# Apple wins . . . **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 25, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548 "2012-08-25T00:03:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/61 "2012-08-26T23:16:53Z")
I think you are confusing Apple’s “design patents” with “utility patents”. “Design patents” are not patents in the conventional sense. They are called patents, and written and documented something like patents, but they are not intended or expected to cover things that are inventions in the typical sense, and have little relation to what people mean when they think of a “patent”. “Design patents” simply cover the “ornamental design” of a functional object. Apple’s design patents covered the specific shape and design of the iPhone, as well as the icons and layout of the home screen. The issuance of the design patents does not imply that that specific shape is an invention or innovative or anything, just that it is the shape of the Apple iPhone. Samsung was found to have violated Apple’s design patents for the design of the iPhone, and for the icons on the home screen. Looking at the picture I posted earlier, it is easy to see why. Note that Apple’s design patent was a lot more specific than “icons in rows”. The jury did not find that Samsung had violated Apple’s design patent for the design of the iPad. This is the source of the famous “rectangle with rounded corners” line, which the jury (apparently) rightly decided was too broad. Regarding the novelty and non-obviousness of Apple’s _utility_ patents, which actually are intended to cover innovations, it is certainly true that the patent office does a piss-poor job of searching for prior art when examining an application. But the law has not changed, and novelty and non-obviousness can still be challenged in court. The fact that the jury decided to uphold Apple’s patents means that either A) Samsung screwed up in making their case, or B) Apple’s patents were in fact novel and non-obvious. In general, I agree that these three Apple utility patents are not shining examples of breathtaking innovation. But I think that people are being a little over-eager to call them “obvious”. You are over-simplifying what the patents actually cover, they are more narrow than simply “zooming”. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/62 "2012-08-26T23:18:06Z")
Another link/review to [Prada](http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/lg-ke850-prada-unlocked/4505-6454_7-32316442.html) ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/63 "2012-08-27T00:26:27Z")
The jury foreman was interviewed yesterday. His comments are interesting. > **[Jury foreman in Apple v. Samsung: Verdict a message that copying is a big risk](https://www.mercurynews.com/2012/08/25/jury-foreman-in-apple-v-samsung-verdict-a-message-that-copying-is-a-big-risk-2/)** > > Jury foreman in Apple v. Samsung: Verdict a message that copying is a big risk Reproduced in part below. > [@](#): > > Hogan described the deliberations in vivid detail, saying the first task was to determine if Apple’s patents were valid because of Samsung’s arguments they were negated by “prior art” in the industry, essentially technology that existed for features such as touch screens before the introduction of the iPhone. Using his own experience getting a patent, Hogan said he had a revelation on the first night of deliberations while he watched television. > > "I was thinking about the patents, and thought, ‘If this were my patent, could I defend it?’ " Hogan recalled. “Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things.” > > Hogan also said the jury did not want to completely buy Apple’s demand for between $2.5 billion and $2.75 billion in damages, saying Apple “can’t be a monopoly.” Jurors settled on a calculation that rested somewhere between Apple and Samsung’s experts. > > Overall, Hogan said, he discounted the parade of high-paid experts on both sides. “You can pay people to say what you want them to say,” he said. > > Ironically, Hogan came into the trial a bit of an Apple skeptic, saying he has never bought the company’s products because he considers them “too pricey.” > > “I wasn’t going to let that influence any of my decisions in this trial,” he said. “I wanted to give Apple and Samsung a fair shake on this.” I am not sure where the claims I’ve seen here and elsewhere that the jury “skipped” the prior art issue are coming from. It sounds to me like the jury went about this as carefully and rationally as could be expected. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/64 "2012-08-27T01:09:39Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > I am not sure where the claims I’ve seen here and elsewhere that the jury “skipped” the prior art issue are coming from. It’s from an [interview with a different member of the jury](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/): > [@](#): > > “After we debated that first patent – what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art.” > “In fact we skipped that one,” Ilagan continued, “so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.” ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/65 "2012-08-27T02:59:09Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > I am always tremendously insulted by statements like this, because I buy Apple products precisely because they are best at staying out of my way and letting me get work done. It strikes me that the people who buy Android phones because they offer freedom to tinker and customize are the ones who are looking for a toy. I don’t want to “tinker” with my fucking phone, I just want it to work. > > Let me point out that the first iPhone did not have any games, nor any entertainment apps (other than Youtube and the music player). It allowed people to check their email, keep notes, keep track of their calendar, and browse the web, as well check the weather, stocks, set alarms, and a few other miscellaneous utility tasks. That was it. Hardly a “toy”. Actually, pretty boring if you want to “goof off”. You couldn’t even play any web-based games because it didn’t support Flash. Games and other “entertainment” apps were not even available at all for another 18 months or so. The first TV ad showed how you can play music, check your email, and read the New York Times website. Not exactly a thrill a minute. I understand this, and I know that the products have always been excellent devices for “productive” tasks–I was just talking about _the marketing_. Haven’t you ever seen the most recent iPhone ads? Even the tone of the first ads were clearly emphasizing the fun value. Don’t you remember when we were told to buy an iMac because “It comes in colors”? Apple wouldn’t be where it is today if all its users were like you. You probably would’ve bought the iPhone no matter what it looked like, or even if it hadn’t had a flashy interface. But you’re the exception. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/66 "2012-08-27T03:33:08Z")
> [@cckerberos](#): > > It’s from an [interview with a different member of the jury](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/): I’d say there’s about a 50% chance that he was misquoted in some fashion. Even with the additional context of the entire article, the quote is pretty hard to parse. But if not, yeah, that’s pretty bad. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/67 "2012-08-27T07:11:51Z")
Hogan, the jury foreman, holds a pretty dubious patent himself. He patented, essentially, the DVR, three years after TIVO came out. Hogan apparently walked the rest of the jury through the patent process before they began making their decisions. That must have cut dramatically into their three tiny days of deliberations, which I saw broken down elsewhere as “1.85 minutes per item if they did nothing but walk in, sit down and start deliberating”. Hard to see how they could have adequately addressed each of the 700 items on the list, and no doubt explains why they bungled and awarded damages on items they’d decided didn’t infringe. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/68 "2012-08-27T07:22:57Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > I understand this, and I know that the products have always been excellent devices for “productive” tasks–I was just talking about _the marketing_. Haven’t you ever seen the most recent iPhone ads? Even the tone of the first ads were clearly emphasizing the fun value. Don’t you remember when we were told to buy an iMac because “It comes in colors”? > > Apple wouldn’t be where it is today if all its users were like you. You probably would’ve bought the iPhone no matter what it looked like, or even if it hadn’t had a flashy interface. But you’re the exception. Hardly the exception. A lot of people know a good product when they see it, and can see how it would benefit them. You seem to be projecting a bit of contempt onto Apple consumers because you thought their commercials were pandering or gimmicky. As if people impulsively jump off their couches upon seeing a purple iMac ad, without looking into the product further. At least have the commonsense of judging a product on its own merits; not its advertising campaign alone (and by proxy, the customers). ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/69 "2012-08-27T07:43:39Z")
Not that they would do it (or maybe they might) but couldn’t Samsung just pay Apple the money it lost in the lawsuit and continue to make the phones like they’ve been doing? ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/70 "2012-08-27T08:42:34Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Not that they would do it (or maybe they might) but couldn’t Samsung just pay Apple the money it lost in the lawsuit and continue to make the phones like they’ve been doing? That’s undoubtedly what will happen, in some shape or form. Samsung’s not going back to making old-style phones in the immediate future. They’ll pay royalties in some form, likely to be a a continuation of their current massive cross-licensing agreements. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/71 "2012-08-27T14:41:23Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Not that they would do it (or maybe they might) but couldn’t Samsung just pay Apple the money it lost in the lawsuit and continue to make the phones like they’ve been doing? No. Apple is not obligated to license the patents to them, and can request that sales of the infringing devices be halted in the US. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/72 "2012-08-27T15:13:06Z")
An article I read put emphasis on the Design Patents that Apple holds and said that was what made the case for Apple. As **Absolute** stated upthread, Design Patents are different than the regular patents that most people are opining about in this thread. Apple’s case boiled down to the Samsung phone LOOKS too much like an iPhone. The jury agreed. Design patents are ridiculously flimsy and easy to circumvent. I had a conversation with a friend (a patent lawyer) on a topic unrelated to Apple or electronics, and he flat out told me that design patents are fairly useless. It is trivially easy to avoid a design patent. If the patented design has a curve, use an elbow instead! Ta da! patent averted. Samsung’s problem is that they DIDN’T avoid the very easily avoided design patents. Instead they copied the look of the iPhone _too much_ and got burned. I believe current incarnations of their phone avoid the Apple Patents. Samsung emails flat out stating that they need to look more like the iPhone didn’t help. I also think that Apple being a US company helped them with a US jury. I’d bet that the same court case in South Korea would result in favor of Samsung. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/73 "2012-08-27T16:11:53Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > At least have the commonsense of judging a product on its own merits; not its advertising campaign alone (and by proxy, the customers). Where have I ever judged the product? Go back and read what I posted. The products are indeed superb. I’ve ONLY talked about the advertising and marketing, which generally portrays the iPhone, for example, as something primarily used for viewing pictures, watching videos, and social networking. And that’s probably 80% of what ALL smart phones are used for. I think from the beginning that was the most significant innovation of Apple–realizing (unlike RIM) that things like that would end up being the real appeal of these devices. Let’s face it–that may not be why you or I buy Apple things, but that’s clearly what Apple thinks will gain more market share for its products, (which are more expensive), and hence the nature of its marketing. They knew that what most people want is something to play around with while they’re waiting in line. ---
**Author:** ![tomcar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tomcar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomcar)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/74 "2012-08-27T16:30:37Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I never said it only includes invention of a new physical object, but it’s supposed to be: > > 1. Non-obvious > 2. A significant improvement over the state of the art. > > I’m not just saying that is how patents should work, that’s actually the patent law. And there are many, many examples where patent law is not really being enforced appropriately in the software industry. > > Slide to unlock was present in a 2005 Windows CE phone that predates the iPhone. Icons displayed in a tiled format date back to the 1980s, just because you do it on a phone that doesn’t mean it should be patented. That’s again, like saying the first company to think “oh shit, let’s put a bluetooth receiver inside a car!” should get a patent on “bluetooth in cars.” That’s ridiculous. > > Yes, their interface was unique. Unique does not instantly make it something that you’re supposed to issue a patent for, lots of things are unique without being inventions worthy of patent protection. > > But lots of elements in the iPhone UI were present in previous phone UIs. Have you seen the home screen of older BlackBerry, WindowsCE, even Symbian phones? They all had a home screen with a tile of icons. > > Do you know what the specific novelty requirements are for a patent? Is it your contention that anything that is unique can be patented? > > The LG Prada already mentioned, which was developed and announced before the iPhone, had a large touchscreen and a form factor very similar to an iPhone. That invalidates a lot of the claims that Apple was just totally inventing some new thing here. Actually take a look at the Prada, which beat the first iPhone to market. It has a large capacitive touchscreen, a small bar at the bottom with three physical buttons and no keyboard. Obviously your claim that the iPhone was the first phone to have no physical keyboard is simply false. > > Not only is it false, it’s ludicrously false. Are you aware that IBM actually released a cell phone in 1994 as a proof of concept with a touchscreen and no physical keys? > > Various products like Adobe Acrobat, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Microsoft Word and probably software going back more than 15 years has similar features to the automatic zooming. > > The patents actually at issue for the Samsung case was the rubber band effect, automatic zoom, slide to unlock, and four “design” patents. If you look at the LG Prada it is almost impossible for me to understand how the iPhone could receive a patent for a form factor and appearance that was more or less already out there. Again, patents are supposed to represent a “significant improvement over the state of the art” precisely because minor tinkerings are not supposed to get patents. If you look at the LG Prada, sure it isn’t quite as attractive as the first iPhone but it is a leap to say the form factor of the first iPhone is “a significant difference or improvement” over the LG Prada form factor. > > The slide to unlock and autozoom features are not new at all, and we can prove slide to unlock on a 2005 Windows CE phone almost 3 full years before the first iPhone was ever released. The rubber band effect may be the one unique thing, but to me that’s like patenting a specific type of transitional animation. It’s just ridiculous. > > If the original idea isn’t something that can be patented then there is really nothing wrong with cloning. Cloning is pretty much standard in all industries. Patents are supposed to be very significant processes and inventions, not vague all encompassing claims (which is what you are making.) Apple’s patents aren’t for the “OS as a whole” either, they are for specific features in the OS that really don’t appear to be novel and were actually prior art (meaning others had already released products doing exactly the same thing, which invalidates the patent innately.) > > Non-obvious is supposed to be analyzed under the “legal fiction” of an “technical expert in the field” if a technical expert in the field would not be able to obviously come up with something then you can say it’s passed one of the patent requirements. > > The UK actually struck down all these patents that were involved in this specific case, so obviously you are mistaken about the actualities of UK and US patent law. The truth is the US patents are no more valid, we just have inferior courts apparently when it comes to analyzing patent law. You do realize the jury literally admitted they ignored the prior art argument (an extremely important point when it comes to patents) because it was “too confusing” and just decided “hey, Apple has a patent so obviously they’re in the right.” > > The problem is we have patent examiners for technology products who are rubber stamping patent applications and courts aren’t really doing their due diligence to second guess that process. > > I shudder to think if big players like IBM had been given patents for all the little piddly elements of computer interfaces and operating systems how stifled computer innovation would have been. > > For that matter, when personal computers first became a big business in the 1980s most of the software that was created were adaptations of popular types of software being used on mainframes. What if the first person to port a spreadsheet program to a personal computer patented it? Because obviously “first spreadsheet on a PC” is so fundamentally, earth-shatteringly different from the same exact product on a mainframe it is deserving of a patent :dubious:. No, there is a reason that back in the 80s these frivolous software patents would not have held water. > > I wish I could find his name now, but there is a former U.S. Appellate Judge who stated in the 80s that the rise of software patents is one of the greatest threats to the computer industry and I think we’re finally starting to realize it now because of the critical mass of patents that the big players have. I don’t understand. If LG already patented all these things, when they developed them for the Prada, how did Apple patent them? ---
**Author:** ![Krouget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b38774/32.png) [@Krouget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Krouget)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/75 "2012-08-27T20:35:46Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Still, I feel they developed a serious game-changing device that has inspired nothing but copy-cats by the major players in the smartphone arena. How lame. That’s an interesting stance to take, really. Apple and iOS, in general, have both benefited from those same players, by implementing similar features into iOS. If you look at the gradual evolution of iOS, you’ll see that it’s almost a direct result of the competition offered by other mobile operating systems, especially with the additions to iOS 5. In the end, the consumer benefits when the two operating systems are allowed to borrow ideas and implement them with tweaked or advanced features. It’s, at the very base, feeding the market what the market is asking for. What you will see next, is that Apple will finally move to a larger display…again, largely because the market has demanded it (and Android has offered it, thus forcing Apple to adapt). In the end, Apple, Samsung, Google, etc. are all mega-rich companies, none of which are being hurt due to lack of minor features, such as “local search”, or lack of a rounded curve on their squared device. Those are frivolous details which hurt the average consumer when it comes to choice. Imagine if an entire line of cars were pulled off the market, because they both shared a similar radio dial, tail light design, or C-pillar-- that’s what we’re dealing with, when it comes to some of these bogus software and trade-dress patents. Apple already has first-to-market advantage, and in all honest, doesn’t seem to be hurting much from Samsung. The iPhone is the alpha player in most markets and so is the iPad. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/76 "2012-08-27T23:05:54Z")
Really? Apple’s global market share for smartphones has declined from 18.8% to 16.9% in [the last year](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/worldwide-market-share-for-smartphones-a-market-dominated-by-apple-and-android/2012/08/24/7d51fe0c-ee4a-11e1-b624-99dee49d8d67_story.html). Apple ranks 7th in the chinese smartphone market [(7.5% vs Samsung’s 20.8%)](http://www.pcbdesign007.com/pages/zone.cgi?a=86156&artpg=1), having seen their market share halve in just one year. And China’s the biggest mobile market by far, with over [1 billion subscribers.](http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/a#subscribers). It seems to me that Samsung (and the other Android manufacturers) are hurting Apple plenty. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/77 "2012-08-27T23:23:28Z")
With Apple claiming rights to stuff they obviously don’t own, what’s to stop other companies from going after them? For example, iOS First Generation UI (introduced in 2007): [http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://www.iphonereviews.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/apple-iphone-1st-generation.jpg](http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://www.iphonereviews.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/apple-iphone-1st-generation.jpg) Wii Start Screen UI (introduced in 2006): [http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://www.vooks.net/images/moarwiishop1.jpg](http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://www.vooks.net/images/moarwiishop1.jpg) They’re pretty similar and look ever more similar when compared to the AppleTV interface. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/78 "2012-08-27T23:39:57Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > Really? Apple’s global market share for smartphones has declined from 18.8% to 16.9% in [the last year](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/worldwide-market-share-for-smartphones-a-market-dominated-by-apple-and-android/2012/08/24/7d51fe0c-ee4a-11e1-b624-99dee49d8d67_story.html). Apple ranks 7th in the chinese smartphone market [(7.5% vs Samsung’s 20.8%)](http://www.pcbdesign007.com/pages/zone.cgi?a=86156&artpg=1), having seen their market share halve in just one year. And China’s the biggest mobile market by far, with over [1 billion subscribers.](http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/a#subscribers). > > It seems to me that Samsung (and the other Android manufacturers) are hurting Apple plenty. I think a lot of that has to do with the ability for people in other countries to pick and chose phones, without having to be tied to specific service providers, like we are in the US. People in other countries have many more options in tech and price, than we do; giving them more buying options and they’re not always choosing iPhones. I think if people had to pay ‘full’ price for an iPhone, as opposed to the subsidized, phone contract price, you would see similar buying habits here that you see globally. I mean, a no commitment ATT iPhone is $650 (low end) and $850 on the high end, do you really think they would selling them in any numbers here at that price? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/79 "2012-08-27T23:49:59Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > Where have I ever judged the product? Go back and read what I posted. The products are indeed superb. I’ve ONLY talked about the advertising and marketing, which generally portrays the iPhone, for example, as something primarily used for viewing pictures, watching videos, and social networking. And that’s probably 80% of what ALL smart phones are used for. I think from the beginning that was the most significant innovation of Apple–realizing (unlike RIM) that things like that would end up being the real appeal of these devices. Let’s face it–that may not be why you or I buy Apple things, but that’s clearly what Apple thinks will gain more market share for its products, (which are more expensive), and hence the nature of its marketing. They knew that what most people want is something to play around with while they’re waiting in line. So what? Jobs’s goal wasn’t to merely just give people waiting in line a ‘funner’ way to kill time. He wanted to put the same power that everyone from a teenager, to a corporate executive enjoyed from their PCs: Not just another “smartphone,” but a pocket-sized _Mac,_ that also made calls. The cellphone aspect is worked in as basically another aspect of the device on par with everything else it offers, and seamlessly integrated between its other apps, like Google Maps… [This was totally novel.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SaBjMHtQqo) No other company had the wherewithal, vision, or leadership to make it happen on all facets of the myriad of challenges involved (and they were huge challenges) to make it marketable, usable and affordable. So, of course they were going to show off the aspects of the phone that would demonstrate, “psst… hey, this isn’t really a ‘smartphone’… it’s a _mini-computer. Use it for fun or use it for work, whatever… now, finally, you only need one device in your pocket._” Also, for everything Apple wanted the device to allow users to do, you needed something as fluid, if not more so than a mouse, and hard keys or a track ball was right-out. Of course, the multi-touch screen and gestures made it all possible in the way they implemented it into the UI. Jobs was trying to create this thing since 2002. He worked with Motorola, to try and realize it, but it only resulted in the highly disappointing [ROKR](http://direct.motorola.com/hellomoto/rokr/) in 2005. That’s when he said “Fuck it, we’ll do it all ourselves.” And the rest is history. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548/80 "2012-08-28T00:15:39Z")
> [@Krouget](#): > > That’s an interesting stance to take, really. Apple and iOS, in general, have both benefited from those same players, by implementing similar features into iOS. If you look at the gradual evolution of iOS, you’ll see that it’s almost a direct result of the competition offered by other mobile operating systems, especially with the additions to iOS 5. > > In the end, the consumer benefits when the two operating systems are allowed to borrow ideas and implement them with tweaked or advanced features. It’s, at the very base, feeding the market what the market is asking for. What you will see next, is that Apple will finally move to a larger display…again, largely because the market has demanded it (and Android has offered it, thus forcing Apple to adapt). > > In the end, Apple, Samsung, Google, etc. are all mega-rich companies, none of which are being hurt due to lack of minor features, such as “local search”, or lack of a rounded curve on their squared device. Those are frivolous details which hurt the average consumer when it comes to choice. Imagine if an entire line of cars were pulled off the market, because they both shared a similar radio dial, tail light design, or C-pillar-- that’s what we’re dealing with, when it comes to some of these bogus software and trade-dress patents. > > Apple already has first-to-market advantage, and in all honest, doesn’t seem to be hurting much from Samsung. The iPhone is the alpha player in most markets and so is the iPad. I don’t disagree that their patents are bogus. If anyone’s at fault, it’s the patent office that awarded them these things, and perhaps the jury who voted in favor of Apple. Apple’s suit can be seen as a dirty move in that light, but that’s why I say this whole patent business is just a smokescreen for the real issue at hand: Attempting to maintain as much hold on the mobile user base for iOS as they can, in any way they can. Also, Apple may or may not eventually come out with a bigger phone, but I doubt it. It’s the size it is because they determined that was the most comfortable size to hold when making calls. In fact, to the contrary, there’s rumors now of an iPad Mini… but that’s neither here or there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apple-wins/632548.md?page=5)