Hacker News Reader

Comment by raganwald | Hacker News Reader

Apple's success is based on its polish and attention to detail

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?

You want to have your cake and eat it too: You want Apple to innovate and you want everyone else to leverage their innovation freely. I understand why that's in your best interests, I can't figure out why Apple would bother if everyone else could "adopt" their innovation wholesale.

Where do you want to draw the line? Can others adopt Apple's multi-touch gestures? How about the look and feel of OS X? What about the code, can CherryPC or whatever they were called make PCs that run OS X by writing drivers for it? How about duplicating the OS X copde, can Chinese clone makers simply copy the OS X code and replace Apple's logos with their own?

View on HN

>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?

Because OS X and the iPhone are part of that polish and attention to detail.

It was a rhetorical question!

But responding to your explanation, if competitors are free to "adopt" Apple's innovations, why can't competitor's "adopt" OS X and iPhone by copying them feature for feature, polish for polish, detail for detail, simply changing logos and writing "Hello from Dreary Seattle" on the back?

It is not obvious to me how "polish and attention to detail" are going to be a competitive advantage in a world where competitors have the unrestricted right to adopt Apple's innovations.

I suggest that part of why Apple is able to differentiate with polish and attention to detail is our existing barriers to adopting other people's innovations.

> Why can't competitor's "adopt" OS X and iPhone by copying them feature for feature, polish for polish, detail for detail

They can't copy the code for OS X because it's covered by copyright. They also can't make it look exactly the same because of trademark. What does that leave? A competitor could then still completely implement their own operating system, User Interface, related hardware, and put the effort into polish and attention to detail. And somehow that's a problem that requires legal recourse to prevent?

Were you alive in the 90s? I'm just wondering out loud.

But it's not like Apple aren't standing on the shoulders of giants as well.

"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.

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.

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?

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.

Good questions.

Gestures, yes.

Look and feel, yes. (Without infringing trademarks.)

Drivers, yes.

Duplicate the code, no.

If someone can follow you fast into innovation, it's not innovative! If you can't stay ahead you'll get eaten by the wolves.

The problem with patents is they kill all kinds of innovation.

Once one company, let's say Apple, gets some patents in an area, then no one else can work in the same space. Give Apple all the copyrights they want plus trademarks and design patents, but no software and hardware patents. Even independent invention is no defense against patents - if I invent something and sell it, and I've never heard of you, but you have a prior patent, you can steal my invention and work from me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com