The Innovation Argument

Jim Dalrymple contends that the ability to innovate isn’t lost despite Apple’s win over Samsung:

What Apple’s win prohibits Samsung, and others, from doing is blatantly copying Apple’s design. There is nothing in the ruling that says Samsung can’t continue to innovate. There is nothing that says Samsung can’t release as many phones as they do now or that they have to charge more.

[…]

In fact, this decision should lead to more innovation, not less. If Samsung is forced to stop copying Apple, there is only one option left — innovate. Instead of sitting back and making their phones and tablets look exactly like the iPhone and iPad, Samsung will now have to do some work. The hardware and software will have to be different, unique and innovative.

The Beard pegs this exactly right.

If companies like Nokia and RIM can create hardware and software that are wholly original, there’s no reason Samsung can’t. The fact of the matter is Samsung blatantly copied Apple’s product, and the jury (rightfully) punished them for it. There’s a reason the iPhone was such a game-changer when it debuted in 2007: it turned smartphones on their heads and revolutionized the whole mobile industry. Samsung -- and by extension, Android1 -- clearly ushered in an era of “me too” products. But even if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Samsung could’ve done something along the lines of what Microsoft’s done with Windows Phone, which is to say, innovate. But they didn’t, and they got bitch-slapped for it. And you know what they say about karma.


  1. The ‘Android-had-feature-X-before-iOS’ argument misses the forest for the trees.  ↩