Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

So Apple is the only company that does this? Is that what you think? What's broken is the US Patent System. Apple is forced to play this game because everyone else does, and if your patent portfolio weighs more than mine, then I am at a real business disadvantage. Choosing not to play the game is simply not an option, especially from a stockholder perspective.

The only way this idiocy stops is if the US Patent law regarding software is radically reformed. This is not Apple being "evil".
 
When that trend continues, the iPhone will be toast in a year from now.
I have to link this, particularly when you use the word "when": http://xkcd.com/605/.

Most trends do not continue in anything resembling a linear form, particularly not new trends. Sales of devices and percentages of markets tend to run somewhere between linear and exponential for a short time after the introduction, before settling into something more logarithmic. In this specific case, the very first consumer Android device was released about 18 months ago, with most Android devices (including the two highly-popular ones, the Droid and the Nexus One) having been released less than six months ago.

So, I will eat my socks if that sort of market-share/device sale trend continues for a full year.

Anyway, specifically regarding the topic at hand, there's one specific bit that stands out to me as being underhanded -- the timing of all this. It's not Apple voraciously protecting varied patents -- if it was just that, it would have started shortly after the iPhone release, with the earliest 'clones'. No, this seems to be Apple trying to stop competition when it's finally gotten to the point of being, well, competition. I'm not a huge fan of patents (particularly software patents) at the best of times, so this strikes me as decidedly dirty, anti-competitive behaviour -- no matter if the company in question is Apple or not.

While I really do like OSX and Apple's computer offerings (not as much a fan of the iPhone-derived devices), a number of these recent stories are giving me a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak. I'll have to see how much I'm willing to stomach, before 'voting with my wallet' hits my todo list.
 
It seems you haven't seen the latest numbers. Apple doubled iPhone sales, but Android grew ten times over the same period. When that trend continues, the iPhone will be toast in a year from now.

Pardon me, but how can Android have grown ten times over the same period, when Android didn't even exist as a marketed product at the beginning of that time period? In a matter of scale, you've just presented an impossibility. You would also have to note that the growth levels do have to be on a scale since 2x of 3.75 million is 7.5 million while 10x of 0 is still 0. This isn't to say that Android hasn't taken any market, quite obviously they have--but until the next Holiday season, Android doesn't have a base number to compare their growth rate other than a quarter-by-quarter basis, which fluctuates pretty broadly on a regular basis. Apple's 2x growth was based on the same season the previous year, Android is only just setting its baseline figures.

And what is the ultimate advantage of Android and why will the industry gather behind Android and not behind the iPhone? Simple: Everybody can build hardware with the Android OS, and there are no limits to what software you want to write for and deploy on it. Apple could have had that position if they had been smart about it, but no, Steve Jobs wanted to repeat the very same mistakes he had made with the Macintosh: Instead of making the Mac the industry standard, he made it a proprietary niche platform. Now he did the same with iPhone OS. Sure, it's a lucrative niche (at least today), but a niche is a niche and there are natural limits as to how big a niche can become.

Here you express some truth, but you seem to overlook one of Android's biggest drawbacks--Google, the company who created Android, has little control over which version is being used where, and as such, each different make of Android device is using a different version of the OS--splintering the environment into complete anarchy. This, by the way, has a direct effect on your next statement:

In two to three years from now, Android will hold a market share in the entire mobile phone AND "Slate" market that Windows now has in the PC sector. The iPhone and the iPad will be rather insignificant niche products just like the Mac.

This assumes that the different Android vendors can come together and use the same version of the core OS, even if their GUIs differ from one model to another. Even now, only 6 months after Android was released, the different Android devices are so splintered that no developer knows for sure which model of Android phone their app will work on. Without some sort of coherency, the Android environment will fail. This only works into Apple's strength due to its sole control of the iPhone OS.

Speaking of which:
People just don't like complete vendor lock-ins and the accompanying restrictions, but Steve Jobs refuses to admit that reality.

In Android land, you don't have this limits, and together with Google's financial backing, this will eventually make the platform the winner.

While I would agree that some people don't like this lock-in and control, the average consumer could care less, as long as it works right. This is your one greatest miscalculation: you assume that everybody knows as much about the technologies as you do; you underestimate the thought that goes behind Steve Jobs' designs and concepts. Look back at the iPod--the iPhone. What do you see? It's not the techies who are flocking to the stores to buy these things, it's the kids who want to feel they are techies too; it's the adults who simply want the device to work right; it's the older people who need it to be simple and easy to use. In other words, it's the average person, not the geek that Apple is marketing to and building for. Apple is succeeding by proving that a device doesn't have to be complicated to work, even if its core technology is pure magic to them.
 
Multi-touch for a touchscreen device is way too simple of a gesture for Apple to be able to defend in a patent IMO. It would almost be like Apple patenting icons on the screen. What else can you do to be functunal? Sorry, I hope Apple loses this one.
 
The only people that are becoming tired with the walled garden are a segment of perpetually disgruntled Apple tech site goers and a special interest group that could never catch a break against Apple. Lemme grab a Kleenex, I'm tearing up.

Consumers at large and developers alike couldn't be happier with Apple's business model.

In fact, the nice thing is that Apple's move will blow the door wide open on just who has patented what technology, and we'll be sure to see which industry players need to change up their game. I have a feeling none of them reside at 1 Infinite Loop. You can bet Apple has all their ducks in a row on this one.

http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/

riiight..
 
Multi-touch for a touchscreen device is way too simple of a gesture for Apple to be able to defend in a patent IMO. It would almost be like Apple patenting icons on the screen. What else can you do to be functunal? Sorry, I hope Apple loses this one.

Yes, but I believe it has been said somewhere, actually here:

http://www.edibleapple.com/htcs-lackluster-patent-portfolio-may-be-behind-apples-recent-lawsuit/

that Apple has not claimed to have patented multi-touch, so you should be able to put your mind at rest.

Experience has shown that you cannot just sue a company for any patent infringement; to make it worthwhile, i.e. likely to win, you have to have a particular specific patent in mind that shows sufficient originality that it would not be obvious. Multi-touch I don't think falls under this category, but I'm sure there are plenty of less obvious things that do on the iPhone. For instance, the way the scrolling on the screen works, something many people are unaware of, that the scrolling can lock to vertical or horizontal scrolling depending on the direction of the first gesture. Things like that which are clever but not obvious will be the things Apple will be suing over, and, probably, rightly so.

As for those who are cross that Apple only seems to be going after the copiers when the copiers present a real threat, well, I think that seems pretty obvious. Who would waste time and money on a small company that nobody cares about? If you want to protect your IP, you need to do it when there is a serious threat. And Android is a serious threat.

So, as far as I'm concerned, let the courts decide. Or, as is more likely, let's hope the companies come to an "amicable" agreement... OK, maybe not the amicable bit.
 
Multi-touch for a touchscreen device is way too simple of a gesture for Apple to be able to defend in a patent IMO. It would almost be like Apple patenting icons on the screen. What else can you do to be functunal? Sorry, I hope Apple loses this one.

*sigh* How many times must I say this - the HC suit does not involve multi-touch patents at all. It is not part of the suit.
 
I just found this article on Jonathan Schwartz's blog (yes, the former CEO of Sun Microsystems), and I think it is an interesting read, especially for those who believe that Steve Jobs invented everything:

http://ow.ly/1gc7s

Yeah, it's interesting. If you consider a failed Silicon Valley has-been interesting. Looking Glass failed because it sucked. It was a metaphor for the company at large.
 
No, MS only promised to develop Office:Mac for another five years, and that was two years ago. And the Mac only became the success it is today because Microsoft developed Office for it in the first place. And, not to forget, Apple would have disappeared into void long ago if Microsoft and Apple hadn't settled their lawsuit and Microsoft's money had saved it when Apple was close to bankruptcy. (I know that Fanboy-version of history is completely different, but I won't go there.)

Winni, please stop making such patently untrue arguments; your statements of fact are anything but.
Yes, you are right that MS only promised to develop Office Mac for five years--13 years ago! Not two. Since then Microsoft has only seen the Mac market grow and realizes that stopping that production would be like shooting ones self in the toe, painful and potentially crippling, though not necessarily life-threatening.
As for the 'threat' of bankruptcy, even at Apple's lowest in the mid-90s, Apple Computer Inc. had some 10 Billion dollars in assets, though almost all of it in long-term investments which didn't give them any cash for R&D. Steve Jobs went to Bill Gates and got an 'unofficial loan' (selling non-voting stock) of a few hundred million dollars to give him the cash he needed to create the iMac. That 'loan' was repaid in full within 2 years and now Apple's stock is worth nearly 6000% what it was in '95--counting splits. Microsoft? Their value has only gone up about 800% when counting splits over the same time period.

If Adobe stopped developing for the Mac, their entire user base would switch to Windows in a heartbeat. It's as simple as that. Their users need Adobe software more than they need Macs, and I know of many agencies in Germany that have switched away from Apple a long time ago. Adobe nowadays primarily develops for Windows and even Linux already has a 64-Bit Flash plugin while something like that still cannot be seen for the Mac. That should tell you something about their priorities.

What would Mac users do if Adobe dropped their product support? There are no alternatives.

Wrong. While I accept that some--maybe even most--of Adobe's user base would switch, by no means would all of it switch. Apple has already released a number of apps that serve Professional photographers as well or better at a significantly lower cost. Photoshop Elements has at least two direct competitors on the Apple platform and the full version of Photoshop itself is countered by GIMP, which is fully as capable, and absolutely free. I will admit that GIMP isn't quite as easy to use, though that's merely a matter of scale since PS itself isn't exactly easy either.

So yes, there are alternatives to Adobe's products--across the board. But the the people who would 'switch' to stick with Adobe are the ones who do all their work in Adobe and wouldn't be willing to use one of those alternatives. Oddly enough, this particular argument is reminiscent of the OS X/Windows argument, where Windows is losing customers to OS X at an ever-increasing rate.

What would you do when Microsoft dropped Office for Mac? Use iWork? Ha. Hahaha.

Yes, as a matter of fact. Yes. While I might admit that Office might have a lot more 'features' than iWork, there is almost nothing you can do in Office that can't be done in Pages, Keynote and Numbers. Outlook is covered fairly well by the combination of Mac Mail and iCal--which seem to be significantly more reliable at getting messages and calendar events to their intended destinations than I've witnessed Outlook doing. I can't tell you how many Outlook calendar events arrive at their destinations minutes--and even hours after the event! Not once has iCal let me down in that manner.

And if you just HAVE to have a full office suite, Open Office performs just as well and is almost fully compatible with Microsoft's formats.

Apple's survival strategy lies within their iPhone/iPod/iPad gadgets, and they know it. They think that unlike a real computing platform, they can control their gadgets and protect them from competition. Well, why I agree that their survival as a corporation is bound to the gadgets, I also think that they are completely mistaken with the latter. But they didn't learn any lessons from the Mac vs Windows disaster - and for Apple, this was a disaster. Windows might have been a Macintosh rip off, but it is technologically ahead of the Mac and it is infinitely more successful.

Just like the Roman Empire, Microsoft uses a "divide and rule" approach, while Apple wants it all for themselves. And that never worked for anybody on the long run.

Maybe you should look again; Apple's strategy is not to provide mere gadgets, but to make the devices they build work better than their competiton. This concept became most visible with the first iMac and has only improved with each subsequent device. Name one other company who has so fully integrated desktop/laptop computing, an MP3 player and a smart phone to the point that they can work so closely together? Then add in the AppleTV, which so many of you call a failure yet, despite this, still sells and still gets regular updates from Apple.

Apple's strategy is to become an integrated and coherent part of your home and office; Apple is both personal and corporate capable. Where everybody else is making single, separate devices that can maybe connect through your computer, Apple has them all working as part of an overall environment. The iPad is merely another piece of this incomplete puzzle.
 
Ask youself:

Would you feel the same about the issue if it was Joe Average that had created a device and Apple copied it, and Joe was going after Apple?

The issues can't be resolved here, I suspect much has gone into working out a solution before a company spends a billion dollars on legal bills.

You know, I think at the Core of the issue is going to be UI and Presentation. Things like App Store, Icon Placement and general look.

That being said:

You wont mistake Windows Mobile for an iPhone OS, can you mistake Android for an iPhone OS? I think the answer is Yes and No. While Android has its unique look, the handset people are building devices to compete with the iPhone so they attempt to get it close to the iPhone.

So the issue is not Android exactly , but a device that looks like an iPhone. This is hardware patent, issue I suspect.
 
What does Norway have to do with anything that I wrote?

It's not that Apple shouldn't defend their IP. They're free to do that if they wish. But there's some major double standards when it's OK for Apple to do it, but when anyone sues Apple for the same reasons it's really bad, and the company that is suing is obviously just doing it because they can't compete with Apple.
They have just as much right to defend their IP as Apple have, regardless of their markedshare/position. If it's increasing or decreasing is irrelevant.

Actually, Norway as everything to do with what you're saying; Nokia is a Norwegian company.

However, what you seem to be so conveniently overlooking is that the lawsuit by Nokia against Apple is because Nokia is not only demanding higher licensing prices, but also equivalent rights to use Apple's technology as part payment. In other words, Nokia not only wants to bilk Apple of more cash than any of their other license holders, but also wants free access to Apple's patents. Considering the laws currently in place, this is almost clearly anti-competitive behavior by Nokia because they see Apple stealing their customers.
 
Why would anyone care about what Schwartz has to say? Sun did all the wrong things under him, failed, and now he's running his mouth online. Looking Glass failed because it was crap.

Sun was put into a death spiral under McNealy - Schwartz
managed to bring it down in a wheels up hard landing. Schwartz
did not kill Sun.


It actually started with Apple's Macintosh GUI. A far better (usable) variation of the one which Xerox never bothered to bring to market.

Do you ever bother to check facts?

The Xerox Star was not originally meant to be a stand-alone computer, but to be part of an integrated Xerox "personal office system" that also connected to other workstations and network services via Ethernet. Although a single unit sold for $16,000, a typical office would have to purchase at least 2 or 3 machines along with a file server and a name server/print server. Spending $50,000 to $100,000 for a complete installation was not an easy sell, when a secretary's annual salary was about $12,000 per year.

Later incarnations of the Star would allow users to purchase a single unit with a laser printer, but even so only about 25,000 units were sold, leading many to consider the Xerox Star to be a commercial failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star
 
Yeah, it's interesting. If you consider a failed Silicon Valley has-been interesting. Looking Glass failed because it sucked. It was a metaphor for the company at large.

You keep ignoring the story with the classic ad hominem attack. Looking Glass and then Sun may have failed (Apple was close to failure once too), but that doesn't change the fact that Apple has tried this strong arm patent tactic before and they got smacked. They are going after HTC now because HTC has so few patents. The bully on the playground always picks on the weak kids. I doubt Apple will ever go after Google or MS because MS in particular has A LOT of patents. The MS research lab has come up with a lot of cool stuff even if it has never ended up in their products.

What's most interesting is the Ars article that quotes MS as saying they will USE their patent war chest to fight Apple on behalf of any of the handset makers who use Win7 mobile. Google has come out and said they support HTC, but haven't said anything that strong yet.

All we need now is IBM to wade in a put everyone on notice lol.
 
It seems you haven't seen the latest numbers. Apple doubled iPhone sales, but Android grew ten times over the same period. When that trend continues, the iPhone will be toast in a year from now.

And what is the ultimate advantage of Android and why will the industry gather behind Android and not behind the iPhone? Simple: Everybody can build hardware with the Android OS, and there are no limits to what software you want to write for and deploy on it. Apple could have had that position if they had been smart about it, but no, Steve Jobs wanted to repeat the very same mistakes he had made with the Macintosh: Instead of making the Mac the industry standard, he made it a proprietary niche platform. Now he did the same with iPhone OS. Sure, it's a lucrative niche (at least today), but a niche is a niche and there are natural limits as to how big a niche can become.

In two to three years from now, Android will hold a market share in the entire mobile phone AND "Slate" market that Windows now has in the PC sector. The iPhone and the iPad will be rather insignificant niche products just like the Mac.

People just don't like complete vendor lock-ins and the accompanying restrictions, but Steve Jobs refuses to admit that reality.

In Android land, you don't have this limits, and together with Google's financial backing, this will eventually make the platform the winner.

I believe that Google will have trouble holding the Android operating system together after reading this article. What reality of vendor lock-ins? The iPhone/iPod Touch is still an unbelievable success.
 
If Apple want to keep a significant "US market cap" they need to deliver. Any crack in their shield suggesting something else and the market cap is gone even faster than it was gained.

Apple's market cap and business model depends on being
perceived as "cool" and "trendy", as much as on product.

If Apple becomes "uncool" among the "mall set" that hangs out
in cool and trendy Apple stores (perhaps for heavy-handed control
of the Igadgets and sue-happy lawyers, or even a silly
vendetta against flash) - the shield is cracked.


Ah, so you purposely ignored the intent of the comment...

Whatever the intent of the comment, it contained a phrase that
was blatantly wrong. Steve Jobs did not "own NeXT".
 
What's most interesting is the Ars article that quotes MS as saying they will USE their patent war chest to fight Apple on behalf of any of the handset makers who use Win7 mobile. Google has come out and said they support HTC, but haven't said anything that strong yet.
MS has said the same thing about Linux to try and dissuade adoption and usage of Linux instead of their systems. Nothing ever became of that.

And all of this assumes that Apple is going to wage war against Windows Mobile 7 on the patent front. Is MS is really careful about their design, that won't be a problem.
 
steve jobs got canned from his own company after being considered more successful in business terms than most other people on the planet. as the adage goes, old habits die hard.



LOL... thanks for the laugh.

Think you'll find that Apple has a significantly more money in the bank than Adobes total market capitalisation.
 
And all of this assumes that Apple is going to wage war against Windows Mobile 7 on the patent front. Is MS is really careful about their design, that won't be a problem.

Or, if Microsoft believes that the Iphone infringes on MS
patents - MS might not care. If Apple sues, MS will counter-sue,
and eventually both will cross-license.

And it's "Windows Phone 7", not WM7.
 
Actually, Norway as everything to do with what you're saying; Nokia is a Norwegian company.

However, what you seem to be so conveniently overlooking is that the lawsuit by Nokia against Apple is because Nokia is not only demanding higher licensing prices, but also equivalent rights to use Apple's technology as part payment. In other words, Nokia not only wants to bilk Apple of more cash than any of their other license holders, but also wants free access to Apple's patents. Considering the laws currently in place, this is almost clearly anti-competitive behavior by Nokia because they see Apple stealing their customers.

How can you manage to include so many errors in such a short message? Nokia is not Norwegian company, Nokia does not demand higher licensing from Apple than from other license holders, Nokia does not demand Apple's technology as part of payment...

Nokia is Finnish company. Nokia demands Apple to pay the licensing fees based on fair and reasonable pricing, as is customary in that business. Nokia suggests that Apple can enter into a cross licensing deal in order to reduce the licensing fees, if Apple so wishes. Again, just as is customary in the mobile phone business.

Apple is not stealing customers of Nokia (Nokia's market share is essentially the same what it was when Iphone was introduces), what Apple is stealing is Nokia's technology.
 
Multi-touch for a touchscreen device is way too simple of a gesture for Apple to be able to defend in a patent IMO. It would almost be like Apple patenting icons on the screen. What else can you do to be functunal? Sorry, I hope Apple loses this one.

Apple is not suing over any UI issues. They are suing because HTC ripped off the low level architecture used in the iPhone operating system. Read the pattens They are about class names and specific member functions of one class calling the member functions of a different class. It is about the very specific details of how the operating system is laid out.
 
How can you manage to include so many errors in such a short message? Nokia is not Norwegian company, Nokia does not demand higher licensing from Apple than from other license holders, Nokia does not demand Apple's technology as part of payment...

Nokia is Finnish company. Nokia demands Apple to pay the licensing fees based on fair and reasonable pricing, as is customary in that business. Nokia suggests that Apple can enter into a cross licensing deal in order to reduce the licensing fees, if Apple so wishes. Again, just as is customary in the mobile phone business.

Apple is not stealing customers of Nokia (Nokia's market share is essentially the same what it was when Iphone was introduces), what Apple is stealing is Nokia's technology.

From our stupid American perspective, Norway and Finland are about the same thing. I bet you guys think Oklahoma and Texas are about the same. How about Salsa and BBQ sauce?

:D
 
Nokia is Finnish company. Nokia demands Apple to pay the licensing fees based on fair and reasonable pricing, as is customary in that business. Nokia suggests that Apple can enter into a cross licensing deal in order to reduce the licensing fees, if Apple so wishes. Again, just as is customary in the mobile phone business.

1) Many people would cal Finland a Norwegian country - especially since one of the official language is Swedish. That is an aside though.
2) Apple's response to the courts is exactly what is asserted - Nokia demanded higher fees and cross licensing to which they are not entitled to. Unless you can prove Apple is lying, that's what is going on.
 
How many patents do you think Apple is infringing on in the iPhone/iPad?

You can be sure that someone will find something Apple is doing and will push right back.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.