[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?