When the directors are good, sequels can be interesting sometimes they top the original concept.<p>Interruption technology appears, apple gets to it first in a consumer friendly way, with superior design. Apple makes lots of money. Apple attempts to lock the market. Other vendors imitate and innovate, maybe even with inferior design. Rival vendor makes said technology ubiquitous. Apple wails. Apple marginalized back to niche market.<p>History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes<p>its hard to imagine how Steve Jobs can win this without completely stifling innovation, which he does not have the power to do.<p>If Apple is experiencing a sense of deja vu its because the core mode of operation, that of an isolated by design operator, did not change.<p>The last fight of this type left apple half dead, and if apple isn't careful it might end up half dead after this one as well. Democratization of platforms has always been in the best interest of developers,and software drives hardware sales, not the other way around. Apple always fought this notion, personally i hope that on this issue it will lose and continue to lose, again and again.<p>At stake here is everything that made apple triumphant again. smart phones largely negate the need for an isolated mp3 players for instance, and online offerings attack itunes directly as well.<p>I have two apple servers in my shop largely stylish weights now. Take Apple's entry to the server platform. It betrays a conceptual gap with a huge industry, you cannot virtualize the os platform, nor can you use the hardware as sensible virtual host, it is harder to install a non apple operating system on the server offerings then its is on a desktop. incredible short sighted approach.<p>Sometimes i feel Apple has a distinct strategic reliance on the idea that the user must remain somewhat scared and in awe of the "magic" that operates the machines, it really aggravates them when other vendors, as well as consumers finally get it.<p>somewhat similar to a time you figure the priest was actually lying to you.<p>Not that I am pulling for Google, the are to be judged with suspicion as any business of this scale should be.<p>But just like Microsoft in many ways created the capability for people to have machines cheap enough and open enough to give birth to moders and Linux development. so Google with their approach allow a whole slew of technology that will mark the ascent of its future rivals
Apple is really starting to subscribe to the competition is bad for business standpoint and it really is starting to get annoying.<p>You can see that apple really wants to be <i>the</i> smartphone distributor but they really can only do that two ways: create a cheaper phone or remove the cheaper competing phones from competition<p>For me I put my support into google I have a droid and like it very much and the iphone on the other hand was not meant for me but this fueding between apple and the tech world makes me not want to support apple.
Google and Apple used to be bound together in a common goal: break the Microsoft hegemony.<p>However, they had two fundamentally different reasons for doing so. Google wanted a free and open web, where they could develop awesome server-based applications. Apple simply wanted to replace Windows computers with Apple computers. Those two goals are increasingly incompatible.<p>Now that they've managed to make Microsoft widely irrelevant, these vicious fights look inevitable. I think it's healthy, actually. Hopefully they'll keep each other honest.
more tripe.... Businesses will act like Businesses. Google and Apple have very different ways of making money and they have now reached a point where their business models are in opposition. No drama, no betrayal, just business.<p>HTC is Google's weak link because they don't have a patent chest of their own to defend themselves. Apple and Microsoft already have agreements. Nokia and Blackberry have their own patents so they probably will get some resolution with Apple. Samsung does manufacturing for a lot of these companies so they are probably safe.
The problem for Google is that they're wholly dependent on their near-monopoly on Internet advertising, possibly the world's <i>least</i> rare commodity. (Can you imagine what a company that controlled a similar share of TV or print advertising would be worth?) It's easy to imagine a left-field competitor, like Google itself ten years ago, stealing a substantial chunk of their revenue. They're also vulnerable to a platform owner like Apple, RIM, or Microsoft choking off access to its customers. Either scenario would be apocalyptic for Google.
Rather then wielding this patent b.s., the solution to hurting competitors (Andriod) would for Apple to kill it's exclusive at&t contract and then further innovate the iPhone. Andriod's uptake is attributed to the Droid being on Verizon, but if iPhone was available on Verizon, t-mobile and Sprint, Andriod's uptake would seriously slow down.<p>I owned a HTC hero in oct., but it was junk compared to the iphone and took it back; replaced it with an iphone. The driod feels junky to me when comparing it to the sleekness of the iphone, as well the lack of apps andriod has comparatively is another negative.
Thing about the 'Apple may switch to Bing' threat is... wouldn't that actually put consumers OFF? (unless you could change the search bar settings back to google)<p>Regarding the 'spat,' all I'm saying is, "everyone" knows Apple should open up their platform more, yet Apple must have their reasons. It reminds me how "everyone" knew Nintendo should have ditched cartridge technology earlier, yet Nintendo (a 100+ year old business) hung in there, poised to make a massive comeback some point in the future, while other console vendors dropped like flies.
I like how the photo that shows that their home screens look alike also is virtually identical to an ancient Palm Pilot home screen.<p><a href="http://www.pdamuseum.com/palm/palm_pics/palm_personal.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.pdamuseum.com/palm/palm_pics/palm_personal.jpg</a>
quote from article: "One well-connected Silicon Valley investor, who did not want to be identified talking about the Google-Apple feud, says he is stunned by the level of rancor he’s witnessed."<p>I wonder who this is?
Steve got burned a long time ago by MS copying many of Apple's designs. I think anyone in his shoes would go out of their way to not let it happen again.