Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Apple

Who Cares If Samsung Copied Apple? 544

Posted by samzenpus
from the imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery dept.
hype7 writes "The Harvard Business Review is running an article that's questioning the very premise of the Apple v Samsung case. From the article: 'It isn't the first time Apple has been involved in a high-stakes "copying" court case. If you go back to the mid-1990s, there was their famous "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft. Apple's case there was eerily similar to the one they're running today: "we innovated in creating the graphical user interface; Microsoft copied us; if our competitors simply copy us, it's impossible for us to keep innovating." Apple ended up losing the case. But it's what happened next that's really fascinating. Apple didn't stop innovating at all.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who Cares If Samsung Copied Apple?

Comments Filter:
  • by j35ter (895427) on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:43AM (#41055367)
    couldn't care less!
    • Re:The Chinese... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:56AM (#41055543)

      You kid, but this is actually important.

      Supposedly we live in a "Global Economy" now.

      China manufactures a lot of goods for the US. Now ask yourself, what does the US have to offer China, and the rest of our world? Intellectual Property, which is only reinforced by our nations laws? Our Lawyers, which mostly are specialized in US law? Our MBAs?

      If we hardly manufacture anything now and IP is our primary "resource", and foreign countries do not need to respect our IP, then what exactly do we have to trade for? What do we offer the world?

      • Re:The Chinese... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by paulsnx2 (453081) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:33AM (#41055993)

        It is totally naive to think that just because someone can look at your product, they can execute the production, distribution, and support for your product.

        IP is not our primary resource. And if it is, we deserve to fail utterly.

        Companies should be successful for building, selling, distributing, and supporting products. There isn't any reason to Tax the world for their willingness to compete just because we pass a law that says they have to.

        Today there are nearly 200,000 patents on various aspects of smart phones. Maybe even more! If we gave every patent holder a penny, a cell phone would cost 2,000 dollars for IP alone.

        Get over it. IP is important to some extent. But Apple's abuse of the system is unethical and shouldn't be tolerated.

      • by sjbe (173966) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:33AM (#41055997)

        If we hardly manufacture anything now and IP is our primary "resource"...

        Strawman argument. The US has a $3.7 TRILLION manufacturing sector and it is growing. Just in case that isn't clear, measured by value the US has manufactures more than any other country in the world by a wide margin. By itself the US manufacturing sector would be in top 5 economies in the world. The notion that "we don't manufacture anything anymore" is complete nonsense. The only change is that products with a high proportion of labor cost (labor intensive) are now manufactured where labor is cheaper. However a huge number of products have a low proportion of labor cost (capital intensive) and those are made here. We manufacture automobiles, airplanes, pharmaceuticals, agriculture products, chemicals, integrated circuits, and much much more. The death of US manufacturing has been greatly exaggerated.

        The change in manufacturing in the US is that it is evolving somewhat like farming did 100 years ago - fewer workers as a percent of population but producing more. As a proportion of the population manufacturing jobs are going to continue to decrease for some time. That does not mean that the US will cease being a manufacturing powerhouse however.

        • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Monday August 20, 2012 @12:39PM (#41056953)

          The death of US manufacturing has been greatly exaggerated.

          If you follow the supply chain down, you start to hit China pretty quickly: seamless steel tubing, castings, bushings, bearings, more and more seals... Problem is, they are relentlessly climbing up that supply chain to such an extent, that our 'manufacturers' become more 'assemblers' (such as the Google a/v widget). Caltrans is saving millions on a new bridge... by buying most of the subassembly weldments from China.

          Just has already happened in the food industry, more and more weasel words and definitions are being applied to US 'manufacturing' to put more money in the pockets of corporations all the while waving their American flags (probably also made in China).

        • by rabtech (223758) on Monday August 20, 2012 @02:14PM (#41058197) Homepage

          Strawman argument. The US has a $3.7 TRILLION manufacturing sector and it is growing. Just in case that isn't clear, measured by value the US has manufactures more than any other country in the world by a wide margin. By itself the US manufacturing sector would be in top 5 economies in the world. The notion that "we don't manufacture anything anymore" is complete nonsense. The only change is that products with a high proportion of labor cost (labor intensive) are now manufactured where labor is cheaper. However a huge number of products have a low proportion of labor cost (capital intensive) and those are made here. We manufacture automobiles, airplanes, pharmaceuticals, agriculture products, chemicals, integrated circuits, and much much more. The death of US manufacturing has been greatly exaggerated.

          The change in manufacturing in the US is that it is evolving somewhat like farming did 100 years ago - fewer workers as a percent of population but producing more. As a proportion of the population manufacturing jobs are going to continue to decrease for some time. That does not mean that the US will cease being a manufacturing powerhouse however.

          This might be slightly OT but you make a good point and this is something that we, as a society, will have to deal with eventually.

          At some point in the future there won't be a need for as much manual labor as we have now. Robots/machines will eventually take over most tasks - look at Foxconn buying a million (!) robots to start converting some assembly of electronics to robotic assembly. Look at what Musk is doing at Tesla and how the cars are made almost entirely by robots.

          Either:
          Work weeks will get shorter and some form of guaranteed income (or massive increases in minimum wage) will take place, thus having the average person work many fewer hours per week for the same or much higher pay than people get now for 40 hours of work. I don't see this as a bad thing - I suspect many (if not most) first-world people would be glad to continue their current lifestyle while working fewer hours - they'd get to spend more time with their family, pursuing hobbies (including spending money on them), etc.

          Or:
          Most people are going to end up poor and unemployed (leading to a vicious downward spiral where less consumer $$$ means less economic activity, further depressing the need for output, leading to people willing to work for scraps, further putting downward pressure on economies around the world, repeat until riot/revolution). We already have a massive glut of capital, running around shoving money at anything that smells like yield (the primary driver of the financial crisis - too much cheap money desperately looking for a place to invest, though certainly not the only driver). If all the resources continue to accumulate at the top then we may end up with a brutal police state that crushes most people while a few lords live in mansions, consuming luxury goods produced by robots solely for the rich. Prices for everything would skyrocket (despite the minimal cost of production) because the money is just changing hands between the various rich factory/resource owners.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CAIMLAS (41445)

        China manufactures a lot of goods for the US. Now ask yourself, what does the US have to offer China, and the rest of our world? Intellectual Property, which is only reinforced by our nations laws?

        Competence?

        It's a running joke that Americans are fat, stupid, lazy bastards. Many of us are. It's true for Northern Europe, too. What is also true is that when you're looking for field experts and one-of-a-kind capabilities, this is still where you look.

        You fail to realize that when another country needs precise engineering (regardless of the field), they'll usually look to the US. Yes, even today. With few exceptions, the rest of the world still looks to the White Man Culture to implement the new, importa

      • Re:The Chinese... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by macraig (621737) <`mark.a.craig' `at' `gmail.com'> on Monday August 20, 2012 @12:29PM (#41056795)

        Which is, of course, exactly why the Obama Administration has been "going nuclear" on domestic and especially non-domestic threats to that precious IP. It's what prompted the extreme and illegal actions against MegaUpload and Kim Dotcom, not to mention that fellow from the UK whose name and site escapes me who also faces a sort of extreme rendition. There's also WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, because our government also perceives the diplomatic cables, war documents and videos and all the rest that WikiLeaks has shared to be "intellectual property" of the government itself.

        This is why "infringement" is no longer simply a civil matter. It's now a crime against the state.

      • A company I work with often has its primary product made in China. They ship the manuals from here locally, to the dealers all around the world, but the product is made in China. Recently, we have been getting angry customers, calling and saying that their russian model does not have a manual at all, and there are no russian language ones on the website. Funny, they don't sell in Russia, and none of their distributors are authorized to sell in (or located anywhere near) Russia.

        Apparently, we let it go, b

  • What Innovfation? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:45AM (#41055389)

    Xerox created the interface which apple purchased in stock swap, it was not apple's original innovation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 91degrees (207121)
      The UI that Apple purchased was nowhere near a complete system. Apple added a lot of improvements of their own. Microsoft clearly copied from Apple, not Xerox.
      • Re:What Innovfation? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by squiggleslash (241428) on Monday August 20, 2012 @01:38PM (#41057739) Homepage Journal

        Until Windows 95, I'd say that there was very little the two UIs had in common. Even 95 owed more to the Windows 1/2/3.x lineage than Macintosh. And anyone who saw Windows 1.0 (an environment I played around with a lot when I was a teenager) would have wondered if Microsoft ever saw a single Mac.

        What are, seriously, the UI elements that Microsoft took? My answer to that is the same as the Android-iOS thing: nothing of significance was copied: what Apple did was to prove that users were comfortable with a different type of UI, and do so well enough that other manufacturers came in with their own take on things.

        Apple's enthusiasts usually prove this by their enthusiasm: ask them to take an Android phone, and they'll protest, and after finally using it will come to the conclusion (if they're iPhone fans) that the iPhone is superior, and Google doesn't know what it's doing, and that Android is hard to use - or, of course, the complete opposite. What they'll never tell you is that the two devices are equivalent. They'll never say "Meh, just give me the cheapest phone with following specs {...}, they're all pretty much the same."

        This was true in the Macintosh's first era too. Mac users didn't look over at their PC owning friends and remark "Gosh, that Windows thing is exactly like the Mac, just give me the cheapest PC or Mac you can get that runs... {...}", they made a point to note the way they felt the Mac was "superior" which, generally, involved the entire UI being completely different. That the Mac was different ended up being a point of pride as the two platforms went their seperate ways.

        Executive summary? Xerox invented. Apple was bold enough to be inspired by Xerox. Microsoft, Commodore, Digital Research et al were comfortable enough to embrace the idea thanks to Apple making the first step. Copying? Meh, well, DR copied from Apple, there's little doubt about that, but I'd have been surprised if Windows was significantly different from what eventually was released if Microsoft, not Apple, had been the company made the bold step of marketing a completely new idea. Ironically, I suspect one difference is that Windows 1.x probably would have had overlapping windows.

    • Re:What Innovfation? (Score:4, Informative)

      by jellomizer (103300) on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:57AM (#41055559)

      Apple did a lot of work to make their UI as a GUI for consumer level users. Xerox interface was for a limited use. Trying to get it in a system that is under 5k.

      For Example Supercomputers can perform Ray Tracing Animations in real time. For our normal PC we cannot (at least at the same quality). In order to attempt this we take a lot of the ideas and find what to reduce and shortcuts that have the smallest visual effects. So we took an idea and make a new product off of it... Innovation.

      But this is a difference case of Samsung and Apple They are both on the same market, selling a product at around the same price with similar specs. So it more of a case of copying then innovating.

  • by Concern (819622) * on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:46AM (#41055401) Journal

    Obviously the patent squabbles in these cases are ridiculous - the only reason we have functioning high-tech industry in the US is that most companies are not like Apple, and do not use patents offernsively.

    It's a good time to review the reasons why, for example, software patents do not work, and can never be made to work:

    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents [swpat.org]

  • by G3ckoG33k (647276) on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:47AM (#41055415)

    It isn't very easy to tell an original from a copy, as this poor reporter found out (too late):

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=789he-8T_-E [youtube.com]

    The object in that video looks like it was copied from something with rounded corners. Could it be an Apple copy of something? Don't know. Still. As always. I prefer the original.

    • by wvmarle (1070040) on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:57AM (#41055551)

      Not all copies are inferior. Japan got huge in the 80s/90s by "copying and improving". And they were not the first that did this; it's how UK lost out to mainland Europe in the later stages of the industrial revolution: they were the first to industrialise, but the continent copied there methods and products, and improved on them.

      China is currently very much in the copy phase, sooner or later they will also start to innovate themselves (some Chinese companies already do that), followed by a time in which the establised companies will be out-innovated. It may take a while, the Chinese don't seem to be very fast in picking up the innovation part, but if the world's history is anything to go by, sooner or later they will.

      • The UK lost out because at a certain point, the innovations necessary to continue to progress required more and more specialized technical education. The British University system was simply not set up to handle that. It was designed to turn the sons of Lords into Lords, and the upper middle-class into educated Lordly-like young men, optimized for leading business, but NOT in leading technical innovation (or military strategy, for that matter). Such a hands-on education was beneath them.

        In addition, they always felt they didn't need such innovation in re-inventing that which they already had because of their extensive colonial might. Why invent a blue dye and undercut the price tag you were already commanding by being able to bring in the dye from the east-asian source?

        Germany, on the other hand, spent most of the last decades of the 19th century realizing that trade schools, which the British wouldn't invest in, were precisely the means by which Germany could catch up to the rest of the world. German innovation happened most in the field of chemistry, where they were more and more able to invent (from coal and coal tar) products that could make up for places they lacked both colonies or military power. The process for sodium-nitrates alone (originally to be a fertilizer) produced enough explosives to preserve the German army for years through WW1.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:48AM (#41055421)

    This isn't true. Apple DID stop innovating. You missed the section of time where Apple was minutes from bankrupt before Jobs came back with a load of money.

  • by macs4all (973270) on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:54AM (#41055501)
    Apple pretty much HAS to sue Samsung.

    Even though in doing so, they actually may increase the sales of Samsung tablets. Some percentage of people who wouldn't have given a non-Apple-tablet a second glance may now decide "Hey, if Apple is 'worried' enough to sue over this, it must be pretty good."

    However, Apple really has no choice. If they don't sue, then that would be the "green light" for the "Allwinners" of the world to come in and just crank out $40 blister-pack 'ePads', absolutely indistinguishable-from-iPad (until you actually tried to use them!) tablets.

    Not only would that eat into Apple's sales/profits, but it would eventually (and wrongly) leak into the consumer mindset that ALL tablets are shit. And that could make the iPad market dry up as quickly as it was created.
    • by StikyPad (445176) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:00AM (#41055589) Homepage

      Right, because Yugos eventually (and wrongly) leaked into the consumer mindset that ALL cars are shit.

      Spare us the confused consumer nonsense Fanboi Wan.

      • by rjstanford (69735)

        Right, because Yugos eventually (and wrongly) leaked into the consumer mindset that ALL cars are shit.

        If those early Yugos had looked almost exactly like Fords, to the point that Yugo's own counsel mistook a Ford for one of their own products, then Ford would have indeed been concerned that their brand value had been diluted...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kenorland (2691677)

      However, Apple really has no choice. If they don't sue, then that would be the "green light" for the "Allwinners" of the world to come in and just crank out $40 blister-pack 'ePads',

      And the harm in that would be what?

      absolutely indistinguishable-from-iPad (until you actually tried to use them!) tablets. Not only would that eat into Apple's sales/profits, but it would eventually (and wrongly) leak into the consumer mindset that ALL tablets are shit. And that could make the iPad market dry up as quickly as it

  • by wvmarle (1070040) on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:54AM (#41055509)

    Having other people copy your designs doesn't mean you can't innovate anymore. On the contrary: by innovating you will stay ahead of the pack.

    Also, copies always mean the copier is playing catch-up. They always have to wait and see what you've done, before they can try to do the same. By innovating you will keep the advantage, having everybody copy your work just means you have to innovate even harder and faster. That's tough of course, much easier to stop the rest from picking up your innovative ideas.

  • Fair point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JestersGrind (2549938) on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:56AM (#41055537)
    The article makes a fair point. If everyone is allowed to copy everyone else (and they already are anyway including Apple), the only way for a company to distinguish itself is to innovate faster than the competition can copy. This actually promotes innovation, not stifle it.
    • In the business world innovation is only ever justified by some cost-benefit analysis. Yes, competition will drive new features, iff the return on those features is great enough. Patent and copyright laws are specifically intended to widen this profit making window with the intent of fostering innovation.

      Decreasing the time you can monetize any new idea serves to decrease the monetary value of that innovation. Decreasing the value of innovations doesn't sound like a winning formula for fostering innova
    • Re:Fair point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zalbik (308903) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:38AM (#41056081)

      the only way for a company to distinguish itself is to innovate faster than the competition can copy

      And more importantly, if an "innovation" can be copied by a competitor in nearly no time, then it's probably not an innovation at all (e.g. rounded corners)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:56AM (#41055541)

    "Good artists copy. Great artists steal. And at Apple, we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

    [Source: Isaac's authorized biography]

    Apparently he never liked it if someone else followed this axiom, though.

  • Apple and the GUI (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Murdoch5 (1563847) on Monday August 20, 2012 @10:59AM (#41055575)
    Well actually Apple never developed the GUI or User Interface. The "GUI" was actually developed decades before Apple even built a computer. I was trying to find the video from youtube but it might of got taken down. There was a video of a researcher in the 60's playing with a mouse and keyboard and moving a mouse pointer. Unless Steve Jobs was about 80 when he died then I fail to see how Apple invented the user interface.

    However extracting this out, does apple really invent anything? Siri is just voice analysis which isn't new or clever or even that hard, as I did music genre detection for my final project in University, so I can tell you it's pretty simple. Apple didn't invent the smart phone, they didn't create the tablet, they didn't create Unix which is what OS X is based on and they didn't invent the intel CPU they run. So what does Apple invent? Having a little bit of software for messages or screen locking or even a GUI layout is hardly inventing anything, I consider more a look and feel which personally I don't think should be protected I mean anyone could do the same thing, you don't have to be a leader in the computer field.

    So I rest with what does Apple invent? Seems to me they take and sue but thats about it.
  • Parallels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chebucto (992517) * on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:01AM (#41055595) Homepage

    The parallels of current Apple to early 90s Apple are numerous.

    - They were first widely used in multitouch and gui
    - Their OS is more user-friendly
    - Development and modification of their OS is more tightly controlled
    - Crucially, they don't license their OS
    - Steve Jobs isn't there to save them with brand-new product lines

    So now, they're stuck with a market-leading position that is being slowly eroded by the open ARM + Android platform (Armdroid as the new Wintel?), and are being forced to fight on several fronts at once: hardware design, OS design, and developer loyalty.

    The litigation strategy is just one more parallel, and it seems destined to fail.

  • by stiggle (649614) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:07AM (#41055663)

    Apple should start playing by they own rules.
    If a company infringes someone elses patents then they should lose the right to defend their own.

    Apple doesn't license other peoples patented technologies - they just infringe. Ask Nokia how they magically got around $650 million from Apple last year along with an ongoing royalty payment for every iPhone. Because Apple refused to license key Nokia technology and just blatently infringed when they refused the terms Nokia offered. They then went to the courts claiming that Nokia were unfair to them in the terms and so shouldn't be allowed to hold the patent.

    And it wasn't a "key technology" like rounded corners - it was GSM to make it work like a phone!

  • by GabriellaKat (748072) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:13AM (#41055735)
    they copy, refine and cultivate. Really, just think about it. Im pretty sure I just burnt some Karma, but worth it.
  • Seeing both sides (Score:4, Interesting)

    by maroberts (15852) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:13AM (#41055737) Homepage Journal

    Whilst I am hoping that Samsung largely wins its case, I can see that there should be limits to what can be copied and how much a rival product can simply imitate the originator. Apple should be able to protect the unique aspects of its design, and both Samsung and Apple should be able to patent technological innovation where it is appropriate to do so.

    Having said that, I feel Apple is trying to grab too much in this case. It is obvious that Apple didn't come up with the general idea for the layout of a tablet, even if they were the first to market with a genuine product that consumers wanted. It is similarly obvious that everyone wanted to go to a touch screen phone layout at around the same time, and the ergonomics and layout for that are obvious.

    Whilst the gap is narrowing, Apple should realise that they really make their money from producing a product that, whilst on the leading edge of techology, is a polished design where all the parts have been carefully put together. I have a Samsung phone at the moment, and whilst there are aspects of it that are probably better than an iPhone, the whole product lacks the design harmony of its rival. The UK judge who, in dismissing Apples case, said that the Samsung product was 'not as cool' probably expressed it best.

  • If you go back to the mid-1990s, there was their famous "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft. Apple's case there was eerily similar to the one they're running today: "we innovated in creating the graphical user interface; Microsoft copied us; if our competitors simply copy us, it's impossible for us to keep innovating." Apple ended up losing the case.

    ... I've used Apple as the example here because it's illustrative in showing how innovation hasn't been stifled over time even when the patent system hasn't ruled in their favor as a patent owner.

    The Apple v. Microsoft case was on copyright, not patents. Specifically, the court ruled that:

    Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...

    and look-and-feel simply isn't covered there.

    With that distinction and proper categorization in mind, the article misses a crucial difference between the 1990s and today: Apple made a significant push to protecting its designs with patents. The lack of such protection almost killed Apple in the 1990s, and its with that protection now that Apple is well on its way to being the largest company ever.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      The lack of such protection almost killed Apple in the 1990s

      I disagree. I think an operating system that was cheaper, more open, and had a better variety of hardware killed them. People rememberd what it was like when IBM was in Apple's position and they didn't like it. Most people these days don't remember that, but I'm guessing some of them are finding out why it's a bad thing.

  • by a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:19AM (#41055797) Homepage Journal

    The Pirate Party here in Sweden been arguing just these points for a long time now. Innovation is not happening in a vacuum. Great ideas inspire others to come up with even greater ideas. By sharing the information and sharing the data others can look at it and improve it and the speed of research will increase.

    The patent system is not something that foster innovation. Its is something that hinder innovation. Remove it

    Also the billions of money going to patents trolls and feeding lawyers to hand patents could be instead used to invest in research to further the science of mankind.

  • by quietwalker (969769) <pdughi@gmail.com> on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:31AM (#41055959)

    ... in this case for the fashion industry, but hey, it's interesting and relevant:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html [ted.com]

  • by Andrio (2580551) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:32AM (#41055969)
    "Innovation" is rarely little more than just a buzzword. The truth is that Apple rarely "innovates" (That's not an insult) At least not in the big picture. What Apple is good at is the *execution*.

    Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, they just made it better than most others, and marketed the hell out of it.
    Apple didn't invent high-end laptops, they just made them better than most others, and marketed the hell out of them.
    Apple didn't invent the smartphone, they just made it better than most others, and marketed the hell out of it.
    Apple didn't invent the tablet, they just made it better than the others, and marketed the hell out of it.

    That's why they're so threatened by Samsung. Because Samsung is doing the same thing. Samsung didn't invent the "iPhone," they just made it better. Just like they didn't invent the "iPad," they just made it better too.
  • by metrometro (1092237) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:35AM (#41056025)

    > Apple ended up losing the case. But it's what happened next that's really fascinating. Apple didn't stop innovating at all.'"

    Yeah, competition is a bitch. You have to keep working. Much nicer not to have any competition - no innovation required at all. Ask Comcast about that.

  • by Jahta (1141213) on Monday August 20, 2012 @11:46AM (#41056185)

    "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Jobs, interviewed in Triumph of the Nerds on PBS (1996)

    "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this." - Jobs, as quoted in Walter Isaacson's biography (2011)

    So it's OK if Apple do it, but not otherwise?

  • by pubwvj (1045960) on Monday August 20, 2012 @12:03PM (#41056413)

    "it's what happened next that's really fascinating. Apple didn't stop innovating at all.'"

    What followed was even more dramatic. Microsoft, since they could get away with copying, settled for that and stopped innovating. Eventually they imploded and lost their market dominance while Apple has far surpassed them.

    I would never bother buying a Samsung as a replacement for the iPhone, iPad, iPod. Samsung has only a tiny part of the puzzle even if they totally copy Apple's hardware and software. They still lack all of the smooth integration with my laptop / desktop, the iTunes store and the enormous depth of software and other media available on the Macintosh which I use daily to get my work done.

    The point they miss is all of these pieces of hardware are just tools. Tools to let us get our work done or what ever else we're doing. All alone the simple hardware is next to nothing.

    There's another issue too. I don't trust Samsung to continue producing or supporting products. They're too wishy-washy. It is a waste of my time to change every year.

  • by Jerslan (1088525) * on Monday August 20, 2012 @12:06PM (#41056449)
    "But it's what happened next that's really fascinating. Apple didn't stop innovating at all"

    That's a pretty asinine statement. Apple *did* stop innovating for a while (or at least nearly did as all attempts to innovate were dismal failures). They started copying the IBM-clone business model and started looking to outside OS's for the next-gen Mac OS. IIRC BeOS was a strong contender until Apple decided to buy NeXT and turn NeXTStep into Mac OS X. The innovation began again after they brought Steve Jobs back and he killed everything that had been done in the 1990's (after he was ousted). Apple very nearly died not long after that original trial and most analysts thought that even the second coming of Jobs wasn't going to save the company.

    All "evidence" of innovation in this article happened *after* Jobs came back when the company was at death's doorstep. Even more damning for the author is that all of that "evidence" was patented trade dress, design, and technology that Apple has successfully defended (e.g. eMachines tried to make a rip-off of the iMac and got sued by Apple, I owned one because it's what my parents bought me in High School).

    -OS X - Not really Apple's big innovation. It was their acquisition of NeXTStep that lead to OS X and the return of Steve Jobs and innovation at Apple.
    -iMac (original CRT version) - Design championed by Steve Jobs after his return, successfully sued eMachines over copying nearly exactly (even came in several bright colors, I had blue)
    -iPod - Several years *after* the company had regained some footing, IIRC several patents involved with the iPod were also successfully defended
    -iPhone - MANY years *after* the company had become a powerhouse even bigger than before

  • by synapse7 (1075571) on Monday August 20, 2012 @01:53PM (#41057903)
    I mistakenly bought an iphone when I intended to buy a galaxy and now I have to use itunes!

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.

Working...