal, Thе Verge аnԁ I, Cringely. Wired hаѕ аn fаѕсіnаtіnɡ post thаt pulls out […]
[…] trial in these overviews from CNET, ABC News, AllThingsD, the Wall Street Journal, The Verge and I, Cringely. Wired has an interesting post that pulls out all the juicy quotes from the trial. You can also […]
[…] trial in these overviews from CNET, ABC News, AllThingsD, the Wall Street Journal, The Verge and I, Cringely. Wired has an interesting post that pulls out all the juicy quotes from the trial. You can also […]
@wiredog: If Apple wins the case v Samsung, how does that give them a smartphone monopoly?
[…] trial in these overviews from CNET, ABC News, AllThingsD, the Wall Street Journal, The Verge and I, Cringely. Wired has an interesting post that pulls out all the juicy quotes from the trial. You can also […]
Using SONY and the Walkman as a past example is ironic in that SONY stole the idea and design from the German inventor (Andreas Pavel) and only settled with him after Akio Morita died. Morita of couse claimed all his life that he had come up with the Walkman idean, and SONY would not admit the lie in Morita’s lifetime.
[…] trial in these overviews from CNET, ABC News, AllThingsD, the Wall Street Journal, The Verge and I, Cringely. Wired has an interesting post that pulls out all the juicy quotes from the trial. You can also […]
Ich glaube, die Fakten in Ihrem Zuschreibung geschrieben ist wirklich super. Ich habe seit der Arbeit auf einer vorläufigen Analyse Mission zu diesem Thema und Ihr Weblog wirklich mit einer Vielzahl von Überlegungen, die ich hatte geholfen. Ich erstelle eine Hausarbeit für die Schule und ich? M folgen derzeit viele Blogs für die Bewertung.
It’s spam:
“I think the facts written in your write-up are really great. I’ve been working on a preliminary mission analysis on this topic and your blog really helped with a number of considerations that I had. I create an assignment for school and I’m currently following many blogs for the evaluation.”
[…] Apple and Samsung: brands at war (cringely.com) Like this:Mi piaceBe the first to like this. […]
[…] Apple and Samsung: brands at war (cringely.com) Like this:Mi piaceBe the first to like this. […]
“So the first thing Apple should do is buy Disney.”
You REALLY want Apple to follow Sony’s trail? Right into the desert of irrelevance…
Let’s imagine how this goes. After Disney arrive at Apple they start asking why Apple allows DVD Player to play DVD images — that’s just pandering to pirates, right? And why are DVD ripping apps allowed to run on macs? Heck why are apps that play weird formats like mkv that are only used by pirates allowed on Macs? Doesn’t it make sense to use the same technology in place to prevent other malware from allowing malware like VLC and Mplayer on Macs?
And heck, why are Apple just leaving money on the table why not including ads in iStore content? And so on, and so on.
You can say all you like about how Apple would not be so stupid, that they wouldn’t be so short-sighted. But why would they be immune to the virus that killed Sony. At the end of the day, the way this works is the content guys let it be known that if you support their agenda, you’ll get to meet Angelina Jolie in person, and Christina Aguilera will come sing at your wife’s birthday party; and most people just aren’t good at turning down those sorts of bribes.
I suspect a rather more fruitful line of attack (fruitful for Apple and for humanity) is for Apple to work hard behind the scenes to get every Samsung competitor on board to never buy Samsung components by pointing out the (honest) fact that this is an existential issue for them. A Samsung which cannot rely on external money for its flash, CPUs, displays, etc, is a Samsung that is substantially hobbled.
It’s all happened before. I remember in the good old days when Lotus sued Borland for look and feel “infringement”. The result of this law suit will be the same as referenced by this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dev._Corp._v._Borland_Int'l,_Inc.
The lotus case was over copyright not patents. Completely different things.
Your prediction as to the result was off. It was always pretty obvious that Apple’s legal argument was that Samsung ‘slavishly copied’ Apple’s patents and protected designs. Not just that they slavishly copied. So I am not surprised Apple won the case, even though the judge bent backwards to avoid sanctioning Samsung for deleting evidence or releasing banned testimony.
On the other hand, I agree completely that Apple is not really in this case for the money in terms of damages or royalties, or even injunctions. They are doing this to slow down Samsung, to make them look bad to the consumer, and to make every mobile phone manufacturer take careful steps to make their products different from the iPhone. I think that is all Apple wants. They have the turnover to pay the perhaps $500m a year IP costs them in terms of registering and enforcing patents, and the money from Samsung will go towards paying that. $500m a year is prohibitive for smaller players like HTC, or even Nokia (which did NOT get rights to Apple’s crown jewel design patents in their settlement last year).
“… to make every mobile phone manufacturer take careful steps to make their products different from the iPhone…” I’ll leave it up to the legal system to decide whether any IP was stolen, but as a non-Apple product customer I certainly hope my smart phone is different than the iPhone, even if it’s not much cheaper. I just bought a Galaxy S3 for $550 from AT&T to use on a GoPhone plan…Had to copy the network settings from my old GoPhone to use 3G but LTE is there if I ever decide to switch a postpaid plan. Drag and drop file system, Bluetooth that just works, huge screen, tons of free apps. Still doesn’t beat my Windows 7 umpc for browsing the web with full control of text size and text flow control but there may be an app for that!