|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
CEOs can be remarkably insular, and as PJ notes, the legal eagles don't
need to concern themselves too much over client's PR. So the
cluelessness certainly isn't impossible.
Bur, as I have joked before, I don't want to let any pesky little facts allowed
in the way of my beautiful theories! Chase them away, let us know which
ones they are so we can hunt them down and destroy them!
(Christenson)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
Apple likely sees copying as an attack, their designs are the product
differentiation that they base product market value on - copy that and they
can't compete based on open source versus proprietary. Google pays for Android
development out of ad revenues and phone vendor software customization costs
don't dominate, while Apple pays out of product revenues.
Without artificial advantage by patents, trademarked icons and the like Apple
can't compete on a level playing field in what would rapidly become a commodity
market.
There are other product design advantages such as using their own processors in
iDevices allowing tinkering with the battery mass and life but anyone with the
will can follow.
Things like Thunderbolt have been waiting in the wings for cost effective
processor platforms with adequate I/O bandwidth. The use of PCIe bitlanes for
communications are obvious to a practitioner of the art.
There are five large Chinese corporations manufacturing most of the consumer
computer devices, they would disseminate incremental art improvements between
their customers anyway and you see a need for product differentiation to stave
off commoditization.
When 99.99 percent of consumer computing is using two processor 'families' all
innovation is incremental and requires digging deeper in the 'intellectual
property' barrel to prop up business models every bit as much as walled
gardens.
Those record profits and market caps rely on intellectual property protection
without which someone working in a garage could compete evenly with access to
manufacturing.
There's of course the question of Constitutional balance, whether what's
happening today serves the advancement of the sciences and arts or just business
models by dint of being first to market? At least Apple practices their
protected 'inventions' by and large.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|