Should we Boycott Apple For the Sake of Innovation?
techpp.com
techpp.com
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-i...
http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/mobile-patent-suits...
Basically, you can't purchase a smartphone without choosing to back someone who's suing someone over patent issues. Do I agree with Apple's patent wars? No. Do I agree with Googles (nee Motarola)? No. But if you want to boycott people over them, you're basically back to a Nokia dumb phone. Oh, wait - they're suing people too. Tin can and a bit of string, anyone?
The entire patent system is broken, both for the speed at which things happen in technology, and for the level of experience needed to see when something is "obvious". However, I can't feel too bad for Samsung in this case, viz: http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/09/29/apple-samsung-copyca... (just a few examples of their completely independent "inspiration"). The world does need some mechanism to prevent people from wholesale ripping off other people's work. It's just not the current patent situation.
For example, in the Apple vs Nokia case, I consider Apple the bad guys even though Nokia is the aggressor. As far as I'm aware, that case boils down to Apple refusing to accept patent cross-licensing as "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory", whereas I consider cross-licensing to be the epitome of FRAND.
Many of the other suits are direct or indirect cross-suits. The best defense is a good offense, etc.
Some aggressors are willing to accept money, others are blocking the importation of devices. I consider the latter more unacceptable.
Others are the flailings of dying companies. Still evil, yes, but better than the patents falling into the hands of NPE's.
At the moment, I believe that the worst aggressor by quite a large margin is Apple. Microsoft, Motorola and the purchasors of the Nortel patents (Apple, RIM, Microsoft, Sony, Ericsson and EMC) are being "evil", but the typical strategy for boycotts is to target the biggest/worst aggressor. (That's why McDonalds always gets targeted even though its behaviour is no different from its competitors).
There are notable exceptions: Samsung, HTC, Google and a few other makers of non-desirable phones. HTC doesn't have enough patents of its own to be an aggressor, and I have no doubt that Samsung would behave badly if that was in its own best interest, though.
However, supporting the companies that are "doing the right thing" still sends a marketplace signal, regardless of why they are doing the right thing.
I used to trust Google, though. If it doesn't put a stop to the Motorola shenanigans soon, they'll have lost all remaining credibility in my books. Don't give me this "arms-length" bullshit. Your motto says "don't be evil", which means that you're committed to behaving better than your peers, so do it.
But all the current lawsuites from within the Open Handset Alliance are clearly just defensive moves against Apple, Microsoft and Oracle, who are the Aggressors in this patent war.
Apple started to attack HTC and Samsung over Android, and then the OHA fought back.
Kind of refreshing to see that Microsoft can come up with some slightly different UI. Google does a lot of stuff differently than Apple does.
It's simply not that Apple currently makes the best user interfaces and the best software integration. There is a lot of room to innovate.
Apple isn't leading the pack any more. Used an Android screen keyboard? Way better than the Mac. Notifications? Way better than the Mac.
Anybody that thinks Android hasn't brought anything new to the table hasn't really used an Android phone.
Not sure who said that anywhere in the discussion, or in the linked article, or anywhere else.
Copying Apple is not really 'innovation'
This implies (to me anyway) the notion that Android does not innovate (aka bringing something new to the table) but merely copies Apple. (I assume that Android is meant here because the original article discusses the mobile sector.)
Let's break this down:
a.) Well is it? Is copying Apple 'innovation'? I'd say no
b.) Did it say that Android is only copying Apple without adding something else? I'd say no
c.) Do you say that Android does in no way copy Apple?
I assume the answer to c.) is also no, so how is this not a straw man argument?
b) The Mac has had pretty impressive notifications courtesy of Growl for nearly a decade.
It is rather cute that Android users have found a feature to latch onto. Even if it isn't at all unique.
I'm comparing Android to an iPhone. Apple has filed an injunction against Samsung in the states for the Galaxy Nexus Android phone.
> b) The Mac has had pretty impressive notifications courtesy of Growl for nearly a decade.
iPhone, not Mac. Notifications on the iPhone are (at least in version 4) terrible.
I'm also guessing that the patented search functionality is not that unique, nor the transforming mail/tel number into link, nor is the "slide to unlock" (I could go on but you probably wouldn't get my point).
It is completely different in every way from iOS and Android and very obvious that it was designed from scratch. In fact they even pushed a whole new way of approaching app design. http://ux.artu.tv/?p=234
Google OTOH never even had UI guidelines until Honeycomb.
> 1. Control-freakery – it all started with Steve Jobs and his internal culture of fear. It continues, to a lesser extent, today.
> 2. Dubious production methods – from virtual slave labor conditions to a totally unempathic approach to doing business abroad. Apple’s changing the world in terms of style but not substance.
> 3. Overpriced. – it is no accident that the company is so profitable. Their profit-margin is the sort which any business would die for.
> 4. Anti-competitive – they lock consumers into their ecosystem and developers out of it. They make it hard for you to port your data. Once the Apple shackles go on, boy they ain’t coming off.
> 5. Data hogs – they take your data, lock it into their verticals and never allow you to even see what they do with it.
> 6. Haters – their approach to banning products until patent issues have been resolved has never endeared them to me. Particularly since Steve Jobs himself said that Apple was one of the greatest thieves of ideas.
> 7. Anti-social – they truly fail to ‘get’ social both as an enterprise and as a community. They think generating a wave of bad will against them is OK as long as they still make money.
> 8. No conscience – at a time when most companies work hard to integrate themselves in their communities and develop a social conscience, Apple remains conscience-free.
> 9. Environmentally unfriendly – Apple has repeatedly come under fire for its environmentally unfriendly production methods. I admit that here I do not know how they stack up against the competition but Google at least has become a trailblazer in its Green Data Canters.
And in general, his tone is incredibly immature, like a 13 year old who's shouting in schoolyard. He twists facts (points 2 and 4), exaggerates (points 1, 3 and 6), and seems to care about things that actually don't matter at all (points 7 and 8). And I don't get his #5 issue at all.
So, I feel sad for him both because I think he's very immature, and that he can't articulate what he wants to say very well. He won't be a successful blogger if he continues this way, and would actually hurt his cause, with which I agree a little (just like that asshole Mike Daisy did).