Random Thoughts – Randosity!

For whom does the bell toll? Microsoft’s Xbox.

Posted in botch, business, gaming, microsoft, xbox by commorancy on March 27, 2016

xbox-1-logoIn case you haven’t been reading recent news, here’s an article that might wake you up… especially if you happen to be an Xbox platform fanboy. What is this alleged article? Microsoft has stated it will merge the PC and Xbox platforms into a single unified platform, ending the sale of dedicated console hardware. Let’s explore.

Xbox and Xbox 360

When the original Xbox arrived in 2001, it received lots of fanfare. The console market now had a competitor against the PlayStation 2. The PS2 had released only one year earlier in 2000. Though, the Sega Dreamcast had promise, Sega pulled the plug in 2000 citing lots of reasons including bad sales, competition and poor platform reception. The Xbox’s controller, architecture and speed quickly ended up competing with the PlayStation 2.

A few years later, we went through the second iteration of this console war when both Sony and Microsoft released the PS3 and the Xbox 360, respectively and near simultaneously. Once again, we had our next generation console in our hands and we gamers were happily playing with better graphics and sound quality.

The Xbox 360 took the lead in the console market over Sony’s PS3, but only by slim margins. Though, the XBox 360 managed to stay one step ahead through out the lifespan of both consoles.

Xbox One and Ps4

Unfortunately, Microsoft would not be able to maintain its fleeting lead it had won with the Xbox 360 with its blundering Xbox One E3 announcement in 2013. Here’s what they had wanted to do:

This announcement in 2013 would set the tone for all things to come including the next iteration of the Xbox platform. Within a week of their E3 announcement, after facing Sony’s harsh rebuttal at E3, Microsoft reversed all of its DRM and privacy invasion strategies after the gamers clearly spoke with their wallet, PS4 orders surged and people cancelled their Xbox One orders in droves. It’s clear, this blunder was Xbox’s first death knell and set in motion many future problems to come for the Xbox. Unfortunately, neither Microsoft nor the Xbox has been able to recover from this blunder.

Elite Console and Controller

XboxOneEliteController-smImmediately prior to this Windows platform integration announcement, Microsoft had just released the Elite Console and Elite Controller. This controller being a much more costly update to its existing hardware ($15o vs $60). This console and especially the controller is Microsoft’s nod to a more professional gamer. That is, a nod to those gamers who want to play games using higher quality contollers, button remapping, changeable controller features, more inputs and faster consoles. I’ll tell you what, though. The Elite Controller is actually quite nice, but very very pricey. Yes, some of us do want these advanced features from our systems. However, it’s entirely disingenuous for Xbox to release the Elite controller and system only to see Microsoft announce the death of future hardware systems just a few months later. Really, what does this say to would-be gamers about Microsoft’s commitment to the gaming market?

To me, this says that the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing in Redmond. On the one hand, you have the Xbox engineering team trying to drum up new gaming interest by releasing high quality experiences for the gamer. On the other, Microsoft itself is trying to reduce costs by getting rid of costly hardware projects it deems a loss. Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean good things for Microsoft as a whole. This ultimately means that the whole company is fractured internally and doesn’t have a proper focus on its products or its markets. Instead, it is making rash decisions without thinking through the long term ramifications of those decisions. A death knell.

Microsoft’s confusion

With this announcement of the integration of Xbox with Windows, Microsoft has likewise announced that it also intends (see article) to stop making future hardware and will instead focus on the Xbox platform as a subcomponent of Windows. Just like Windows Media Center, it will become an add-on to Windows. You might think that this is a great idea, but it isn’t. Let’s understand why.

Windows itself already offers developers a solid gaming development environment to produce native games on Windows. Most AAA game titles are made not only for consoles, but also for Windows and sometimes even Mac. The question is, would that spell the death of the Xbox platform? Yes. The reason the Xbox platform exists is as a gaming hardware platform independent of Windows. It does not exist for Netflix, Amazon or for any other non-gaming entertainment. Sure, you can play movies and music on the Xbox, but that’s not the platform’s intended purpose. Microsoft is seriously confused over the reason the Xbox platform exists and why it continues to exist. This confusion spells yet another death knell. Basically, if Microsoft thinks that the non-gaming aspects of the Xbox will survive once in Windows, it won’t. You can already use native Windows apps to get access to all of the services like Hulu, Netflix and Amazon… and the native apps are usually better.

The Death of the Xbox

Because Windows is already a solid gaming platform in its own right (in addition to being an entertainment platform), integrating a second gaming environment into Windows means that only one of these gaming platforms will survive the transition. Game developers will also only choose one platform to develop. Assuming status quo for the Xbox platform, the Xbox will be the clear loser. It’s simple to understand why: high priced licensing fees. It costs developers substantial amounts of cash to license and sell games branded with the Xbox moniker. It costs far far less to develop games under Windows directly. Unless Microsoft substantially changes their Xbox licensing model, this platform is entirely dead for gaming. Game developers won’t be willing to pay the excessive licensing fees on top of producing the game twice (Xbox and Windows) for the same hardware platform. Why would any game developer produce the same game twice that is destined for the same platform? They wouldn’t. A death knell.

So, what does this mean for gaming? PC gamers win a feather in their cap. Xbox gamers lose a platform entirely. Once games stop being produced for the Xbox platform, and they will stop, the only thing left to use the Xbox platform for is Netflix, other media activities and already purchased digital content. As I said above, you can already crack open Chrome or Firefox and do video streaming and music playing better. So, the answer, there will be nothing left to use the Xbox platform for except for legacy digital content that you may have purchased on an Xbox One/360… assuming that content even remains compatible after the Windows PC migration. Another death knell.

Digital Content

So, what does this mean for already purchased digital content? It means that you better hold onto your working Xbox One and Xbox 360 if you want to continue to use this content. Though, Microsoft may eventually force users to move to the Windows integrated platform and sunset the use of Xbox hardware entirely (and cut it off from the Xbox Live service).

This means that, at some point, you may no longer be able to download your digital content to your Xbox One and you may be forced to buy a PC. Depending on how Xbox One’s content activation system works, it may even prevent you from using the digital content you’ve already downloaded depending entirely upon how far and deep that Microsoft takes it.

Of course, this is still years off yet. But, once that time arrives, your Xbox One and 360 may become paperweights. A death knell.

Why this change?

From Microsoft’s perspective, I can understand the value and cost savings that integration (and lack of hardware) brings. No longer does Microsoft have to design, build and sell hardware platforms, no longer do they have to compete with Sony, no longer do they have to support this finicky hardware (a highly expensive ongoing investment). This means they can reduce their costs for all of the above. Instead, they can push the hardware costs back onto PC manufacturers to support their new Xbox platform.

Unfortunately, expecting PC manufacturers to support the Xbox is a pipe dream fantasy. There are far too many PC manufacturers who don’t follow the rules 100%. Instead, they get about 90% there and call the system done. This means that instead of having a fully 100% reliable Xbox platform, you’ll end up with a crashing behemoth of a system that, once again, barely works. The clear benefit to designing exclusive hardware is to achieve reliability by design. Leaving it to third parties to provide that hardware support means that some PC manufacturers will flat out not support the Xbox platform and those that do will charge a hefty premium. This ultimately means that buying a PC that properly supports the Xbox platform will likely mean a significantly higher cost than older far less expensive dedicated gaming console hardware. Not to mention, the clunky and ugly tower and desktop shapes of PC manufacturers which can no longer be used as a set top box.

This means that not only will the PC-based Xbox experience falter badly, you’re likely looking at 2x, 3x or more the price of today’s Xbox One to invest in a compatible PC-based Xbox platform. This puts this platform so far out of the price range of console gamers, this is yet another death knell for the Xbox. I won’t even get into the peripheral issues. Okay, I will a little. If Microsoft stops the hardware entirely, they’re likely to stop the controllers and leave that also up to third parties.

We all know how well PC controllers work with many games. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. They are usually not wireless and when they are, they are chock full of wireless issues. The whole reason the Xbox One works well is because of the wireless controller and its close integration with the hardware.

Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater

Ultimately, Microsoft is throwing away all of their hard earned gamer loyalty. They are effectively closing the Xbox and throwing away the key. What this ultimately says is that Microsoft has no long term commitment to the gaming market, the console market or the gamers. What was formerly the green glory will fade into Microsoft’s Windows obscurity.

Overall, this is the worst of all possible fates that could befall the Xbox. A console is not a console without hardware. We all know how well gaming platforms work when they offer dedicated hardware. We also know how well they don’t work when relying on third parties. Think Steam. Perhaps Microsoft is deluded enough to think that Steam is the model of the future? I can tell you that Steam isn’t it. Steam works, but for limited purposes. Effectively, Steam is the app store for gaming. Since most app stores don’t focus on gaming, it was inevitable that someone would put one together. Hence, Steam. But, the Xbox platform, regardless of its current strength in gaming will die a quick death once there is no more console hardware to be had. Gamers aren’t likely to spend their efforts chasing down third party hardware platforms that might or might not work. The whole point of a console is that it “just works”. The Steam model simply won’t work for the Xbox unless you’re talking about $2-5 pricepoint games which could run on Facebook. That’s not the class of gaming that Xbox One is today.

We all need hardware to make our lives better, yes even in gaming. You can’t game without hardware. Relying on PC manufacturers to get you what you need isn’t the answer. Worse, Windows native games and developers will kick the Xbox platform to the curb. No developer in their right mind would consider spending extra money to develop on the Xbox platform when they already have Windows development efforts underway. Why would game developers choose to redundantly build their game twice for the same platform? That’s just stupid.

Sony, Nintendo and, yes, Apple

All of the above is actually very good news for the remaining console developers. Once the Xbox platform dies quietly inside of Windows (and it will), Sony only need worry about Nintendo for the foreseeable future. However, with Apple’s recent foray into gaming with the latest Apple TV, this could mean Apple now has an opening into the console market. What I will say about the current Apple TV for 3D gaming is that it’s still very rudimentary. The textures are low res, the environments look like something out of the Nintendo 64 and there’s not a speck of realism to be found… yet. However, Apple can up the ante a lot in the next Apple TV console iteration. Assuming they wedge in a much higher end GPU and a lot more RAM into the Apple TV, they could easily match the specs of the Nintendo Wii U, but perhaps not yet approach the PS4… it will take quite a bit more effort by Apple to match Sony. For Apple, the door for the console market is quite clearly open. For Microsoft, the door is quickly closing.

Yes folks, the Xbox is officially a dead platform. With this integration announcement, this is the Xbox’s final death knell.

If you are considering the purchase of a new gaming console, you should steer clear of the Xbox One unless you really enjoy buying into dead gaming platforms.

 

Rant Time: Google should stop producing Chrome

Posted in botch, business, Google by commorancy on July 7, 2015

I’m all for browser competition, but only if the organization that chooses to produce such a browser actually takes it seriously. Enter Google. Google’s initial motivation for producing the Chrome browser was all wrong. Instead of wanting to produce a browser because they wanted something technologically better, Google’s reason for producing Chrome was to facilitate their advertising initiatives and agendas. Google should stop producing Chrome. Let’s explore.

What is a browser for?

A browser’s number one reason to exist is to render web sites. That’s the single solitary reason a browser exists. Everything else is just bells and whistles. But you might say, “Well, Chrome does that.”. In fact, it doesn’t. There are many sites I’ve recently visited in Chrome 43 that don’t render. I have no idea why and I really don’t care the reason behind its failure. I just want to know that when I visit a web site that the browser will render it. For example, the same web site that produces a white page in Google Chrome produces a rendered page in Firefox. It’s clear, Google doesn’t care whether or not Chrome works.

Does Google Care?

It’s clear, if you visit the bug reports pages for Google Chrome, there are ‘low hanging fruit’ bugs that haven’t been touched for years. Google doesn’t care. They don’t care if the browser is half-assed. They don’t care that pages don’t render. They don’t care that when the pages begin to render, they show all manner of ugly gobbledygook just prior to applying the CSS… and, in some cases, even fail to apply the CSS.

Oh, Chrome didn’t start out this way. No. It started out as a fast browser with independent sandboxed processes. What it has devolved into is nothing short of a dictatorial memory hog of disaster.

“Automatic Updates are nice”, you say.

Yes, they are, until you realize you still have to restart the whole browser. Whatever happened to the initiative of incremental component updates that didn’t require a browser restart? Well, that clearly never materialized. Worse, when the three line menu bar starts to turn colors (green, then yellow, then orange, then red), that’s just the kiss of death for Chrome. The point at which the bar starts turning color, you might as well restart it. If you don’t, Chrome’s developers intentionally and randomly begin breaking web sites until you do.  So, until you update, you can expect that some sites won’t load at all, won’t load correctly, or won’t work once loaded. And, this is intentional. It’s a gentle nudge (albeit, stupid) by the developers to force you to update your browser.

Worse, and as the color begins to change, the frequency of the breakage increases. I just don’t get this one at all. Why would you intentionally hobble the user’s browsing experience? But then, not actually just ask the user to update? Seriously, if you want the user to update, just present a notification panel that says, “The browser requires an update, restart” and force the user to restart. Don’t randomly stop parts of the rendering code from working and assume the user will take the hint. Just force the restart on the user… it’s a much more sane experience.

Broken renderer

And the crux of this whole thing is Google’s lack of seriousness (and experience) in producing this browser. As long as Google’s sites work, that’s all that matters to the Google. If you visit some other random site and it doesn’t work, Google doesn’t really care. They might or might not fix it if you report it. Oh, sure, they offer a place to report it, but it’s clear. No one really looks at these. There are bugs outstanding that haven’t been touched for years. So, don’t expect your bug report thrown into the ether to actually be touched in any timely fashion, if ever. Which comes to…

The Wrong Motivation

Netscape was formed to produce a browser. That was the reason for Netscape’s existence. Their commitment was in producing the best browser possible. However, Google’s motivation to produce Chrome was not from the goal of producing the best most compatible browser. No. Google’s motivation was to produce the best experience for displaying its own advertising and search content. If showing Google sites is the only metric by which to assess success of Chrome, then I guess it is a success. But, the rest of the browser experience is a failure.

Failures such as being unable to properly play flash content, failure to play Silverlight content at all, restrictive and unnecessary security ‘features’ and overreaching and heavy handed security tactics. Chrome is not about producing the best browsing experience, it’s about producing a browsing experience that Google mandates on you. In other words, if Google doesn’t approve of the site, then you can’t visit it. That’s not for the browser creator to decide.

A browser creator should remain entirely site neutral. If the user wants to visit a so-called malicious site, that’s their choice. If a user wants to visit any site, Chrome should dutifully render it regardless. Google’s involvement in the Chrome browser should be to produce a browser that ‘just works’. Not a browser that ‘chooses to work’ at some Google employee’s whim.

Technology Enhancements?

As lofty as Google’s initial engineering goals were for Chrome, that whole pretense has been completely dropped today. There have been effectively no browsing experience improvements to Chrome since its first year of existence. Yes, the version number has increased to 43, but there has been little change with each successive update. Oh, they’ve improved the extension system, but not to the point that enough developers take advantage of it. Yes, there are quite a number of extensions that exist, but still no where near the number that exist for Firefox. But, extensions aren’t the reason to use a browser. Sure, they’re niceties, but the reason a browser exists is to view the web. If a browser can’t even fulfill that basic function, what use are extensions?

Technologically, Chrome has also gotten worse over time. The whole browser is predicated on memory use (and lots of it). So, if you want to open 50 tabs, expect your browser to consume 12G of memory or more (depending on the sites you visit). With Firefox, this browser might consume 1-2G of RAM or less. I have no idea what Chrome is doing internally here, but whatever is going on is not right. There is no reason a browser should consume 12G of RAM under any circumstances. Effectively, the only relevant tab is the one that’s visible. This is the ONLY tab that should consume any active RAM (or any tab playing music). The rest of the tabs should be paged out of RAM freeing that memory. Which leads to the horrible tab system…

Tabs?

The tab system in Chrome is not only antiquated, it’s one of the worst implementations of tabs I’ve seen. At this point, I’d even call it broken. Not only do the tabs get progressively smaller as more are opened, there’s a tiny X on every tab to close it. Again, the only tab that’s relevant is the tab that’s visible. All other tabs are there for recall only. This means that the tiny X should not be visible on any tab but the active tab. If the tab is not actively focused, then the X should disappear. Removal of the X means no accidental way to close a tab on activation which does happen in practice far too often. The X should only reappear only when the tab comes into focus, but after the tab has been clicked.

Worse than the usability issues I just mentioned, there is no way to search through the active tabs that are opened. When the tabs get so small you cannot even see the icon, then you don’t even know what’s in the tab. So, the only way to find what tabs you have open is to search. Yet, Chrome provides nothing here. Firefox is at least aware of what tabs you have opened. So in Firefox, if you attempt to open a site that already exists in an open tab, Firefox will at least go to that tab. In Chrome, there’s nothing. Chrome happily lets you open yet another tab for a page you already have open, consuming yet more memory.

Chrome and its Future

It’s clear, Google is not serious about making Chrome better or more usable. Instead, it’s worried about making certain security obsolete to its own detriment. For example, Chrome developers removed certain key SDK features preventing Silverlight from working. Oh, I’m sure those software engineers would argue, that’s our right. Oh, I’m sure that it is. But, removing a key SDK feature that also eliminates a necessary browsing experience is not smart. It’s especially not smart for a browser that needs these features to stay relevant in an ever competitive browser market. I’d call this self-obsolescence.

When other browsers continue to feature this functionality and Chrome doesn’t supply an alternative, this is just stupid engineering design. It’s one thing to replace an SDK feature with a new one that’s compatible. It’s entirely different to remove SDK features that render certain features unavailable.

For example, because Amazon relies on Silverlight for its Prime TV experience, Google’s removal of the key SDK feature that allowed Silverlight to work means no more Prime TV on Chrome. This effectively says Chrome is no longer useful at Amazon. Meaning, if you want to use Amazon, you might as well switch back to Firefox. I ask Chrome developers, “Is it really a good idea to force users away from your browser?” Are the developers really stupid enough to believe that Prime users will ‘live without’ watching Prime TV and Movies and still continue to use Chrome?

Nails in the Coffin

It’s these stupid decisions by Chrome developers that really make no sense. Is it really the wisest of decisions to lock out web sites because your engineering team says this is what should happen? No. It isn’t. It also isn’t for your engineering team to decide. A browser is desgined to be flexible and expandable, not to offer limited browsing experiences. Chrome shouldn’t dictate which sites are ‘allowed’ by making wholesale changes that prevent sites from loading. Instead, Chrome needs to become open and flexible, not closed and unusable.

This software should let the user decide his/her browsing experience. If that leads the user into a trap that gets their computer infected, that’s not the browser’s fault. You can only prevent the user from their own folly for so long. But, the browser should remain neutral at all times. It should offer and allow all commonly used features, tools and protocols (whether they are good, bad, old or new). Who cares that SSL3 is old? Taking it out of the browser entirely will break user experience. It should never be taken out, but it can be set as a user preference to allow or disallow usage. If the user chooses to disable that protocol, that’s the user’s choice. It should never be a blanket choice dictated by the Google engineers.

It’s these stupid global wholesale decisions by the Google engineers that will make Google Chrome a thing of the past. Eventually, Google will become so constrained and so impossible to use that everyone will have to switch back to another browser. We’re quickly approaching that crux point… especially with removal of ‘insecure SDK’ features that remove key features like Silverlight.

No, I am not necessarily a fan of Silverlight, but I do want to be able to use it when sites need it. If Chrome simply can’t even support this most basic of uses, then what’s the point in using Chrome?

Chrome’s Dictatorship

It’s really surprising to me that Chrome’s developers are just pretentious enough to think they can dictate exactly how sites should be built. Meaning, when Chrome engineers remove SSL3 and other ‘weak protocols’ from browser support that these engineers think that sites will be forced to update the outdated protocols on their sites for Chrome. That’s a double edged sword. Chrome doesn’t yet wield enough power as a browser to make that unilateral decision. Oh, the Chrome engineers think that Chrome’s brand is that powerful, but I’m here to tell you it isn’t.

Chrome cannot and should not attempt to dictate what is ‘acceptable’ browser standards. That’s for the W3C to state. If a site chooses to use SSL3, that’s their choice, not Chrome’s. The only thing that removing these ‘features’ from Chrome will accomplish is to make Chrome itself less relevant. In other words, the more of these items that are removed from Chrome, the less reason there is to use Chrome. Sites have no obligation to support Chrome’s browser standards, especially when they become overbearing and unnecessary.

Overall

I am quickly coming to the conclusion that Chrome has outlived its usefulness as a browser. On my notebook where RAM is limited, I’ve already moved back to Firefox which consumes far less memory. On my home system where memory is a little more abundant, I’m still using Chrome. But, there are times where I want to watch Prime TV on Amazon and have to switch to Firefox. Because I’m tired of running multiple browsers and dealing with Chrome’s dictatorial approach to browser engineering, I’m about done with Chrome.

Eventually, more and more users will wake up to Chrome’s lack of basic features, such as viewing Silverlight content. I’m surprised that Chrome developers haven’t stopped Flash from working. That’s probably coming. That would be the ultimate nail in Chrome’s coffin. Once that’s done, Chrome is all but a thing of the past. For me, that day is already here. Bye Chrome.

Tagged with: ,

Patent Wars: When IP protection becomes anti-competitive

Posted in Android, Apple, business by commorancy on September 3, 2012

So, who wins when companies like Apple and Samsung battle over intellectual property?  No one.  Here’s why.

Apple doesn’t win

Apple thinks they will win because they think this action will block a rival product based on the fact that they claim they invented it first.  In fact, it’s not that they ‘invented’ it first, it’s because they patented it first.  Whomever gets to the patent office gets exclusivity.  That’s how patent law works.  However, Apple won’t win because of the negative publicity backlash that it is now unfolding onto the Apple brand.  The backlash against Apple is already beginning and it may end up becoming Apple’s downfall.

Seriously, are we to believe that there is any possibility of confusion between a Samsung device running Android and an Apple device running IOS?  The operating systems aren’t even remotely similar.  The sole and only reason to prevent another company from putting something on the market is to avoid brand or product confusion.  I hardly think that anyone would confuse a Samsung Galaxy device clearly labeled with the Samsung brand with an Apple device clearly labeled with the Apple brand.  Heck, the Galaxy devices don’t even resemble the iPhone now.

Clerk: Why are you returning this device today?

Consumer: Oh, I’m bringing this Samsung back because I thought it was an iPhone.

I don’t think so.  This is not a likely scenario at all.  I can’t imagine any consumer could walk into a Samsung retailer and confuse a Galaxy S with an iPhone.  So, why is Apple so adamant that this device is a threat to their survival?  In fact, if anything is a threat to Apple’s survival, it’s Apple.  Playing these legal games is the best way to actually make consumers become aware and interested in the exact devices they hope to prevent being placed onto store shelves.  If Apple had left well enough alone, these devices would have fallen into obscurity on their own and the iPhone would still reign supreme.  Calling undue attention to another device, in just the way Apple is doing, is just ripe to backfire on Apple.  And, backfire it appears to be doing.  Way to go Apple.

Samsung doesn’t win

I’m not going to cheer for Samsung here.  Are they a victim?  Not really.  They’re a large corporation that’s out to make a buck on a design that’s far too similar to one that someone else created.  I won’t say that Apple is in the right here, but Samsung is also not in the right by doing what they did.  I personally don’t like Samsung devices.  They’re too unreliable and don’t last.  I’ve bought many Samsung devices and they just don’t hold up long enough.  The quality is too low for the price they charge.  Making quality products is a whole separate issue from producing a product that cashes in on a look from a competitor.  Samsung, at least have the decency to hire designers that produce original looking devices designs. It’s really not that hard.  There are plenty of good industrial designers who could produce a high quality unique case design that could easily rival Apple’s designs without looking remotely like an Apple product.  More than that, though, why not make products that actually last?

Consumers don’t win

By getting injunctions to prevent products from hitting the store shelves, this is tantamount to legalized anti-competitive practices. Legalized because the courts agree with and, further, set up injunctions to prevent these devices from hitting the shelves or be sold within the US.  This hurts the consumer because now there is less choice.  Apple’s thinking is that with less choice comes more likelihood that the consumer will choose Apple instead.  Unfortunately, Apple didn’t take into account the PR nightmare that’s unfolding here.  Apple, don’t underestimate the consumer’s intelligence. Consumers understand that Apple is taking legalized anti-competitive measures to try to win the consumer choice war.  It is, however, the consumer’s choice as to what phone to buy and use.  It is not Apple’s choice.  Companies, when they get to a certain size and arrogance, tend to forget or choose to ignore consumer choice.  This is capitalism and consumers have freedom of choice.

Consumers will vote with their wallets in the end and that will likely be to Apple’s detriment in the long haul.  Instead, Apple needs to drop this lawsuit now and let these devices onto the market from Samsung. Let the devices hold their own or fail on their own merits.  The consumers will decide what they want to use.  Since there is not a real possibility that consumers could mistake a Galaxy S Android phone for an IOS based iPhone, there is really no damage done here.  It’s only perceived damage.

The real damage being done today, that Apple is doing to itself, is the public relations debacle they face with consumer sentiment.  Consumer sentiment is real and it is tangible and it can make or break a company. The longer these IP issues drag on and the more devices they try to block, the more people will pull away from Apple and leave the company, once again, high and dry.

Apple’s future uncertain

Apple needs to stop, look and listen.  They need to make better, faster and more useful devices instead of pulling out the legal team to fight a losing battle.  Keep the innovation going.  Forget the old wars and move on.  Heck, the whole thing started because Samsung made a phone that resembled the iPhone 3 case style.  They don’t even sell the iPhone 3 case style anymore.  The Galaxy Tab looks nothing remotely like an iPad either.  So, the whole ‘it looks like an IOS device’ issue is now moot.  It’s just being dragged on because of Job’s complete hated of Android.

Unfortunately for Apple, Android is here to stay and it’s not going away anytime soon.  Locking out Samsung does not in any way lock out LG or HTC or any other device that runs Android.  Instead, Apple needs to focus on innovation with IOS and its new devices and drop this PR nightmare that’s now unfolding in the consumer space. If Apple wants to drive a wedge between the consumer and the company, Apple’s current legal strategy is perfect.  If Apple wants to produce high quality easy-t0-use devices, that goal has nothing to do with blocking the sale of similar devices via legal channels.

Apple is now officially full of sour grapes.

%d bloggers like this: