3 ms·

Unfortunately Apple bought it I suspect the founders of the company would disagree with you on the "unfortunate" part. How is that innovative? Technology onc

by 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.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Why not have the best of both worlds and open up another market? Ask Fingerworks. They could have licensed their technology to other companies if they had wanted to and found other companies willing to agree to their terms. Evidently they found being acquired by Apple to be their best option. And Apple, in possession of the same information, declined to continue participating in that market. I don't see what's wrong with either company acting in its own interests on this. The market was apparently not a viable one, and both parties have profited enormously in spite of not being a part of it. There's also an opportunity cost, because smaller companies cannot use this technology and innovate. You're talking about opposed concepts here. Using somebody else's technology is not innovating, it's copying. It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies": Fingerworks was a very small company and somehow, in spite of your claims, they were able to innovate. And they acquired the original patents. Where we the cries of protectionism hindering innovation then? Why was it ok when they were in the way of others using that technology? As I said before: had Fingerworks not been able to secure a patent on its inventions, Apple (or any other company) could have simply copied their technology instead of acquiring them or licensing it. Competitors would clone and drive prices down, established companies with greater manufacturing, marketing, and distribution capabilities would have crushed them in short order. And Fingerworks wouldn't have had any leverage against them except their potential value as employees. Is this not a worse scenario for small and innovative companies than the one where they have significant bargaining power? Oh, but products do differentiate and technology does improve. You've ignored the context. You specifically said clones, and I specifically used the word when to indicate that I was talking about some circumstances and not all circumstances. When products do not differentiate (i.e. when they clone each other), innovation stagnates. Why differentiate when you can just do what your competitors do, but cheaper? Why innovate when you can just tack on some blue LEDs and silver trim to differentiate? When products do differentiate, innovation flourishes. (At no point was I saying anything like "all products do not differentiate" or "all products only compete on price", as these are obviously untrue.) Note that I say nothing about the size of the company (it doesn't matter) or the value of the differentiation (different doesn't mean good). software, unencumbered by patents There are articles on HN about software patents on a daily basis, and their existence comes up in plenty of stories not directly about them, such as the arguments over HTML5 video codec support, wherein even the "patent free" Theora video format was developed originally by a small company (On2) seeking to profit by licensing its patented technology. You can argue that such innovation might have happened without patents, but you can't argue that they did. Software is also covered by copyright, which you seem to have ignored entirely, even though it serves effectively the same function of preventing creations from being ripped off. Again, though: I was not talking about software at all, much less software in general. I was talking about hypothetical iPad clones, just as you were. it's innovative because companies have to push the envelope and cannot rest on their laurels Why would they if any invention they create is immediately available to their competitors? Doesn't that reward the strategy of simply waiting for others to invent and cloning them? Doesn't that make it harder for small companies to break into old markets new inventions, when the established players can simply rip those ideas off? Doesn't it eliminate one of the main reasons that a big company would ever acquire a smaller company? Doesn't that in turn drastically reduce the value of invention?

by GHFigs 17y ago

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.

GHFigs 17y ago
Why not have the best of both worlds and open up another market? Ask Fingerworks. They could have licensed their technology to other companies if they had wanted to and found other companies willing to agree to their terms. Evidently they found being acquired by Apple to be their best option. And Apple, in possession of the same information, declined to continue participating in that market. I don't see what's wrong with either company acting in its own interests on this. The market was apparently not a viable one, and both parties have profited enormously in spite of not being a part of it. There's also an opportunity cost, because smaller companies cannot use this technology and innovate. You're talking about opposed concepts here. Using somebody else's technology is not innovating, it's copying. It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies": Fingerworks was a very small company and somehow, in spite of your claims, they were able to innovate. And they acquired the original patents. Where we the cries of protectionism hindering innovation then? Why was it ok when they were in the way of others using that technology? As I said before: had Fingerworks not been able to secure a patent on its inventions, Apple (or any other company) could have simply copied their technology instead of acquiring them or licensing it. Competitors would clone and drive prices down, established companies with greater manufacturing, marketing, and distribution capabilities would have crushed them in short order. And Fingerworks wouldn't have had any leverage against them except their potential value as employees. Is this not a worse scenario for small and innovative companies than the one where they have significant bargaining power? Oh, but products do differentiate and technology does improve. You've ignored the context. You specifically said clones, and I specifically used the word when to indicate that I was talking about some circumstances and not all circumstances. When products do not differentiate (i.e. when they clone each other), innovation stagnates. Why differentiate when you can just do what your competitors do, but cheaper? Why innovate when you can just tack on some blue LEDs and silver trim to differentiate? When products do differentiate, innovation flourishes. (At no point was I saying anything like "all products do not differentiate" or "all products only compete on price", as these are obviously untrue.) Note that I say nothing about the size of the company (it doesn't matter) or the value of the differentiation (different doesn't mean good). software, unencumbered by patents There are articles on HN about software patents on a daily basis, and their existence comes up in plenty of stories not directly about them, such as the arguments over HTML5 video codec support, wherein even the "patent free" Theora video format was developed originally by a small company (On2) seeking to profit by licensing its patented technology. You can argue that such innovation might have happened without patents, but you can't argue that they did. Software is also covered by copyright, which you seem to have ignored entirely, even though it serves effectively the same function of preventing creations from being ripped off. Again, though: I was not talking about software at all, much less software in general. I was talking about hypothetical iPad clones, just as you were. it's innovative because companies have to push the envelope and cannot rest on their laurels Why would they if any invention they create is immediately available to their competitors? Doesn't that reward the strategy of simply waiting for others to invent and cloning them? Doesn't that make it harder for small companies to break into old markets new inventions, when the established players can simply rip those ideas off? Doesn't it eliminate one of the main reasons that a big company would ever acquire a smaller company? Doesn't that in turn drastically reduce the value of invention?