Originally Posted by Sabis
Apple doesn't innovate ANYTHING. Apple just patents anything logical that other companies think is too darned common sense to file a patent for.
Well, I somewhat agree with your comment. I'll just explain by pulling out one of my posts in my sig. I edited it a bit to fit my argument.
[I think Apple was a very innovative company]. They have made devices that are able to appeal to the masses, and that is a major accomplishment in itself. The downside to that is now they have made their products and the market stagnate. Since Apple has almost half the population using their products, they don't feel the need to take the risk of reinventing the wheel and trying something new. This is partly the reason why I think Windows Surface/Windows 8 will do well. Every new device that Apple throws at the tech. industry is more of a tick than a tock, and their innovation has lost its fire due to their conservative attitude. The way I see it, Apple seems so occupied trying to get rid of the competition that they have forgotten what made them get to the point where they are today: risk taking. Their release of the iPhone back in '07 was nothing short of revolutionary, but since then, nothing major has changed. Now that other companies have caught up with Apple's beyond-its-time products (namely mobile devices), Apple sees them as a threat, and they are trying to obstruct/ban them so that they remain on top. When I think about Apple, the world gilded comes to mind (pretty on the outside, cheap on the inside). Calling Apple [uncreative] is what some people would describe them, but if you really dig into the company's history, you'll find out that [they're not just uncreative now], but greedy and sly.
To get somewhat back on topic, I don't see how this deal could hurt Apple in any way
. EDIT: The next paragraph negates this statement. Afaik, some (most?) of Google's success is because their products are open source and free to share among the public. Doing this also makes the competition more equal so one company doesn't keep all of the goodies from the others (admittedly, this has the potential to dilute innovation). Plus, haven't we all learned to share when we were kids
The closest thing to Apple sharing is their SDK that you have to pay $99/year for.
I believe that Google made this idea not because they want to put Apple down, but to resolve, to an extent, the horrible patent system that is in use. Apple's designs, well at least their software, is pretty much standard today, and I don't see why such a "standard" thing shouldn't be shared. With that said, it could also lead to why Google hasn't made their search engine open source, but I guess there are some things that companies would like to keep exclusive. In Apple's case, it would be everything...If being open source was, in all of its essence, a good thing, then Apple would be hurting themselves by not making their products open to the public. If open source products stagnate innovation, then Google would be in the red, but Apple seems to already have that problem (well, I
think they do). If my past two sentences are correct, then Apple would take a double whammy if they made their inventions and whatnot to be shared with everyone. Just my Edited by airisom2 - 7/23/12 at 8:40pm