"Why Apple Actually Lost to Samsung" (Yay! Dvorak is back!)

It’s great to see the “old” John Dvorak back. You remember him – he’s the guy who would take the exact same info the rest of us have, pass it through his Bizzaro World filter and then pass a gaseous column worthy of the name “batshit crazy”.

In recent years, Bizarro Dvorak has lost ground to Rob Enderle as the go to guy for writing pulled out of one’s own ass but he’s come back with a PC Mag column worth its weight in Fool’s Gold.

John Dvorak:

Several times throughout the case, the same point was driven home: the Android phone is identical to, and perhaps better than, the iPhone.

The case and its results, because of Apple testimonies, make it sound as if Apple was suing because a better product evolved.

The obvious question is, “What case was Dvorak watching?”

While fanboys of all stripes may argue about the minutiae of the trial, the average consumer heard only one thing on their local news – “Apple sued Samsung and won”. That’s it. Nothing more. No one not intimately familiar with the trial would have gotten any other message than that.

As always, Dvorak leaves his best for last:

When the iPhone 5 arrives shortly, it will be crunch time for the company. If this is the end of the line for the iPhone, you can point to this lawsuit as the tipping point. It may be the last important iPhone.

I’ve often said, I love these kinds of “Pundit Pronouncements” if only because they are always wrong. Dvorak himself has been more wrong more times than any of us can count. This is the guy who said the original iPhone would be a flop, the iBook would be a flop, the iMac would be a flop and who said, “After this year’s showing, I doubt we’ll ever see another Macworld Expo…” That was two years ago.

Dvorak is famous for his revisionism – or maybe it’s just his inability to remember things clearly. He says, “I’m reminded of how the little-known MP3 gained popularity when the RIAA filed various lawsuits.”

Anyone who lived through the Nineties knows the MP3 format was most certainly NOT “little known”. It was arguably the most popularly transferred non-compressed files on the internet – besides porn. 🙂

So – welcome back John. We’ve missed you!

(thanks to Ted Landau for the link)

One thought on “"Why Apple Actually Lost to Samsung" (Yay! Dvorak is back!)”

  1. I have missed Dvorak and his demented wafflings .

    I thought he had finally retired, or been put out to pasture when even (his friend) Laporte stopped using him as a sunday TWiT regular.

    But here he is, a dormant bacteria back to infect a new breed of readers that lack the basic immunology of experience, or cognitive thought.

    So this time round he is saying Apple is doomed (cf. 1995, cf. 1997, cf. 2001 et al), and its the end of the line unless Apple innovates ….

    But because Apple now owns ’rounded corners’ as a patent (clue: it does not) it will halt ALL innovation of ALL products for EVER.

    I absolutely agree with Dvorak, and every gum-flapping, tic riddled freedonian moron of a tech ‘enthusiast’ who has so far espoused their brain-farts that there is a real problem with a patent system designed for the late 19C being applied in 21C.

    But to allow one company to spend all the money researching the market, investing in r&d, spending years on development and hundreds of millions developing an idea just for the other company to come along and copy the entire product is not only fundamentally wrong, it is ethically wrong, and that is the whole of the fucktards argument. They think it is ok for them to sit back, do no work and just copy you. Reward for little risk.

    Apple did not invent touch screen technology, neither did they invent a coherent interface grid icon system, neither did they invent a ‘white on green’ telephone icon. What they did was take these disparate ideas and put them together in a coherent manner, and built an integrated system to manage that whole mess in a manner that made sense to a consumer that didnt want to be a fecking geek.

    That is not invention. That is innovation.

    Why is it particularly unique to technology writers, pundits, commentators that they absolutely cannot understand the basic difference between the meanings of the word “innovate” and “invent” ?

Leave a Reply