>> I'm not sure why one should think Apple, after designing it on their own, for their own use in their own products, is obligated in some way to make it open to all potential competitors.
To competitors? I'm not talking about competitors. This isn't rocket science. It is a nonstandard USB connector with a protocol for interconnecting the device.
It isn't like some competitor is going to WANT to use it. No, this is totally about making money off every product that attaches to an i-thing. Keep in mind that initially, AAPL's fee for use of this connector was 1.5%. Only after a market developed in add-on products did they increase it. Now, I'm not opposed to APPL making money, don't get me wrong. But let's be honest and call it what it is.
>> As I said, if a company could re-engineer the port and make compatible devices without violating Apple's patent (or is it more than one?), Apple wouldn't have anything to say about it, legally.
You are wrong, and you have been wrong throughout this thread. AAPL claims ownership of the design of the connector as well as the pinouts, etc. If it plus into an i-thing, AAPL's getting a cut. Period.
>> How are the two situations even remotely similar?
They aren't. That was the point. AAPL operates a totally, intentionally, unnecessarily CLOSED system when a totally open system would do better. This is but ONE EXAMPLE of the way in which the AAPL system is closed.
As you'll remember, one of the early complaints about the iPad was the absence of a standard USB connector. In fact, the rumor mill went so far as to suggest it might be present in the new iPad (of course, were it to be, it would be totally useless because of unnecessary restrictions on its functionality).
The closed architecture is going to bite AAPL in the ass before this is over. As the market is flooded with devices that can communicate openly with other devices, it is going to be serious disadvantage for AAPL IMO. |
