Originally Posted by darthchilli
(Post 8012552)
Cellular Innovation is already fucked in North America, this lawsuit just makes it even more difficult. This is why we can't have nice things. The providers rule, and companies like Samsung will cave in to carrier demands JUST to have product in store.
Apple was rejected by Verizon in the very beginning, and ATT basically gave Apple a chance to succeed.
Innovation in what sense? The from the looks of how the cellular industry is going, the END USER EXPERIENCE is starting to play a HUGE factor into the future. Past Apple keynotes have focused on how the iOS system helps the user, same goes with when Samsung announced the S3. The hardware/screen war will always be the same stale spec vs spec war, it comes down to features. THIS is where innovation falls into the hands of software devs in which this entire lawsuit can be ignored. Innovation comes from within the device and what it is capable of. It is the very reason that people talk about this and that feature when comparing devices.
The cellular providers in NORTH AMERICA is the biggest culprit on not allowing innovation. Every big giant, even outside of North America require their devices to be preloaded with bloatware. Not a big deal for some, but limits on functions such as tethering is an example.
When a company wants to release a device into the market in the US and Canada, it must go through the providers. A lot of the marketing comes from the inside in which the carrier decides what to push and ultimately, if you dont play by the rules of said carrier, your going to have a hard time getting your phone in to the hands of the consumer.
Palm is an example, Verizon backed out of the Palm Pre, so they settled with Sprint with limited distribution. It had a tough time competing with the iPhone available on ATT as Sprint just isn't a large carrier compared to Verizon, in which it does have the resources to compete with ATT. When Verizon decided to pick up the Pre Plus, phones were ordered and produced, but evidently, they shifted focus on promoting the Motorola Droid. Shipments of the Pre Plus were denied and there was no focus on Verizon's end to sell the Pre Plus. This costed Palm and was eventually bought out by HP
Rogers wanted exclusive rights to the HTC One X. A great device that could stand up on par with iPhone and the S3. The device failed to compete as Rogers did in fact shift focus away from the One X, even though it was exclusive to them.
Cell providers fight for consumers just as hardware manufactures fight for consumers, but if your method of distribution of said device must go through the provider, who have their own strategies to compete for the same consumers and they decide roughly into a quarter or right before launch that they are changing the direction of sales to a rival device, well, the device manufacturer is left with many unsold phones and loss of revenue.
Cell providers in North America have ripped consumers apart. Subsidy in pricing of the hardware in exchange for a lengthy commitment to a carrier. This has always been the way of business. This thought has been driven into the minds of the consumer and they are also unwilling to spend 500+ on the top of the line phone in one shot. Apple would have released the original iPhone on it's own if they could, but without carrier support, there is no way that it would have succeed as quick as it did. It wasn't until last year where the iPhone 4 could be purchased outright and unlocked through Apple directly placing the choice on the consumer to buy. Google's Nexus line is the same idea, cut the provider and sell directly to the consumer so they have a choice.
Fact is this, the cellular providers make it difficult for hardware manufacturers to truly innovate. If you don't play nice with carriers, than you can say goodbye to your fancy features just because said provider believes that certain features could threaten profits because it does certain things that the provider wants to provide(such as tethering)
This lawsuit/patent war is Apple's way of protecting it's brand. It doesn't exactly "win" on innovation. The big companies know features are the future on moving the industry forward.
Of course, this is the North American market and how business is conducted in which the carrier has much more to say in the outcome of the device makers flagship. The leash is much longer outside of our continent.
on the other hand, one of the reasons why the S3 is dual core here is because Qualcomm initially didn't want to see their LTE module paired with a Samsung CPU and here are the reasons
1. Carriers spent too much developing LTE
2. LTE is the newest thing going forward here
3. Qualcomm didn't want to see their LTE module with a Samsung Chip
Basically, the carriers told Samsung to do it this way, or else no S3 would have landed on our shores. Of course, this has changed with Samsung ready to roll out a Quad core LTE ready device on the Exynos chip with LTE in Germany.
|
