Apple's legal effort to bar Samsung tablets, smartphones extends to Japan

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,068member
    There could soon come a time that the hardware/software costs of a smartphone could pale next to the IP licensing fees demanded of it. I'm going to do some research when I have time, but I would not be at all surprised to find that even current IP licensing costs might exceed $60 per average smartphone. Tack on another $5 there for Nokia, or $12 here for Microsoft, and $3 on the way to HTC with perhaps another $5 going to Samsung as a result of some lawsuit and the fees quickly add up.



    While you may not see overall smartphone prices going up substantially, they should be coming down a lot 4 years into this. Example: I walked thru WalMart the other night on the way for a fishing license. There's an aisle display for countertop convection ovens. My wife and I bought one perhaps 6, maybe 7 years ago, spending well over $100 at the time. Yet those Walmart ovens were priced at $19.97! For an electronic appliance! And worse, that means Walmart paid much less than that to get them. perhaps as little as $10.



    So why are we paying such high prices for fairly common, high demand, high turnover, reasonably easy to build electronics in a 4 year old market? The hardware isn't getting more expensive, so where are the costs coming from? Suppose HTC has to pay Microsoft another $7 in licensing on a smartphone. You think that hurts HTC? You can bet you're essentially buying the IP, not the manufacturer. They just pass it on.
  • Reply 42 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Because carriers are subsidizing devices more than ever before and stuffing as much bloatware onto them as they can, making it easier and easier to go over your usage. Prices are increasing.



    There's two ways to increase the profitability of a candy bar:

    1: increase the price

    2: reduce it's size and keep the same price.



    Can't multi quote since it's now split between two pages but I'll try to reply accurately.



    1) sorry but even without patents I don't see a start up creating a new phone ex nihilo. Development, manufacturing and marketing costs big bucks. Long gone are the days of building kit in a garage. Also, everybody has to pay FRAND which means the costs are what everyone else has to pay. That (IMO) is fair. Want to add new features? Come up with something unique which is what many, many other companies have done. Innovation comes from coming up with unique solutions to seemingly impossible problems. The tighter the patents, the more opportunity to be creative and actually innovate.



    2) carriers are paying LESS for many phones, not more. Look at Blackberry. They are selling more phones than ever but making less because they are selling them for less. Bloatware and the like is due to handset makers having less leverage with carriers than Apple and nothing at all to do with innovation



    Ten years ago there was no real web surfing on phones and tablets were practically unheard of for the average person. That's innovation and yes there were patents ten years ago and lawsuits as well.
  • Reply 43 of 79
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Because carriers are subsidizing devices more than ever before and stuffing as much bloatware onto them as they can, making it easier and easier to go over your usage. Prices are increasing.



    There's two ways to increase the profitability of a candy bar:

    1: increase the price

    2: reduce it's size and keep the same price.



    3: Include really addictive ingredients that make more people buy them more often = Apple
  • Reply 44 of 79
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Youarewrong View Post


    So if I think a non-Apple company has a great product, I'm a troll?



    Nope. You ARE a troll, however, if you SAY a non-Apple company has a great product.



    HTH.
  • Reply 45 of 79
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    There's two ways to increase the profitability of a candy bar:

    1: increase the price

    2: reduce it's size and keep the same price.



    Why not do both? Increase the price to, say, $20 and reduce the size to a half-gram or so?



    Will that increase the profitability of a candy bar? Why not?
  • Reply 46 of 79
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    Can't multi quote since it's now split between two pages but I'll try to reply accurately.



    1) sorry but even without patents I don't see a start up creating a new phone ex nihilo. Development, manufacturing and marketing costs big bucks. Long gone are the days of building kit in a garage. Also, everybody has to pay FRAND which means the costs are what everyone else has to pay. That (IMO) is fair. Want to add new features? Come up with something unique which is what many, many other companies have done. Innovation comes from coming up with unique solutions to seemingly impossible problems. The tighter the patents, the more opportunity to be creative and actually innovate.



    Of course they have to pay frand. But the thing is, is that it's HIGHLY unlikely they'll come up with something unique without stepping on a lot of patents. Companies Have tried starting from scratch (Saygus being an example) but at every step of the way they're met with higher fees, legal proceedings and red tape.



    Patents DO NOT protect innovation. they protect companies from LITIGATION. That's why the system is broken.



    The FTC agrees that one of the best ways to promote innovation is reworking patent policy: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/10/cpreport.shtm

    -Note that they're pretty clear on the fact that patent policy as it stands right now is very broken.



    Patents favor large organizations because smaller companies will struggle to enforce them. That means if a smaller company comes up with an idea, even if they patent it, a big company (Apple, Google, Microsoft) could steal it without that smaller company having many valid responses:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12...ms_says_smeia/

    The problem is counter lawsuits as well. Smaller companies won't have a warchest. which means they're less likely TO sue because they can't pay the fees the counter lawsuit would incur.



    This one's more of an opinion piece, but an interesting read:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/paten...ion-tax-2011-7



    Remember, patents last over a decade. remember how software was a decade ago? Having core processes protected for a Decade in the software world is insane.



    There is a ton of information out there about why innovation is harmed by patents (at least as they stand now). Just wanted to give a quick three links.





    Quote:

    2) carriers are paying LESS for many phones, not more. Look at Blackberry. They are selling more phones than ever but making less because they are selling them for less. Bloatware and the like is due to handset makers having less leverage with carriers than Apple and nothing at all to do with innovation



    Blackberry's also haven't really changed in the past 5 years. Carriers are paying MORE for phones. The iphone alone skews that. the iphone costs carriers more than ANY other device beyond some outlier mil-spec devices.



    Blackberry prices have remained VERY consistent over the past 3 years. high end blackberries are between 500-600 dollars. the iphone STARTS at 650. It's true that the user cost of blackberry's has fallen, but that has little to do with the retail.



    Bloatware is another way to reduce cost because those companies often pay to be on the device, or offer to split revenue from any money earned on pre-loaded devices with the carrier's.



    Quote:

    Ten years ago there was no real web surfing on phones and tablets were practically unheard of for the average person. That's innovation and yes there were patents ten years ago and lawsuits as well.



    There number of lawsuits happening 10 years ago was significantly yes. Also, the PAYOUT from those lawsuits was a lot less.



    That innovation was ONLY possible because people didn't sue the hell out of each other when they adapted each other's ideas.
  • Reply 47 of 79
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post


    Why not do both? Increase the price to, say, $20 and reduce the size to a half-gram or so?



    Will that increase the profitability of a candy bar? Why not?



    Because people rebel at a higher price point more than they rebel as the same price point but fewer of an item. if you try to charge more AND increase the price, it's even worse.
  • Reply 48 of 79
    Its all making Samsung look a bit scummy so even with a fail can be a win.
  • Reply 49 of 79
    Quote:

    Blackberry's also haven't really changed in the past 5 years. Carriers are paying MORE for phones. The iphone alone skews that. the iphone costs carriers more than ANY other device beyond some outlier mil-spec devices.



    Blackberry prices have remained VERY consistent over the past 3 years. high end blackberries are between 500-600 dollars. the iphone STARTS at 650. It's true that the user cost of blackberry's has fallen, but that has little to do with the retail.



    Bloatware is another way to reduce cost because those companies often pay to be on the device, or offer to split revenue from any money earned on pre-loaded devices with the carrier's.




    Regarding patents, I am going to refrain from responding because I completely disagree. Period.



    As for the above quote, Apple charges twice as much as the other handet makers for their phones. That has nothing to do with lawsuits or patents especially since we know from its financial reports that the profit margin on them are pretty high. If other handset makers felt that they could charge that amount, then they could. That is how the market works.



    BTW, all of the articles I have read state that Blackberries charge carriers around $320 but maybe that was an average among all lines.



    Edit: with all of this furor over patent reform, the government has listened to the citizens' pleas and now we have this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...m_campaign=rss



    Moral of the lesson: leave well enough alone.
  • Reply 50 of 79
    They all (including Apple) innovate off others ideas... But copying or coming close to copying as possible... Is wrong.
  • Reply 51 of 79
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Said the troll.



    Seriously. The same people always post the same biased crap whenever we get a story like this. "Gatorguy" and "Youarewrong" only exist to troll the boards making contrary posts based on their hatred of Apple, yadda yadda yadda.



    What's boring isn't the lawsuit it's the troll comments that always seem to follow.



    Seriously Prof Peabody,



    Have you held Iphone4 and Samsung S2 and compared them? They are different products apart from being smartphones. Iphone4 looking nice and S2 functioning better. Are you saying that Apple created smartphone and noone can make it? Please dont look at images manipulated by Apple or fanboys. Samsung has tones of their own products with their own designs that they can use from.



    Apple is succeding by the legal actions successfuly blocking some products in some part of the world. But that is it, they will loose in court case and pay compensation to Samsung eventually, IMHO.



    By all means you are more look like something you called to 'Gatorguy' and 'Yourarewrong'.
  • Reply 52 of 79
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    Regarding patents, I am going to refrain from responding because I completely disagree. Period.



    As for the above quote, Apple charges twice as much as the other handet makers for their phones. That has nothing to do with lawsuits or patents especially since we know from its financial reports that the profit margin on them are pretty high. If other handset makers felt that they could charge that amount, then they could. That is how the market works.



    BTW, all of the articles I have read state that Blackberries charge carriers around $320 but maybe that was an average among all lines.



    I brought up cost because you said phone prices were going down. I posted the prices to show they weren't. and that $320 price includes curves, specifically old model curve's on pre-paid carriers. I was comparing high end to high end. Last years tech (the curve line) is always cheaper.



    Quote:

    Edit: with all of this furor over patent reform, the government has listened to the citizens' pleas and now we have this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...m_campaign=rss



    Moral of the lesson: leave well enough alone.



    No, the moral of the story is that our political system is pointless because no one will ever do anything significant because it would require them risking their precious popularity.



    The fact that the government messed the system up further doesn't negate the fact that the system is broken.



    Even the most pro-patent arguments admit that the system is in need of a serious overhaul. (such as Nilay Patel's argument) Even if you think patents are (at the core) a good thing. Surely you can see how our current environment (companies suing everyone, patent trolls attacking individual developers) needs to be changed.
  • Reply 53 of 79
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Apple did not invent the smartphone. But nothing looked exactly like - or behaved exactly like the iPhone before the iPhone. Now every phone looks somewhat like or behaves somewhat like the iPhone.



    Before the iPhone most everyone was copying the Blackberry. When the iPhone was first launched many people derided it because it was so different from the popular phones of the time.



    Apple is within its right to protect its intellectual property. If it is successful or not depends on the ruling bodies.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hjb View Post


    Apple is succeding by the legal actions successfuly blocking some products in some part of the world. But that is it, they will loose in court case and pay compensation to Samsung eventually, IMHO.



  • Reply 54 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    I brought up cost because you said phone prices were going down. I posted the prices to show they weren't. and that $320 price includes curves, specifically old model curve's on pre-paid carriers. I was comparing high end to high end. Last years tech (the curve line) is always cheaper.





    No, the moral of the story is that our political system is pointless because no one will ever do anything significant because it would require them risking their precious popularity.



    The fact that the government messed the system up further doesn't negate the fact that the system is broken.



    Even the most pro-patent arguments admit that the system is in need of a serious overhaul. (such as Nilay Patel's argument) Even if you think patents are (at the core) a good thing. Surely you can see how our current environment (companies suing everyone, patent trolls attacking individual developers) needs to be changed.



    1) blackberry's prices to carriers have gone down. Its financial statements prove it. More phones sold+less profit=cheaper phones

    2) the only thing I would have changed would be the length of time the patent is exclusive. That's it. Having people wailing about how it should be scrapped or overhauled simply opens the door to big business lobbyists whispering in politicians ears for "change" with "proof" that constituents want it too.
  • Reply 55 of 79
    sennensennen Posts: 1,465member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Two totally different arguments.



    The lawsuit problem makes it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a new company to enter the market (apple wasn't a new company, I'm talking startup). It's causing developers to pull their apps from US markets.



    Apple might still be patenting thousands of ideas like never before, but the idea that someone "new" could break into the market is an impossibility. There is NO WAY for them to pay all the required patents and still make something profitable. It would also be impossible for them to make something that didn't violate those patents because most patents are left intentionally vague and companies use them as weapons (offensively or defensively) not as ways to "profit" from innovation.



    To design a smartphone, you'll violate over a quarter million patents. Say there is someone today who created the best OS ever, and the best design ever for his product. In todays market, he'd never see it to market, or if he did, he'd be sued into oblivion the second his numbers went green. His only hope would be to get bought up by an existing company that would try fitting his "vision" into their inertia.



    That's not "more innovation than ever"



    You're being disingenuous. Even prior to the release of the iPhone, you weren't going to get a "start up" to design, manufacture, market and sell a mobile phone. It's simply too big and expensive an industry.



    Yet Apple was a "start-up" in terms of the phone business. People laughed at Apple thinking they could break into the mobile phone market, said it was "impossible". Patents existed before the iPhone was released, Apple still had to pay licensing, f/rand etc for technologies that other companies had developed. But so too did Apple rightfully patent their own innovations.



    Quote:

    And people are buying smartphones because the web is useful on them, and you can actually do things on them other than email. That WAS an innovation, but that was 4 years ago



    Simply throwing in more tech - ie appealing to the spec-whore mentality - isn't innovation either, you know.
  • Reply 56 of 79
    sennensennen Posts: 1,465member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Apple did not invent the smartphone. But nothing looked exactly like - or behaved exactly like the iPhone before the iPhone. Now every phone looks somewhat like or behaves somewhat like the iPhone.



    Before the iPhone most everyone was copying the Blackberry. When the iPhone was first launched many people derided it because it was so different from the popular phones of the time.



    Apple is within its right to protect its intellectual property. If it is successful or not depends on the ruling bodies.



    This.
  • Reply 57 of 79
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


    You're being disingenuous. Even prior to the release of the iPhone, you weren't going to get a "start up" to design, manufacture, market and sell a mobile phone. It's simply too big and expensive an industry.



    Yet Apple was a "start-up" in terms of the phone business. People laughed at Apple thinking they could break into the mobile phone market, said it was "impossible". Patents existed before the iPhone was released, Apple still had to pay licensing, f/rand etc for technologies that other companies had developed. But so too did Apple rightfully patent their own innovations.



    Apple wasn't a startup with the phone business. they had TONS of software patents to protect them from litigation (several of which they're using against HTC and Samsung). the iphone was their first device, but they already had a warchest. that WARCHEST is what makes it impossible for startups to do anything significant in the "high tech" market without being overloaded with patent lawsuits.



    Read the article I quoted from the register. The problem patents hurt smaller businesses is that they give them virtually NO protection, and no way to defend any IP they created. Let's say that a startup came up with the capacitive screen tech Apple is suing other's over instead of apple doing it (that single piece). They patent it.



    Apple offers to buy them, they refuse. and this startup makes a (small) living selling high end screens with touch enabled. Apple goes out and makes the iphone USING that IP.



    This small company CANNOT sue apple over the IP. If they do, Apple has tens of thousands of patents THEY could levy on the smaller company.



    I used Apple as an example because you should be familiar with the tech. but you can put Google there, or anyone else. THAT's why it's impossible for a small company to be "innovative" in one of these markets. Even if they DO create something no one has made before, they have NO way of preventing other's from using it since they have no defense against counter lawsuits.



    As for startups, I listed one. Saygus. It hasn't launched yet BECAUSE of all the red tape in the industry. Other's have (or are about to) the geeksphone One, the Miui phone. These devices don't have much "innovation" in the way of software because there is NO incentive to create a New OS in our current market,



    Quote:



    Simply throwing in more tech - ie appealing to the spec-whore mentality - isn't innovation either, you know.



    Never said it was.
  • Reply 58 of 79
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    1) blackberry's prices to carriers have gone down. Its financial statements prove it. More phones sold+less profit=cheaper phones

    2) the only thing I would have changed would be the length of time the patent is exclusive. That's it. Having people wailing about how it should be scrapped or overhauled simply opens the door to big business lobbyists whispering in politicians ears for "change" with "proof" that constituents want it too.



    1) Blackberry started selling devices to prepaid carriers and introduced a new "bargain" line (pearl). The prices of their phones haven't gone down, they've created CHEAPER phones for a new line. their high end prices remained consistent. (which is what I said earlier)



    2) Patent law as it stands now currently FAVORS big business. they are the biggest lobbyists to keeping the system as is. The FTC link I gave does Not favoring doing away with all patents. It specifically focuses on the process of getting over-broad patents invalidated. The Register link I provided shows WHY patent laws (as they stand now) hurt the little guy.
  • Reply 59 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Apple's moving as fast as possible to nip the success of Samsung's Galaxy II in the bud. Sad to see it's thru legal actions rather than delivering a equal/superior product at an equivalent/better price and letting the consumer choose the winner.



    The only reason it's selling so well is that DoCoMo and AU don't have the iPhone yet. Those providers offer plans that give discounts based on years of service. 10 years can amount to 25% off your monthly bill and I believe that was higher in the past (and continue as long as they don't change providers). Softbank also has the worse reception of the cell phone companies and a lot of people won't choose them for that reason. No reception at work/home or they just need something more reliable for work. I know very few Japanese that say they are glad they have an Android phone over an iPhone, it's just the only smart phone they had an option to buy.
  • Reply 60 of 79
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cjlacz View Post


    The only reason it's selling so well is that DoCoMo and AU don't have the iPhone yet. Those providers offer plans that give discounts based on years of service. 10 years can amount to 25% off your monthly bill and I believe that was higher in the past (and continue as long as they don't change providers). Softbank also has the worse reception of the cell phone companies and a lot of people won't choose them for that reason. No reception at work/home or they just need something more reliable for work. I know very few Japanese that say they are glad they have an Android phone over an iPhone, it's just the only smart phone they had an option to buy.



    If all you say is true, then Apple seems to have made a pretty poor choice of Japanese service providers to hitch their wagon to.
Sign In or Register to comment.