Regarding Apples Samsung lawsuit, its very possible that Occams razor applies and Apple is just suing Samsung to get financial compensation for Samsungs alleged IP infringements and hinder Samsungs performance in the mobile area, essentially handsets but also tablets in the future. However, its a strategically tricky move by Apple as it necessarily results in strained relations with a major supplier for iOS devices parts, while the potential financial gain at stake doesnt seem that great in Apples commercial context (I might be wrong on this, its just my gut feeling). When trying to look at the confusing big picture of mobile computing, though, Im wondering if theres not more than meets the eye about that lawsuit. Its a well-known fact that Android is outgrowing iOS in the smartphone area. Besides, the Microsoft-Nokia partnership could grow into something huge if those two companies play their hands smartly (however, I dont think thats going to happen with Microsofts current vision of a mobile OS). So, actually, Im wondering whether Apples twisting Samsungs arm is not aimed at something more strategic than winning an IP dispute. The underlying idea is that Apples best interest is to be and remain the undisputed leader in mobile platforms, in terms of installed base, but this isnt going to happen unless Apple licenses iOS to slow-down Androids growth in smartphone and prevent it from taking off in tablets. Now I know that Apple, so far is opposed to license its OS-es. That was most evident in the case of Mac OS. Apple loves to control the software/hardware integration in order to guarantee the most optimal user-experience and that strategy works great so far. But iOS is a different business paradigm than Mac OS: while the Mac is essentially task-centric (the PC model), mobile devices are more content/App centric. The iOS paradigm, in my view, is headed in the long run to the situation where more profit will come from the content and apps offered through the iTunes ecosystem rather than from hardware sales. Apples choice of pricing for the iPad seems to indicate that they believe that too, so they decided to sacrifice some margin on the iconic tablets sales. Therefore, theres less incentive to keep iOS exclusive to Apple hardware than in the Mac OS case. The caveat is that, would Apple license iOS to a third-party hardware maker, that third party would have to be a very strong player in terms of industrial quality and technology, and would be willing to accept a tight supervision of product-design by Apple. Moreover it would have to be fully committed to iOS and not help grow competing platforms (Android and Windows Phone, mainly). Could it be then that the lawsuit is aimed at forcing Samsungs hand to become that strategic ally to secure a larger growth for the iOS platform? Its quite obvious that, technologically, Samsung would be the ideal pick for an iOS licensee. Samsung is proving to be most capable of designing more-than-decent hardware products. Its also the company that arguably knows best about Apples iOS devices hardware technology: Samsung even manufactures the Apple-designed A-series ARM chips that power those devices, on top of being Apples biggest touchscreen supplier. In that scenario, Apples tactic would be to reach a settlement with Samsung, in which the latter would phase out its support of Android and Windows phone in exchange of an exclusive right to produce genuine Samsung-iPhones powered by Apples iOS with a win-win margin-sharing agreement. Theres even an additional reason why such a deal would serve Apple greatly: its a known fact that limited production capacity is significantly holding off sales volumes for iPhone and iPad. If the current capacity that Samsung uses for Android handsets was diverted to produce Samsung-iPhones, Apple would be able to shift its industrial focus on the iPad and the Mac. Because lets not forget that the Mac is enjoying a tremendous growth, especially in Asia-Pacific. Theres a huge potential of revenue there that Apple is struggling to fulfill right now. Okay, its just a fiction, a figment of my imagination. Perhaps viewed from inside the two companies it doesnt make sense at all; but from the outside, doesnt it sound plausible?