Not if it's from a company who blatantly copies Apple's work. Let them produce their own product and I'll be happy to consider them.
Indeed, competition from copycats does not drive innovation, but it does make it harder for innovative new comers to enter the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Your telling me that an over 90% market share of the tablet market isnt "monopolistic"? And the legal tactics currently being used to further those market share numbers isnt "monopolistic" either? I came to the right website.
Success != Monopoly
The real test here would be acting in an anti-competitive way (Like MS not allowing VARs to sell machines with alternate OS). Defending intellectual property is not anti-competitive behavior, no matter how much Google and HTC want to pretend like it is. If they truly believe that, they should both release all of their patents to the public domain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh
...
As for legal tactics, monopolies can't even use courts as an advantage because they automatically are at a disadvantage with regards to the law. A regular company has more rights than a company with a monopoly. Look at Microsoft. Had Microsoft gone to court demanding that OEM's not include Netscape in their computers, not only would they have been laughed out of court but also fined.
As someone mentioned before, a monopolistic tactic would be for Apple to refuse to allow devs to make apps for other devices or something similar.
I think the thing that could cause them problems eventually is pricing requirements on electronic books, it may not since I doubt iBooks will ever have a dominant position in that market. If they were to completely shut out alternative reader software on the iPad however, it would get messy.
I think the thing that could cause them problems eventually is pricing requirements on electronic books, it may not since I doubt iBooks will ever have a dominant position in that market. If they were to completely shut out alternative reader software on the iPad however, it would get messy.
The app store is a private entity like any other brick & mortar shop. Banning or a lack of software in the app store could not fall under any definitions of a monopoly. If Wal-Mart decided it wanted to only sell their own brand of toilet paper and kick out Charmin, it would not make Wal-Mart a monopoly.
You've got one in here: cloudgazer. The ID tells it all.
And why the double standard?
Give it a rest. You've got the relentlessness unto incoherence of either a zealot or an employee. Cloudgazer comes across like a thoughtful human being, and as he says his thoughts not infrequently lead him to disagree with both Apple and the reflexively Apple supporting.
"I know you are but what am I" isn't throwing anyone off the scent.
That's a pretty harsh indictment against so many of the regulars here: hardly a day goes by without someone accusing someone else of being a paid troll.
lulz
I wish I were paid to post instead of doing actual work. Heck, emoticons would be my tool of choice since it requires less thought.
That's a pretty harsh indictment against so many of the regulars here: hardly a day goes by without someone accusing someone else of being a paid troll.
lulz
True, and I think it's normally not justified, but in Galbi's case I've broken my rule and called it, because it's just hard to believe that anybody could be so devoted to Samsung without a financial angle. I can understand apple fanboys and fandroids. If I close one eye and tilt my head I can almost understand MS fanboys. But sorry, not samsung.
He doesn't even stay to argue his bizarre statements 90% of the time, he just posts some clearly erroneous rubbish and then leaves.
The app store is a private entity like any other brick & mortar shop. Banning or a lack of software in the app store could not fall under any definitions of a monopoly. If Wal-Mart decided it wanted to only sell their own brand of toilet paper and kick out Charmin, it would not make Wal-Mart a monopoly.
It's a little different since the App store is the only source of Apps for iPads and iPhones, whereas you could go to a different big-box store for your toilet paper. It's more akin to the situation in the game console market where you cannot publish for WIi or PS or XBox without paying the platform owner and potentially gaining approval.
In the event that Apple were found to hold a monopoly on smartphones or tablet computers the App Store approval process would likely come under serious scrutiny, but we're a long old ways from that.
There's a lot of detailed design in how the enclosure looks. The shape of the edges, corners, back etc. How wide are the margins, are they symmetric or asymmetric? What do the connectors look like even. Samsung did their utmost with all of those design decisions to make a device that resembled the iPad-2 as closely as they could - they even went from using a micro USB connector to an iPod-style proprietary connector.
Apple is even accusing them of copying the multi-fulcrum volume rocker which seems completely unnecessary - why couldn't they just have used two buttons or an old style rocker? Obviously because that wouldn't be sufficiently similar to an iPad.
IMO, they all look so similar that the differences are insignificant.
It's a little different since the App store is the only source of Apps for iPads and iPhones, whereas you could go to a different big-box store for your toilet paper. It's more akin to the situation in the game console market where you cannot publish for WIi or PS or XBox without paying the platform owner and potentially gaining approval.
In the event that Apple were found to hold a monopoly on smartphones or tablet computers the App Store approval process would likely come under serious scrutiny, but we're a long old ways from that.
I disagree with your first paragraph because the console example is the same as my Wal-Mart example. Yeah, you can't get the app in the particular store but you can choose another product, another store (cydia since jailbreaking cannot be considered illegal) or open a developer account and create your own.
I agree with your second paragraph in the sense that a dev could accuse Apple of not approving his/her app because Apple knew that they were also planning to develop for a competing platform or that Apple is playing favorites with another developer because that particular developer promised exclusivity. Even if it wasn't true, Apple would have to be much more transparent in their app approval process.
Or do you just mean that somebody tried to make something but it was a flop, and then Apple came along and innovated HW, SW, interface, form factor, function, engineering, (all with patent protection) used innovative pricing, and marketing and kicked the first company's ass? That kind of stealing?
I honestly don't know about Samsung, but anyone who seriously believes that Apple actually pays people to cheer them on in sites like AppleInsider is probably borderline delusional.
I can't see why apple wouldn't use this marketing strategy, given that they have an image which would benefit quite a lot from such marketing. It's one of the best ways to bind costumers to your company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh
As for legal tactics, monopolies can't even use courts as an advantage because they automatically are at a disadvantage with regards to the law. A regular company has more rights than a company with a monopoly. Look at Microsoft. Had Microsoft gone to court demanding that OEM's not include Netscape in their computers, not only would they have been laughed out of court but also fined.
In the end they still found other ways to force netscape out of their computers.
To add to the discussion on monopolies and such:
If the courts believe Apple to be close to reaching a monopoly, the judges - even though apple may be right on their patent cases - may judge in favor (not meaning a "win") of Samsung, to keep the market in place.
In the end they still found other ways to force netscape out of their computers.
Well that was my whole point. Monopolies don't use courts to snuff out competition so the accusation that this is "monopolistic tactics" is silly and misinformed.
If the courts believe Apple to be close to reaching a monopoly, the judges - even though apple may be right on their patent cases - may judge in favor (not meaning a "win") of Samsung, to keep the market in place.
Actually this is not the case, patent law doesn't contain any anti-trust provision. In the event that Apple is ever found to hold a monopoly the judgement might be restricted to damages and royalties, and might require Apple to license patents under 'reasonable' terms. But short of a formal anti-trust action, which requires more than merely possessing a monopoly, Apple wouldn't be denied the right to profit from their IP.
Quote:
I can't see why apple wouldn't use this marketing strategy, given that they have an image which would benefit quite a lot from such marketing. It's one of the best ways to bind costumers to your company.
For all that Apple is amazingly good at marketing, it really isn't big on PR, especially that kind of slippery PR that entails paid shills or illicit wiki edits. Remember this?
Well that was my whole point. Monopolies don't use courts to snuff out competition so the accusation that this is "monopolistic tactics" is silly and misinformed.
It's complicated - if you're interested there is a weighty DoJ paper on IP and anti-trust
Comments
Not if it's from a company who blatantly copies Apple's work. Let them produce their own product and I'll be happy to consider them.
Indeed, competition from copycats does not drive innovation, but it does make it harder for innovative new comers to enter the market.
Your telling me that an over 90% market share of the tablet market isnt "monopolistic"? And the legal tactics currently being used to further those market share numbers isnt "monopolistic" either? I came to the right website.
Success != Monopoly
The real test here would be acting in an anti-competitive way (Like MS not allowing VARs to sell machines with alternate OS). Defending intellectual property is not anti-competitive behavior, no matter how much Google and HTC want to pretend like it is. If they truly believe that, they should both release all of their patents to the public domain.
...
As for legal tactics, monopolies can't even use courts as an advantage because they automatically are at a disadvantage with regards to the law. A regular company has more rights than a company with a monopoly. Look at Microsoft. Had Microsoft gone to court demanding that OEM's not include Netscape in their computers, not only would they have been laughed out of court but also fined.
As someone mentioned before, a monopolistic tactic would be for Apple to refuse to allow devs to make apps for other devices or something similar.
I think the thing that could cause them problems eventually is pricing requirements on electronic books, it may not since I doubt iBooks will ever have a dominant position in that market. If they were to completely shut out alternative reader software on the iPad however, it would get messy.
asians have made great contributions in many areas of mathematics and physics.
Pshh. All they have "contributed" are copies and more copies.
I think the thing that could cause them problems eventually is pricing requirements on electronic books, it may not since I doubt iBooks will ever have a dominant position in that market. If they were to completely shut out alternative reader software on the iPad however, it would get messy.
The app store is a private entity like any other brick & mortar shop. Banning or a lack of software in the app store could not fall under any definitions of a monopoly. If Wal-Mart decided it wanted to only sell their own brand of toilet paper and kick out Charmin, it would not make Wal-Mart a monopoly.
You've got one in here: cloudgazer. The ID tells it all.
And why the double standard?
Give it a rest. You've got the relentlessness unto incoherence of either a zealot or an employee. Cloudgazer comes across like a thoughtful human being, and as he says his thoughts not infrequently lead him to disagree with both Apple and the reflexively Apple supporting.
"I know you are but what am I" isn't throwing anyone off the scent.
Good on yer Ozzies!
As an Aussie I am disgusted by this and I would not be the only one...
That's a pretty harsh indictment against so many of the regulars here: hardly a day goes by without someone accusing someone else of being a paid troll.
lulz
I wish I were paid to post instead of doing actual work. Heck, emoticons would be my tool of choice since it requires less thought.
That's a pretty harsh indictment against so many of the regulars here: hardly a day goes by without someone accusing someone else of being a paid troll.
lulz
True, and I think it's normally not justified, but in Galbi's case I've broken my rule and called it, because it's just hard to believe that anybody could be so devoted to Samsung without a financial angle. I can understand apple fanboys and fandroids. If I close one eye and tilt my head I can almost understand MS fanboys. But sorry, not samsung.
He doesn't even stay to argue his bizarre statements 90% of the time, he just posts some clearly erroneous rubbish and then leaves.
The app store is a private entity like any other brick & mortar shop. Banning or a lack of software in the app store could not fall under any definitions of a monopoly. If Wal-Mart decided it wanted to only sell their own brand of toilet paper and kick out Charmin, it would not make Wal-Mart a monopoly.
It's a little different since the App store is the only source of Apps for iPads and iPhones, whereas you could go to a different big-box store for your toilet paper. It's more akin to the situation in the game console market where you cannot publish for WIi or PS or XBox without paying the platform owner and potentially gaining approval.
In the event that Apple were found to hold a monopoly on smartphones or tablet computers the App Store approval process would likely come under serious scrutiny, but we're a long old ways from that.
It could look like
or any of the Lenovo offerings
There's a lot of detailed design in how the enclosure looks. The shape of the edges, corners, back etc. How wide are the margins, are they symmetric or asymmetric? What do the connectors look like even. Samsung did their utmost with all of those design decisions to make a device that resembled the iPad-2 as closely as they could - they even went from using a micro USB connector to an iPod-style proprietary connector.
Apple is even accusing them of copying the multi-fulcrum volume rocker which seems completely unnecessary - why couldn't they just have used two buttons or an old style rocker? Obviously because that wouldn't be sufficiently similar to an iPad.
IMO, they all look so similar that the differences are insignificant.
It's a little different since the App store is the only source of Apps for iPads and iPhones, whereas you could go to a different big-box store for your toilet paper. It's more akin to the situation in the game console market where you cannot publish for WIi or PS or XBox without paying the platform owner and potentially gaining approval.
In the event that Apple were found to hold a monopoly on smartphones or tablet computers the App Store approval process would likely come under serious scrutiny, but we're a long old ways from that.
I disagree with your first paragraph because the console example is the same as my Wal-Mart example. Yeah, you can't get the app in the particular store but you can choose another product, another store (cydia since jailbreaking cannot be considered illegal) or open a developer account and create your own.
I agree with your second paragraph in the sense that a dev could accuse Apple of not approving his/her app because Apple knew that they were also planning to develop for a competing platform or that Apple is playing favorites with another developer because that particular developer promised exclusivity. Even if it wasn't true, Apple would have to be much more transparent in their app approval process.
You've got one in here: cloudgazer. The ID tells it all.
Let me spell this out: I d-i-d n-o-t m-e-a-n cloudgazer.
And why the double standard?
What 'double standard'? I said I have no clue about Samsung. I could care less about that company. I was talking about Apple.
..... he just posts some clearly erroneous rubbish and then leaves.
The seagull theory of posting.
QUOTE=cloudgazer;1912544]I think that's a pretty clear indication of how sure Apple are that they'll win the suit.[/QUOTE]
Oh, Apple steals stuff all the time.
And what do you think they have stolen?
Were there valid patents Involved?
Or do you just mean that somebody tried to make something but it was a flop, and then Apple came along and innovated HW, SW, interface, form factor, function, engineering, (all with patent protection) used innovative pricing, and marketing and kicked the first company's ass? That kind of stealing?
I honestly don't know about Samsung, but anyone who seriously believes that Apple actually pays people to cheer them on in sites like AppleInsider is probably borderline delusional.
I can't see why apple wouldn't use this marketing strategy, given that they have an image which would benefit quite a lot from such marketing. It's one of the best ways to bind costumers to your company.
As for legal tactics, monopolies can't even use courts as an advantage because they automatically are at a disadvantage with regards to the law. A regular company has more rights than a company with a monopoly. Look at Microsoft. Had Microsoft gone to court demanding that OEM's not include Netscape in their computers, not only would they have been laughed out of court but also fined.
In the end they still found other ways to force netscape out of their computers.
To add to the discussion on monopolies and such:
If the courts believe Apple to be close to reaching a monopoly, the judges - even though apple may be right on their patent cases - may judge in favor (not meaning a "win") of Samsung, to keep the market in place.
In the end they still found other ways to force netscape out of their computers.
Well that was my whole point. Monopolies don't use courts to snuff out competition so the accusation that this is "monopolistic tactics" is silly and misinformed.
If the courts believe Apple to be close to reaching a monopoly, the judges - even though apple may be right on their patent cases - may judge in favor (not meaning a "win") of Samsung, to keep the market in place.
Actually this is not the case, patent law doesn't contain any anti-trust provision. In the event that Apple is ever found to hold a monopoly the judgement might be restricted to damages and royalties, and might require Apple to license patents under 'reasonable' terms. But short of a formal anti-trust action, which requires more than merely possessing a monopoly, Apple wouldn't be denied the right to profit from their IP.
I can't see why apple wouldn't use this marketing strategy, given that they have an image which would benefit quite a lot from such marketing. It's one of the best ways to bind costumers to your company.
For all that Apple is amazingly good at marketing, it really isn't big on PR, especially that kind of slippery PR that entails paid shills or illicit wiki edits. Remember this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...l-reply-latest
Well that was my whole point. Monopolies don't use courts to snuff out competition so the accusation that this is "monopolistic tactics" is silly and misinformed.
It's complicated - if you're interested there is a weighty DoJ paper on IP and anti-trust
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/innovatio...ionrpt0704.pdf