There are two scary things that have come up recently related to Apple: patent law disputes and reactions to the iPad.
First: iPad Reactions
Let's be clear. The iPad is not frightening. The public reaction to its announcement is, however, terrifying. Excluding the judgmental comments, the consensus seems to be that the iPad is somewhere in between an iPhone and a tablet PC. Different friends have commented that is overpriced, that it is disappointing in its lack of features, and that it might be worth it on the second model, but that they don't feel confident about the first. Fine.
Unexpectedly, the iPad pushed itself into the Kindle/Sony Reader/Nook market of e-readers. It has many things that e-readers don't: full-color screen, better internet functions, a hundred thousand applications, but it is not an upgrade of the same product. If you've never looked at a Kindle or one of its brethren (I'm partial to the Nook myself, but don't own one so my opinion is of limited value), try one out. It really does simulate reading off of a page, gentle on the eyes. The reaction to the iPad is evidence that Apple has pulled off another marketing magic trick. The illusion is that the iPad is an new and innovative product, when every advantage it presents is full of drawbacks. When the HP Slate first was announced, critics criticized: "Pssh, big deal. It's a tablet that runs Windows 7. Disappointment." When the iPad was announced, the same critics joyfully exclaimed, "It's a tablet that runs iPhone OS! Great!" After all of this you get to learn that I have an iPhone, but that means I feel qualified to tell you that the iPhone OS is terrible. It doesn't run more than one application at a time and when the processor has difficulty with your important task, the application is shut down and whatever you were working on is gone, just gone.
So, in case you haven't figured out why this is terrifying:
People trust Apple!
And in case you think Apple deserves your trust, keep reading while we talk about patents.
Part Two: Cellular Disputes
Apple has sued HTC for "Irreparable Injury" caused by the infringement of 20 patents. Steve Jobs spoke on the topic: "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it...We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own technology, not steal ours." Before I jumped to any conclusions, I decide to figure out what sort of patents were being disputed. The patent descriptions were less revealing than user comments on technology websites that have published articles on the dispute. Reacting to the patent concerning the iPhone's easy scrolling feature, one user said, "'Use finger to move item on screen' is not intellectual property," explaining that all touchscreen devices are bound to have similar concepts behind their navigation techniques.
A number of analogous inventions/discoveries were referenced, stating that "we are lucky Xerox didn't care to be the only company with a graphical user interface on a computer." Hopefully, someone will be able to prove that these methods have been available for public use before Apple's patents, nullifying the validity of Apple's claim for immeasurable financial damages.
Personally, I'm glad Isaac Newton didn't patent his Laws. As often happens when I read about terrifying things, I smell a dystopian novel: "yes, you used $67.38 worth of gravity yesterday and you have a $10 bonus charge for last week's rainbow." The parallel is ridiculous, I'll admit, but do you remember when Apple ripped off the "I-Phone" registered trademark owned by by the people at Cisco (formerly Linksys, I believe). They had no regard for intellectual property and trademarks and referred to Cisco's complaint as "silly." Again, the issue is trust. Feeling betrayed is irrelevant as I'm torn between the idea of swearing off Apple products and the realization that taking my mere hundreds of dollars elsewhere will make absolutely no difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment