Tim Bajarin: Why Apple’s big win over Samsung is good news for consumers

“When I am in Hong Kong or Beijing, people often accost me on street corners trying to sell me ‘copy watches’ like fake Rolexes. In fact, one of the funniest encounters I have had was at the Great Wall of China, where a guy in a trench coat chased me down a street,” Tim Bajarin writes for TIME Magazine. “When he opened up his coat, it was full of fake watches.”

Bajarin writes, “I believe that Samsung ‘copied’ Apple’s products in a move of desperation. Although the company had been working on smart phones of its own, it was shocked to see the original iPhone and the impact it had on the overall smart-phone marketplace. So it rushed to market a competing product that borrowed a lot from Apple in order to not lose ground in the market it had intended to lead. Or in essence, Samsung wanted to ride Apple’s coattails and momentum in order to get some of the smart-phone action for itself as a fast follower. The end result of this suit should be that Samsung and any others wanting to play in the smart-phone market will innovate instead of copy, which would mean that consumers could expect more creative devices in the future.”

“To understand Jobs’ anger and dismay with Google, you need to understand one very important thing from Apple’s past,” Bajarin writes. “During the period when Apple was developing the iPhone, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google at the time, was on Apple’s board of directors. There’s no question in my mind that Schmidt pretty much went to school on smart phones and their operating systems while serving on the board, and I would not be surprised if he used that information to help Google guide its own efforts in this area. As far as I can tell, Schmidt did not inform Jobs of Google’s decision to develop Android and compete with Apple during this time, and I am sure Jobs felt he was stabbed in the back because of this.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dale E.” for the heads up.]

37 Comments

  1. Tim Bajarin is always right on target, with his viewpoint and consise articles. Always a joy to read and an opportunity to learn or reinforce one’s own viewpoints. 5 stars

  2. Let’s get something straight that no one will come out and say: Apple vs. Samsung verdict is not only good for consumers, it is good for innovators too. Just for starters, the judicial system can be used to facilitate the bounderies that innovators need and want that doesn’t sink to raw Darwinian survival, like the h.s. tactics of Samsung causes an otherwise decent system to do. The JD in the USA needs the practice of handling/helping the industrial strength brain-trust we have, instead it’s this perpetual mincing of words which does not change the fact that is has been, is now and always will be, lying, cheating and stealing.

    Even sniveling little Samsung probably has the intellectual investment already in their house to create truely unique and diligently competitive products, but the corporate mind set has become fanatical beyond description, in that, if an entity is not number one this very moment then all hope is lost.

    No one wants to pay the price of bringing their unique possibilities to the market place – the price is time (and of course time is money). It took Apple Time, Several CEO Turnovers, and ultimately discipline to get where they are today. Whether you like Apple or not they are a unique study in the right way to build an industry in the American economy. Is it expensive, risky and all around difficult? OF COURSE! That’s always been and always will be the cost of long lasting corporate success.

    Okay, any corporations ready to move on to 1st Grade?

  3. good news? my ass. hypothetically if apple would win all cases around the world, consumers won’t have any choice but buy fucking iphone. it’s called ‘monopoly’ which is totally illegal. do you think that consumers will want that? NO. Apple should be long gone already. the company doesn’t want to leave behind NO.2. but there is no winner forever. that’s why market is competitive, continues to innovate itself, and give consumers many choices what they want. apple is totally wrong. this kind of company should be perished. patent argument is very different from other countries. Apple only won in their home. other cases apple can’t win anymore. they will lose continually. I bet Samsung for sure. their products will be even more successful.

    1. Eddie – bet you like your Samsung Galaxy S III phone so much you are using it as a suppository right now. Fits you like a glove right? All 4.8″ of that beautiful AMOLED screen for your viewing enjoyment!

    2. If they want an iPhone, yes the should have to buy one from Apple. That’s not a Monopoly. If they want a smartphone, they will always be able to buy one from someone else.

    3. Do you really believe that no other company can make a compelling product that doesn’t steal Apple’s patented inventions? If you’re right, then everyone SHOULD buy an iPhone because the competition is utterly incompetent.

    4. Typical Korean whining BS. Edward, or should I say “Kim chi Il the 4th”, wants Samdung to continue copying because their people are too feeble minded to think of anything new and innovative.

      Their are millions like me who no longer will buy anything branded as Samsung. I have bought quite a lot of Samdung in the past….approx $10K (or more) worth of TV’s blu Ray Player, Microwave and even a Clothes washer/dryer. They will no longer see any of that business again. So, Samdung, I ask you, was it worth trying to sell me a $500 dollar iphone ripoff? You will not only NOT sell me an iPhone ripoff, you will also lose over $10K worth of future business.

      1. innovative (original and creative) thinking is dangerous to the Korean government, either North or South.

        I guess that kind of thinking is dangerous to any government. All big government wants is for everyone to just sit back and don’t worry about anything, don’t ask questions.

      2. I agree with u Paul, and I to have crossed Samsung branded products off my list of things to buy. I spent several tours in the far east when I was in the Air Force, and in my opinion the national sport of korea is theft.

    5. edward = Pat? yeah probably

      As another MDN observer or comment from earlier last week
      “Apple’s victory over Samdung doesn’t stifle innovation, it REQUIRES it”

      Right now, consumers have a choice, Apple iPhones, or copies of Apple iPhones. Thanks to the jury, soon customers will have the choice of iPhones, and phones that are different.

      1. “Apple’s victory over Samdung doesn’t stifle innovation, it REQUIRES it”

        Exactly. So many people have this whole thing ass backwards in their minds. Allowing something like this to happen is what stifles innovation!

        I honestly think this lawsuit has embarrassed many Samsung phone/tablet owners, leaving them to try and defend themselves. Not blatant embarrassment, but the subtle subconscious kind.

      1. Another imagined troll … created by MDN to incite everyone and push page views. There have been a few MDN drones over the years.

        Off on a tangent. The Samsung marketing line “Designed for humans” seems a bit ironic considering they are built on an Android platform. It should read “Designed for Androids”, besides calling the platform Android exposes it for what it is … a facsimile, a replica … a copy of the real thing, iOS.

        Where is Rick Deckard?

    6. Uh, no.

      A monopoly is NOT illegal. Using your monopoly status to suppress competition is, though.

      Using the patent system to protect your IP also isn’t illegal, and even if it does end up making you a monopoly, sooner or later, someone else will come along and out-innovate you.

    7. Two basic problems with your assertions: 1) Apple would not have a monopoly on smartphones, and 2) a monopoly is not illegal.

      What is illegal is unfairly utilizing a monopoly or dominant position to inhibit competition. Study Microsoft if you would like to learn more from a convicted criminal enterprise.

      If you are so sure that Samsung will prevail, then load up on Samsung stock and relax. And if you are so confident, then why do you assert that Apple should be “perished.” Won’t the great and mighty state-supported Samsung conglomerate take care of that?

      Samsung does impress me in one small way – they can copy faster and better than anyone else. They make Microsoft look like an amateur.

    8. I’m aghast at how wrong Eddie is in every conceivable way. Who do you think was first to come up with modern smart phone conventions anyway? And you want them gone? Punish and make extinct the company that pushed the technology forward to the next level and let other companies just copy? Boy are you a complete and utter POS jerk wad,

    9. You are as always welcome to your own take on this, but some of the supposed facts and logic stated are yours as well. Winning a lawsuits or even a hundred of them, last I checked, is not illegal, and judges do not admonish juries, You must find against Apple, because they have won some quota beyond which Apple would have a monopoly. This is not going to happen, but In any event, a monopoly per se is not illegal either.
      But why would there be one? If all of the competitors develop their own stuff, the widest range of users — even you — will find the phone that you desire. But that does not give Samsung the right to make an iPhone.

      is not called ‘monopoly,’ and

  4. Edward, you may be right that Apple won this case because of home field advantage but must have your head in the sand if you think Google and Samsung out innovated Apple to be where they are today. They stole the concept and they stole design. Period.
    The Apple will be beaten eventually by better ideas and lawyers but for now they are owed BIG TIME- Pay up Samsung!!

  5. Edward my dear Apple wouldn’t have a monopoly. On the contrary their market share for smartphones is somewhat small however if by monopoly you mean that they would still have the dominant most appealing smartphone compared to the abundant also-dans you’re probably right. There are so many alternatives right now that it is laughable for you to state that Apple would exert a monopoly. Feel free to go shopping at any local mall where there are hundreds of cell phones to select from

  6. I agree with most of what this guy is saying however I find it funny to point out MS’s WinPhone 7 as proof of innovation. Lets be clear here – WinPhone is a FAILURE – the only reason it is alive in the market is because MS is spending big bucks to keep it going.

    I would not use WinPhone as an example of anything positive for one of the other players in the industry. All winphone has shown is that you can throw major money behind something different and it can still fail.

    I also don’t see anything wrong with other companies using a tiled icon interface, I take exception with them making their icons to look like exact copies of the ones on the iPhone. Laying out icons in a grid format is not copying to me, that is basic, kind of like ‘all cars have round wheels’.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.