Apple v. Samsung: a wild conspiracy theory of mine

[Bernard SG]

Regarding Apple’s Samsung lawsuit, it’s very possible that Occam’s razor applies and Apple is just suing Samsung to get financial compensation for Samsung’s alleged IP infringements and hinder Samsung’s performance in the mobile area, essentially handsets but also tablets in the future.

However, it’s a strategically tricky move by Apple as it necessarily results in strained relations with a major supplier for iOS devices parts, while the potential financial gain at stake doesn’t seem that great in Apple’s commercial context (I might be wrong on this, it’s just my gut feeling).

When trying to look at the confusing big picture of mobile computing, though, I’m wondering if there’s not more than meets the eye about that lawsuit.

It’s a well-known fact that Android is outgrowing iOS in the smartphone area. Besides, the Microsoft-Nokia partnership could grow into something huge if those two companies play their hands smartly (however, I don’t think that’s going to happen with Microsoft’s current vision of a mobile OS).

So, actually, I’m wondering whether Apple’s twisting Samsung’s arm is not aimed at something more strategic than winning an IP dispute.

The underlying idea is that Apple’s best interest is to be and remain the undisputed leader in mobile platforms, in terms of installed base, but this isn’t going to happen unless Apple licenses iOS to slow-down Android’s growth in smartphone and prevent it from taking off in tablets.

Now I know that Apple, so far is opposed to license its OS-es. That was most evident in the case of Mac OS. Apple loves to control the software/hardware integration in order to guarantee the most optimal user-experience and that strategy works great so far.

But iOS is a different business paradigm than Mac OS: while the Mac is essentially task-centric (the PC model), mobile devices are more content/App – centric. The iOS paradigm, in my view, is headed in the long run to the situation where more profit will come from the content and apps offered through the iTunes ecosystem rather than from hardware sales. Apple’s choice of pricing for the iPad seems to indicate that they believe that too, so they decided to sacrifice some margin on the iconic tablet’s sales. Therefore, there’s less incentive to keep iOS exclusive to Apple hardware than in the Mac OS case.

The caveat is that, would Apple license iOS to a third-party hardware maker, that third party would have to be a very strong player in terms of industrial quality and technology, and would be willing to accept a tight supervision of product-design by Apple. Moreover it would have to be fully committed to iOS and not help grow competing platforms (Android and Windows Phone, mainly).

Could it be then that the lawsuit is aimed at forcing Samsung’s hand to become that strategic ally to secure a larger growth for the iOS platform? It’s quite obvious that, technologically, Samsung would be the ideal pick for an iOS licensee. Samsung is proving to be most capable of designing more-than-decent hardware products. It’s also the company that arguably knows best about Apple’s iOS devices hardware technology: Samsung even manufactures the Apple-designed A-series ARM chips that power those devices, on top of being Apple’s biggest touchscreen supplier.

In that scenario, Apple’s tactic would be to reach a settlement with Samsung, in which the latter would phase out its support of Android and Windows phone in exchange of an exclusive right to produce genuine “Samsung-iPhones” powered by Apple’s iOS with a win-win margin-sharing agreement.

There’s even an additional reason why such a deal would serve Apple greatly: it’s a known fact that limited production capacity is significantly holding off sales volumes for iPhone and iPad. If the current capacity that Samsung uses for Android handsets was diverted to produce “Samsung-iPhones”, Apple would be able to shift its industrial focus on the iPad and… the Mac. Because let’s not forget that the Mac is enjoying a tremendous growth, especially in Asia-Pacific. There’s a huge potential of revenue there that Apple is struggling to fulfill right now.

Okay, it’s just a fiction, a figment of my imagination. Perhaps viewed from inside the two companies it doesn’t make sense at all; but from the outside, doesn’t it sound plausible?

 

[TheSideshow]

No

 

[tjb1]

No

Ditto.

 

[KnightWRX]

Overthinking. No.

 

[maflynn]

Overthinking. No.

Agreed - definitely over thinking.

OP, take your own advice - Occam’s razor does apply. In other words, it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then its a duck. Apple's move is simply to protect its IP over a competitor they allege that has used apple's technology or IP. Simple as that.

 

[KnightWRX]

Agreed - definitely over thinking.

OP, take your own advice - Occam’s razor does apply. In other words, it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then its a duck. Apple's move is simply to protect its IP over a competitor they allege that has used apple's technology or IP. Simple as that.

Actually, it's still simple, but a bit more complicated than "protecting IP". Apple is also trying to stop it's biggest (see Samsung's performance in Q3 and in general in the cellphone arena) competitor from bringing to market what was hailed as the best Android tablet at the time of its release.

I really doubt Apple thinks they can succeed in these lawsuits beyond a few choice preliminary injunctions. These are stall tactics to keep the iPad on top.

Apple already lost 1 patent to the Dutch judge in all of this, and they stand to lose more in Australia and in the US where judges have both stated that the validity of Apple's patents are tenuous at best and he thinks Samsung can prove them invalid. They also stand to lose their Community Design registration in Europe, based on the simplistic nature that is more a case of function than form.

 

[Bernard SG]

Was a dumb thread.
However, I don't buy that Apple feared the Galaxy Tab. It was/ is not gaining any kind of traction whatsoever.
Samsung phones on the other hand are doing fine.
But more to the point, Samsung has deliberately copied Apple's stuff. Whether it was unlawful or not is the question that's in the various courts hands.

 

[KnightWRX]

But more to the point, Samsung has deliberately copied Apple's stuff.

That's your opinion. Others might not agree. Let's not go there, we have enough of those threads in the News discussion section already.

 

[*LTD*]

However, I don't buy that Apple feared the Galaxy Tab. It was/ is not gaining any kind of traction whatsoever.

This is true.

Apple is using Samsung - a weaker, dumber, yet visibly larger rival, in order to make an example out of them. It's a powerful deterrent.

Apple is also trying to bring Google out from the woodwork. Google exposed to legal attack is not something Google wants. Beat the grass, startle the snake.

 

[reefoid]

This is true.

Apple is using Samsung - a weaker, dumber, yet visibly larger rival, in order to make an example out of them. It's a powerful deterrent.

Apple is also trying to bring Google out from the woodwork. Google exposed to legal attack is not something Google wants. Beat the grass, startle the snake.

Why would they try to agitate Google into a fight? Doesn't make sense. Either Google are infringing IP/patents, in which case go directly after them, or they are not, in which case why pick a fight with them in the first place.

If Google aren't infringing, how is Apple suing Samsung et al going to bring Google out of the woodwork. And, of course, if judgements go against Apple (which, despite what you may think, could well happen) then it will backfire spectacularly. Samsung (and Google) will then be sitting there laughing their heads off.

 

[vvswarup]

At the end of the day, the only thing that's going to matter is profit. Android's market share is not going pay for R&D on the next version Android. It's not going to pay Andy Rubin's salary. Profits will, and Apple takes more than half the profits of the smartphone industry. Apple will not license iOS to gain market share from Android at the expense of their profits.

The OP is wrong on so many levels. How would Samsung's role in making this "Samsung-iPhone" be any different from the relationship that's already in place? The way I see it, this new partnership is nothing more than just stamping the Samsung logo somewhere on the iPhone.

Licensing iOS is completely against Apple's DNA. And they have a decade of success to prove it. Apple is making the lion's share of the profits of the industry. Even if Android were to gain 95% market share, I doubt that Apple's position as the most profitable company in the industry would change much.

 

[Melrose]

No. Companies that try to make a profit try to jockey and vie for positions in a market/defend their positions in a market to continue making a profit. That's all. Samsung and Apple are at each others' throats right now because they have a legal right to protect what intellectual property they own - on both sides.

It's amazing that the courts even entertain questions over who will sell more; it's either corporate property or it isn't.

That's your opinion. Others might not agree. Let's not go there, we have enough of those threads in the News discussion section already.

If something looks markedly similar to a popular product in the same industry that was released well before it, it is a copy. Arguing the fact doesn't change that.

 

[KnightWRX]

If something looks markedly similar to a popular product in the same industry that was released well before it, it is a copy. Arguing the fact doesn't change that.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[callum23]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Yes, you are correct about Samsung allegedly stealing the current version of apples iOS 5 operating system. But we can't forget where apple originally came across their idea to integrate the SLST system deep into the already imbedded PP(n)t virtual T-wire. but they got their idea from a young entrepreneur named rohit. he was working on a system that will one day bring all systems into the one systematical operation that will stop the fighting and controversy between man and alien (loch) we will gain a good relationship and then be years in front with this massive technological advance. When rohit passes away we will think of him as a believer, a true business savvy person and most of all, a great bloke.

oh and **** you Samsung. ROT-DIP <3!!! I would love some feedback about your opinion

 

[Melrose]

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Whatever makes you feel better dude.

 

[jimmyp13]

i think you are quite right callum23, rohit is da man to ask!! ROT-DIP <3

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

 

[johnhurley]

Okay, it’s just a fiction, a figment of my imagination. Perhaps viewed from inside the two companies it doesn’t make sense at all; but from the outside, doesn’t it sound plausible?

Lawyers get paid when they are doing legal work. Legal work falls into a wide variety of categories some of which include getting companies to sue another company, doing research work, defending another company against a lawsuit etc.

It is an interesting slug fest between major technology firms going on here! New ipad3 should make it even more interesting.