3 ms·

"If that's the case, why can't they drop OS X and iPhone and simply make clones, just clones with polish and attention to detail?" I don't think you understand

"If that's the case, why can't they drop OS X and iPhone and simply make clones, just clones with polish and attention to detail?" I don't think you understand what it takes to reach apple's level of polish and attention to detail. They simply can't achieve it without innovating. "I can't figure out why Apple would bother if everyone else could "adopt" their innovation wholesale." That's like asking why Intel would bother developing a new faster processor. Someone else will just "copy" their innovation and develop a processor just as fast, no? You ask where I draw the line, and there is a line that I would draw. But I want to ask you where you would draw the line. Do you honestly believe that for the next (slightly less than) 20 years, no one except for apple should be able to develop a product with multi-touch capability? They don't seem much interested in licensing the technology. Do you really believe that when a bunch of companies are developing the same technology, the one that gets lucky and files it first should be able to lock everyone else out of using it for 20 years? Yes, there has to be an incentive for innovation, but creating monopolies on whole classes of technology should not be that incentive.

raganwald 17y ago
I think I do understand what it takes but you don't understand a rhetorical question when you see it ;-) I also think people draw the line where it suits their self interest.
- msg 17y ago
  Or the community interest. Is the plural of self-interest community interest? How much pain does it take to show the harmful effects of the monopoly outweigh the benefits?
  - raganwald 17y ago
    I'm not suggesting that intellectual property protection is a public good. I'm disputing that companies like Apple will thrive by innovating in an environment where adopting innovation is unfettered. It may be that if we remove all barriers to adoption that companies like Apple will die and innovation will come from artists who invent new things out of passion. I don't know, and I am not suggesting that the existence of Apple is a public good either. I'm just skeptical that there is any incentive for Apple to do any innovation in such an environment.

raganwald 17y ago

I think I do understand what it takes but you don't understand a rhetorical question when you see it ;-) I also think people draw the line where it suits their self interest.

msg 17y ago
Or the community interest. Is the plural of self-interest community interest? How much pain does it take to show the harmful effects of the monopoly outweigh the benefits?
- raganwald 17y ago
  I'm not suggesting that intellectual property protection is a public good. I'm disputing that companies like Apple will thrive by innovating in an environment where adopting innovation is unfettered. It may be that if we remove all barriers to adoption that companies like Apple will die and innovation will come from artists who invent new things out of passion. I don't know, and I am not suggesting that the existence of Apple is a public good either. I'm just skeptical that there is any incentive for Apple to do any innovation in such an environment.