4 ms·

Interesting you brought up FingerWorks. I really like their keyboard. Unfortunately Apple bought it, discontinued the keyboard, and now nobody can make one beca

Interesting you brought up FingerWorks. I really like their keyboard. Unfortunately Apple bought it, discontinued the keyboard, and now nobody can make one because Apple holds the patent. How is that innovative? Anyways, what's wrong with clones? It's time to market that matters. If somebody clones an ipad, or whatever, then the markets will decide who the winner is. Unfortunately with the bajillions of already existing patents, it is very difficult and costly to innovate in an incremental manner (incremental improvement tends to be efficient improvement) without infringing on something.

wtallis 17y ago
Given the current less-than-ideal patent environment, not licensing their patents is probably the only way Apple can maintain the level of product differentiation that enables them to maintain profit margins that fund the kind of R&D that their primary competitors (PC manufaturers) don't do. The loss of the FingerWorks products is bad for consumers, but there's no denying that the iPhone and the App Store it spawned are a far bigger market than FingerWorks would have ever had. If Apple could license the FingerWorks patents for keyboard use in a way that wouldn't erode their other product lines, they probably would. It's important to remember that with the iPhone Apple was very much an upstart, with no experience in the cellular industry. They had a very tough time getting into the market because most carriers wouldn't agree to give Apple enough control to ensure that the carriers didn't ruin the user experience. They've now fundamentally changed the dynamics of the cellular industry, and all the device makers have more leverage. If Nokia and the other established phone manufacturers had been free to clone the iPhone as closely as they wanted, then the iPhone would have been mostly marginalized before Apple could even give it 3G capabilities. Apple would not have a particularly successful product on their hands, and the App Store revolution wouldn't have happened.
GHFigs 17y ago
Unfortunately Apple bought it I suspect the founders of the company would disagree with you on the "unfortunate" part. How is that innovative? Technology once sold as an expensive niche keyboard is now in the hands of tens of millions of people worldwide. Darn. If somebody clones an ipad, or whatever, then the markets will decide who the winner is. How is that innovative? When products do not differentiate, they compete on price, which drives prices down to levels incapable of sustaining any significant innovation.
- gcb 17y ago
  > Technology once sold as an expensive niche keyboard is now in the hands of tens of millions of people worldwide. Darn. And if the other 99% of the world want to use said thing in more inovatives way, apple forbids. And they can forbid even if original reasearch got to close results. Darn
- gcb 17y ago
  this comment came from a previous fingerworks customer (i imported their products). And they where more useful, more inovative, and cheaper then the iphone itself. So despite the reach of apple market, it had more reach before. The iphone is just a better market model.
  - binspace 17y ago
    > The iphone is just a better market model. Interesting, but the iphone should have nothing to do with this. This is simply over the multi-touch technology and whether or not other people can independently come up with similar solutions.
- binspace 17y ago
  > Technology once sold as an expensive niche keyboard is now in the hands of tens of millions of people worldwide. Darn. Why not have the best of both worlds and open up another market? There's also an opportunity cost, because smaller companies cannot use this technology and innovate. Smaller companies tend to innovate more than bigger ones (yes even Apple). So yes, darn. > How is that innovative? When products do not differentiate, they compete on price, which drives prices down to levels incapable of sustaining any significant innovation. Oh, but products do differentiate and technology does improve. For example, software, unencumbered by patents, has been sustaining (and increasing) significant innovation for quite a while. Also, software does not only compete on price. Also, it's innovative because companies have to push the envelope and cannot rest on their laurels to just use their position to rake in the cash (like Microsoft and IBM did). It comes down to simple economics. Protectionism hinders innovation.
  - 17y ago

wtallis 17y ago

Given the current less-than-ideal patent environment, not licensing their patents is probably the only way Apple can maintain the level of product differentiation that enables them to maintain profit margins that fund the kind of R&D that their primary competitors (PC manufaturers) don't do. The loss of the FingerWorks products is bad for consumers, but there's no denying that the iPhone and the App Store it spawned are a far bigger market than FingerWorks would have ever had. If Apple could license the FingerWorks patents for keyboard use in a way that wouldn't erode their other product lines, they probably would. It's important to remember that with the iPhone Apple was very much an upstart, with no experience in the cellular industry. They had a very tough time getting into the market because most carriers wouldn't agree to give Apple enough control to ensure that the carriers didn't ruin the user experience. They've now fundamentally changed the dynamics of the cellular industry, and all the device makers have more leverage. If Nokia and the other established phone manufacturers had been free to clone the iPhone as closely as they wanted, then the iPhone would have been mostly marginalized before Apple could even give it 3G capabilities. Apple would not have a particularly successful product on their hands, and the App Store revolution wouldn't have happened.

GHFigs 17y ago

Unfortunately Apple bought it I suspect the founders of the company would disagree with you on the "unfortunate" part. How is that innovative? Technology once sold as an expensive niche keyboard is now in the hands of tens of millions of people worldwide. Darn. If somebody clones an ipad, or whatever, then the markets will decide who the winner is. How is that innovative? When products do not differentiate, they compete on price, which drives prices down to levels incapable of sustaining any significant innovation.

gcb 17y ago
> Technology once sold as an expensive niche keyboard is now in the hands of tens of millions of people worldwide. Darn. And if the other 99% of the world want to use said thing in more inovatives way, apple forbids. And they can forbid even if original reasearch got to close results. Darn
gcb 17y ago
this comment came from a previous fingerworks customer (i imported their products). And they where more useful, more inovative, and cheaper then the iphone itself. So despite the reach of apple market, it had more reach before. The iphone is just a better market model.
- binspace 17y ago
  > The iphone is just a better market model. Interesting, but the iphone should have nothing to do with this. This is simply over the multi-touch technology and whether or not other people can independently come up with similar solutions.
binspace 17y ago
> Technology once sold as an expensive niche keyboard is now in the hands of tens of millions of people worldwide. Darn. Why not have the best of both worlds and open up another market? There's also an opportunity cost, because smaller companies cannot use this technology and innovate. Smaller companies tend to innovate more than bigger ones (yes even Apple). So yes, darn. > How is that innovative? When products do not differentiate, they compete on price, which drives prices down to levels incapable of sustaining any significant innovation. Oh, but products do differentiate and technology does improve. For example, software, unencumbered by patents, has been sustaining (and increasing) significant innovation for quite a while. Also, software does not only compete on price. Also, it's innovative because companies have to push the envelope and cannot rest on their laurels to just use their position to rake in the cash (like Microsoft and IBM did). It comes down to simple economics. Protectionism hinders innovation.
- 17y ago