“In spite of the massive success that Apple has enjoyed with its iPod line of portable music players, the company must still be feeling the pressure from the competition. Apple has filled a patent application on how future iPods will use wireless for electronic media purchasing online,” Susan J. Campbell writes for TMCnet.
Campbell writes, “This application filing occurs not too soon before the much-anticipated release of the Microsoft Zune. While this could be an effort to fight the software giant and its product directly, it should be noted that Zune’s built-in Wi-Fi will be limited to the file sharing between devices with no direct Internet purchases from the handheld.”
Campbell writes, “The events that have led to the filing of a patent application still remain unknown; however it should give an indication that Apple fears its dominance in the market is threatened. This is interesting given the reasons for the iPod’s success in the first place.”
Campbell writes, “Apple and its iPod didn’t earn its throne in the portable music player industry because it had the easiest to use player that offered the best song selection. This success also didn’t come because it offered the most competitive price. Apple has been able to dominate this market because of its marketing campaign, pure and simple.”
She keeps on writing in the full article here.
Can you believe these writers have what we assume are paying jobs? Apple has filed hundreds of iPod-related patents in order to protect their inventions, pure and simple. The “fear” is that some company will steal your invention. Obviously. Apple has filed so many wireless-related iPod patent application, that we don’t even know precisely which one Campbell is referencing (she does not provide a patent number or link). We assume Campbell’s talking about this iPod patent application. And, in order to have fear of the competition, it would be helpful to first have some credible competition to fear, Susan. We’re not going to bother recounting why iPod is successful, but its marketing, while formidable, is certainly and obviously not the only reason. TGIF.
Related articles: Search for “patent” at the bottom of any MacDailyNews page to see articles about iPod and other patents.
Jerkstore,
I take it that yer 1 of thoze idiuts that will seize on what iz an obveeus typo as if that’s actually a meaninfull point. Therefore, I am hapully provdin u wit sum more devestatinly effectiv ammo. Hav funn, genus!
But the rest of you pussy whipped mo fo’s are on your own.
As for the author of this piece, I hope for her sake that she’s hot. Otherwise, there is no good reason that would justify her existence.
TGIF ?
what does that stand for?
aah, now I know:
Toes
Go
In
First
she´s blonde, right?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
The writer should patent her brain so no asshole can steal it!!
Off topic but where’s Ampar? Haven’t seen him in days.
Sloppy or misleading edit by MDN. Full headline of linked article is:
Apple Files iPod Patent: Fear of Competition or Exposure? (bold lettering added by me)
MDN, you can do better! We count on you to counter the FUD, not create more of it!
BTW, she’s a redhead.
CAMPBELL’S WRITINGS ARE INANE. Congress established the patent system in 1789 to encourage companies to invest in innovation. R&D is expensive and it makes little business sense to invest new and better products for the consumer if a competitor comes can just sit back, let you do all the hard work, and simply copy what you did four months later for pennies on the dollar.
What is Congress’ reward to companies that obtain patents(?): roughly 18 years of exclusivity for making that investment.
The leadership of a company would literally be in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders if they didn’t secure as many of their inventions as they could with patents.
Campbell’s argument is that people buy iPods because slick marketing makes them do so even though there are more compelling alternatives. The obvious implication of her argument is that she is—somehow—some kind of “expert” that can see past the fluff of the iPod and that millions of users are so stupid that they have been buffaloed into buying iPods only because it’s the “cool thing” to do.
I prefer to believe that Apple’s customers are smarter than Campbell.
*I wrote that?* Try #2:
CAMPBELL’S WRITINGS ARE INANE. Congress established the patent system in 1789 to encourage companies to invest in innovation. R&D is expensive. It makes little business sense to invest in new and better products for the consumer if a competitor can just sit back, let you do all the hard work, and simply copy what you did only four months later for pennies on the dollar.
What is Congress’ reward to companies that obtain patents(?): roughly 18 years of exclusivity for making that investment.
The leadership of a company would literally be in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders if they didn’t secure as many of their inventions as they could with patents.
Campbell’s argument is that people buy iPods because slick marketing makes them do so even though there are more compelling alternatives. The obvious implication of her argument is that she is—somehow—some kind of “expert” that can see past the fluff of the iPod and that millions of users are so stupid that they have been buffaloed into buying iPods only because it’s the “cool thing” to do.
I prefer to believe that Apple’s customers are smarter than Campbell.
Her photo is ok, it was more her
” fifteen years in the sales field. Her sales activity included consumer and business-to-business selling. She holds a B.S. in Business Administration with a marketing emphasis from Missouri Western State University.”
that fails to mention any sort of technology experience that is more of an issue for an article like that.
Her web page
http://www.susanjcampbell.com/about.html
Alternative contact address
susan.campbell@sbcglobal.net
That was just plain stupid. What an inane article.
Looking at her recent articles after reading her bio, I noticed she is a copywriter. She writes the text in advertisments, Product manuals, etc.
There is nothing in there that points to her having any understanding of the iPod market, Apple or the MP3 player market.
Think of a newspaper editor flinging open his office door and yelling “Copy” and having an entry level employee run up to get his assignment.
mw: try as in nice try attempting to add meaningful input to the debate.
If all it takes to make a successful MP3 players is an awesome ad compaign, then Zune will be a HUGE success!
We’ll see. I just love it when morons are proved wrong!
What is it with these writers using “much anticipated”??? By whom exactly? Microsoft employees???
Headline:
Ferrari terrified of Kia Rio. Plans new car!
Apple has filled a patent application on how future iPods will use wireless for electronic media purchasing online
Yea, they better. Microsoft was about to pull a fast one.
This application filing occurs not too soon before the much-anticipated release of the Microsoft Zune. While this could be an effort to fight the software giant and its product directly, it should be noted that Zune’s built-in Wi-Fi will be limited to the file sharing between devices with no direct Internet purchases from the handheld.
And how long is that supposed to last? Until the next Zune OS update?
Apple was smart to read the cards and connect the dots the Zune hardware and OS interface was potentially capable of doing.
Something is missing with the Zune, perhaps a Wifi/DSL connection to the M$ Music Store.
She was in Sales for 15 years AND has a B.S. degree – isn’t that redundant?
‘nough said
Tango,
Where do you work?
This is off-topic, but doesn’t it seem kind of weird that there’s a MS advertisement on this page? It’s just to the right of this box I’m typing in and I can’t imagine why it would be on a site such as this.
“…Apple has been able to dominate this market because of its marketing campaign, pure and simple.”
No…pure and simple.
Apple can’t (and has never been able to) market their way out of a paper bag.
Sure the iPod commercials are flashy, hip, trendy, slick, etc., etc., but anyone who bought an iPod because of them has to be an idiot.
The iPod commercials (and Mac, which are in no way flashy, hip, trendy, slick, etc., etc.) are about building and increasing “brand awareness,” not about convincing someone to buy. A potential customer has to do that themselves.
How come MDN hasn’t reported on my cracking the iTunes monopoly code? Finding it difficult to find a good spin?
As if Apple was incapable of thinking of wireless capability for iPod, before Zune was anounced.
I would like to know her shoe size, just to see how close she can get to the kitchen sink. Read the book: What do WO-man want?