[bugs]

Apple is really starting to subscribe to the competition is bad for business standpoint and it really is starting to get annoying.

You can see that apple really wants to be the smartphone distributor but they really can only do that two ways: create a cheaper phone or remove the cheaper competing phones from competition

For me I put my support into google I have a droid and like it very much and the iphone on the other hand was not meant for me but this fueding between apple and the tech world makes me not want to support apple.

[Perceval]

Well, you know that Apple will be unwilling to make a "cheaper" phone. They are in the 'premium computing device' business—i.e. they'll never sell something perceived as cheap, they'll never cut features in order to get the price down.

I think what we're seeing here is partly a tragic flaw in Steve Jobs's persona. He obviously has an issue when he feels that his innovation has been ripped off. What we may be seeing here is a replay of the 'look and feel' type dispute between Jobs and Gates. Jobs felt that his innovation was simply ripped off by a cheaper, tasteless knockoff (and in a sense he was right). In the end, there was nothing Jobs could do about it. Now he feels like the same thing happened. Just as Jobs had shown Gates his ideas in confidence and was then ripped off, Jobs likely feels the same way about Schmidt--he took Schmidt into his confidence, allowed him to be privy to Jobs's vision, and now Google is producing graceless copies of what he's worked so hard on.

Obviously Google's side of the story may be true—they bought Android and developed it for a long time, well before the iPhone was revealed. Apple doesn't necessarily have a right to prevent other companies from copying touch interfaces and other aspects of the iPhone that were unique when it was first introduced. But if I were Steve Jobs I might feel like the same thing that happened to me in the early '90s is in danger of happening to me again in the late '00s / early '10s. It's one of those fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me situations, and I'm sure it's frustrating for Jobs at a time when he's rightly perceived as being at the top of his game.

[matasar]

While it's nice to build a cool narrative around Steve Jobs and a long time "tragic flaw," this doesn't hold up. Steve Jobs was not at Apple when they sued Microsoft. It was filed in 1988[1], and Jobs was forced out of Apple in 1985 [2].

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso.... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

[Perceval]

You're right that the lawsuit itself was not Jobs's personal doing, but the acrimonious personal dispute between Jobs and Gates certainly was about 'look and feel' and the perception that Gates knocked off Jobs's innovation. Gates was brought in by Jobs and shown his project in order to get Microsoft on board for Mac software. Then Gates came out with what Jobs thought was an imitation of the Mac UI, an imitation he believed that Gates could only have done by copying what Jobs had shown him.

Jobs's perceptions in that case or in the current case with Schmidt may not be accurate or just, but that doesn't mean they don't play an important psychological role in Apple's current strategy toward HTC, Google, and Microsoft.

[nkassis]

while Pirates of Silicon valley was a cool movie, it wasn't exactly a good recount of the whole affair. In fact, Microsoft really mostly took their idea from the same exact place Apple did, Xerox. They even hired many Xerox employees to work on Windows.

Jobs seems incapable of believing that two companies can come up with similar products at the same time. The iPhone did not include any technology not already available elsewhere. It was the package as a whole that made it innovative.

[megaduck]

While I agree with your sentiments, it should be pointed out that Steve Jobs had nothing to do with the 'look and feel' lawsuit against Microsoft.

'Apple Computer, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation' was filed in 1988, and finally resolved in 1994. Steve Jobs was at NeXT the whole time.

[GHFigs]

they really can only do that two ways

You left out differentiation, which has always been Apple's primary way of competing. Differentiation becomes a lot harder when the competition can simply copy you.

[thwarted]

Apple already did differentiation, that's how they became a leader in smartphone products and sales. It took how long for the competition to "copy" Apple? How much has Apple's market share, and market cap, increased since the original iPhone differentiating point? Maybe it's time Apple start differentiating their products again, now that the tech that made them different to begin with is commodity.

[rjurney]

What you are suggesting is exactly what has happened: It is called the iPad, with books and periodicals in iTunes to boot. By his own admission, it is the first device to satisfy the ultimate vision of Alan Kay, the father of the modern personal computer. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook

The interface potential of this device is enormous. Expect to see a whole new generation of must-have applications taking advantage of multitouch on a larger screen.

[bad_user]

> it is the first device to satisfy the ultimate vision of Alan Kay

I thought Alan Kay's ultimate vision were computers that can be hacked by anyone, hence Smalltalk. Oh well ...

[rjurney]

Hah! Touche, yeah the closed platform was not his vision at all, but the iPhone dev kit must be good enough he is quoted as saying that a bigger iPhone would constitute a dynabook.

[doron]

even so, the ipad technology will become a technology that is common as muck in even shorter time it took the industry to mimic and build on the concept of the iphone. what then?

[rjurney]

If Apple can continuously innovate to a large degree, it can stay ahead. It seems to be doing just that.

But yeah - the open vs. closed platform does seem exactly like the battle for the PC. Apple seems primed to lose the bulk of the market once again.

[Retric]

This is the situation patents and IP law where designed to deal with. The real cost of innovation includes all the the failed ideas. When people can wait for a first mover and then copy them there is little to no value in being a first mover.

Perhaps some sort of short term look and feel right with a mandatory licensing agreement might be the best way to deal with this stuff. You can make as many iPhone / iPad knockoffs as you want but you need to pay 10 cents a pop.

[doron]

Apple might then owe lots of money to palm if that would be the case.

[thwarted]

Yes, Apple continues to innovate in new areas, but being a leader doesn't seem to be enough for them/Jobs if they are going to attempt to keep their leadership in markets that are becoming a commodity by enforcing patents on what amounts to commodity technologies.

It can actually be a pretty wilily to upset one industry, let everyone spend their time catching up and dealing with it becoming a commodity, while you move on to upset the next industry. Apple is doing that with the iPad, and they still have, and will continue to have, a lead position in the smart phone market letting them have some influence over where that industry is headed, especially with things like the App store and their market penetration. But how much time and effort is it worth looking back at previous industries they've upset while they upset the next industry? Apple has had more success at exploiting their good brand name to enter markets that they wouldn't necessarily have been in and upsetting them, complaining about other companies copying them, after they've already reaped the rewards for their effort (and continue to do so), is not the mark of a true leader.

[GHFigs]

enforcing patents on what amounts to commodity technologies

Such as?

[GHFigs]

now that the tech that made them different to begin with is commodity

I was referring to the strategy, not any technology. What are you referring to, specifically?

[codexon]

Apple is really starting to subscribe to the competition is bad for business standpoint.

Competition is bad for any company that seeks to maximize profits. That is just a fact of life. You cannot hope to innovate forever and expect demand to grow or even remain steady for all but a few markets.

A monopoly is bad for the consumer (most of you) but it is definitely good for the company.

[Tycho]

To maintain a monopoly in itself would be expensive and not necessarily the way to maximum profits (there is always the threat of outside investors). Innovation of course costs money but if a company remains stagnant (because its profits are unaffected by competition) then it runs the long term risk of becoming obsolete when substitute technology comes onto the market. You could say competition is a short-term cost but non-competition is a long-term disaster.

In Apple's case, though, there's already plenty of tough competition going on.

[ohashi]

in the short run.

[glhaynes]

"Competition is a sin." — John D. Rockefeller

[dangoldin]

That's why he tried to crush all his competition - to remove sin.