Originally Posted by jragosta
In the short run, you may be correct. In the long run, however, consumers benefit when INNOVATORS exist. Copyists do not really benefit consumers in the long run.
Currently, if I want an iPhone, I have to choose from either Verizon or AT&T. Want a slide-out keyboard? Sorry, screw you.
Want LTE? Sorry, screw you.
Want WiMAX? Sorry, screw you.
Want a screen size larger than 3.5 inches? Sorry, screw you.
Want a dual-core processor, removable battery, removable storage (microSD), HDMI-out? Sorry, screw... oh well, you get the point.
I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that Google is a saint when it comes to patent laws on the SOFTWARE side. But to say that consumers don't benefit from having the variety that Android HARDWARE brings? I think that's being a bit disingenuous.
The problem with many in this community is that we've been taught that if Apple says that "It should be done this way", then we just go along with it. If Apple says no to LTE, it must because they have a good reason. If Apple says no to removable storage, then they know better than everyone else. If Apple says keyboards suck, well so be it.
Not all consumers want to be told what they can and can't have when it comes to a device that's on them 24-7-365. For me, my iPhone 4 is perfect. But I'm glad that Android manufacturers give consumers the choice that Apple doesn't.
No one is suggesting that Android should be killed because it benefits Apple. Oracle is suggesting (if the article is correct) that Google should be enjoined from blatantly stealing technology that they do not have a right to.
I don't have a problem with this. If Google f**ked up, then by all means punish them. But Android is "Too big to fail"