Mobile Competition Part 2: Great Artists Steal
0. phoneArena 03 Oct 2011, 11:24 posted on
We've already looked at the strengths and weaknesses of each mobile platform, so now it's time to examine the overall competition in the market and what each company is aiming for...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. gallitoking (Posts: 4720; Member since: 17 May 2011)
great follow up story... great job Michael...
125. Steal (unregistered)
It was a steal!
2. Bob (unregistered)
Well all these 'Phone operating system wars' will settle down one day and finally there will be only one 'market leader'. Almost 6.5 billion people in the world, these 'wars' are concerned to a fraction of people. Windows phone could be the winner.
74. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
like there is only one car manufacturer?
like there is only one computer OS?
what on earth makes you say this?
79. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2705; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Admittedly, there may be more than one computer OS, but it's not like it's much of a competition there. Windows is still at 86% of the market.
Still, I doubt there will be one market leader mobile OS any time soon. And, even if there is, it's not like iOS or Android fans would be quiet. I mean we all see how quiet OSX advocates are, and that's barely 6% of the market.
3. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Good article, but I disagree on one point. I think ip should be protected because in the tech business that's how you make money. Ideas.
That's why Apple has been so successful.
9. Mark (unregistered)
11. Commentator (Posts: 3701; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
That's how you make money in any business. I agree that Samsung should be sued over the similarities of the TouchWiz UI, which is a blatant copy, but I'm not convinced that their Galaxy S/Tab form-factors are similar enough to iPhones and iPads to warrant legal action. TouchWiz is useless (IMO) anyways, so Samsung should just take it off their phones.
12. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2705; Member since: 26 May 2011)
If that were true, how would any open-source products like Firefox, Linux, Android, etc. ever make money?
In tech, as in all business, you make money on execution. You make money on marketing IP correctly, and that's why Apple has been so successful. Apple knows how to build beautiful and accessible devices, and market them so that the general public understands why they should buy it.
HP and Palm have proven that having a good, protected IP doesn't mean anything if it isn't executed right.
18. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
They'd have to come up with original ways to implement functionality.
22. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2705; Member since: 26 May 2011)
There is no such thing as "original ways". That's the point, everything is built upon what came before it. Because of that, there's no real intellectual "property". You can't own an idea, because that idea has roots in everything you've learned from others. Nothing is original, but many things are innovative.
37. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Whether original or innovative, the concept behind patent law is that the 'inventor' gets a period of exclusivity to encourage them to expend the effort and $ to invent. The exclusivity is something that investors will invest in if they think they can make a return on their investment.
I wonder if Apple would have gotten into the phone business if they didn't think they had an angle from a patent perspective.
112. waveydavey (unregistered)
To piggy back, part of the idea of patents is to also encourage inventors to share new technologies and still reap rewards through licensing. I guess this might still be what you call shared exclusivity: "pay me, and you can join the club too".
55. AppleFUD (unregistered)
well put. . . taco50 can't grasp that idea. that all of apple's "IP" is nothing more than tweaks to existing tech. . . maybe he's just one of those simpletons that is easily hypnotized by marketing and whatnot. . . and just believes it all. You know, like the old lady that thinks a soap opera is real.
93. taz89 (Posts: 2014; Member since: 03 May 2011)
theres no point trying to explain...in tacos eyes everything apple has ever done is nothing but original even if the facts state the so called original idea existed before apple came up with it...your article explained everything perfectly...
51. biophone (Posts: 1962; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
Mike great article you changed my opinion on IP.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
Steve jobs would be proud of you mike. However I don't like blatant copies they should add your own innovations especially in design but for features I am ok with "stealing."
14. where IP is concerned (unregistered)
I think IP should be recognised more, but not so much as overly-protected patents to be used to sue and keep ideas to oneself.. I agree with what Michael H has brought up in the article in that ideas are meant to be shared and made ubiquitous, so that as new ideas become standard, everyone benefits, and the system and manufacturers are forced to continue to innovate.. by protecting IP with so many patents, the system is effectively restricting innovation, because new ideas are generally built upon existing technology and and implemented in a way that's appealing to everyone.. just like how the iPhone revolutionised the touchscreen smartphone era, it wasn't that the tech did not exist, or Apple invented the tech behind it, they simply got the headstart and ideas to implement it in the best possible way then..
likewise, it only stands that consumers are allowed to enjoy the innovations and ideas that are shared and spread around into our everyday lives.. if you think about it, how much would it suck if everyone had to buy a Ford Model T because every other car company back in the days were prevented from building a car that was as good, or better, based on the tech that was in the original Ford.. if the patent war existed back then, effectively, no other car companies would be allowed to build a car with 4 wheels, using a combustion engine, gear systems to vary speeds and other innovations back then..
16. vu2ikl (Posts: 11; Member since: 22 Sep 2011)
well.. that's because as Michael said. all the "innovative" ideas have roots in some old ideas. so that is not actually a complete new idea as such.
27. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
And as soon as apple has a patent for icon colors and a menu grid, I will agree with you.
Apple is the king of stealing, which is why they have to share their gargantuan profits with everyone else. They keep losing patent infringement lawsuits.
52. biophone (Posts: 1962; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
Steve would agree with you
116. 530gemini (Posts: 2198; Member since: 09 Sep 2010)
That line has been taken out of context by people with simple minds. First of all, that was Picasso's line, not Steve's. 2ndly, what Steve meant by what he said, is to LEGALLY own ideas from people that they hire, not literally from anyone. But of course, readers with low IQ will take what he said literally. Oh well.
Use common sense. If all that Apple have are stolen IP's, they would've been shut down a long time ago.
119. s (unregistered)
In that case apple should be sued for making any 4' or bigger phone screens since they sued samsun for coping the shape square from their products
6. surya_020 (unregistered)
Very good article...nice work phonearena....appreciated..finally the winners will be consumers who will get better products for what they are paying :)....