Unless you've been in an abandoned island for the last 6-7 years, it's impossible that you have not heard of any smartphone war that's under way. Everywhere they find the news, they see newspapers, they hear people talking about them on the subway. There is only a week in the smartphone technology world. Did you stop and why? What's your angle? What do they want to achieve? Obviously, the answer is only one: they try to keep the bundle in order to take over the four layers of the entire smartphone universe. It's simple; the more you control, the more ways you can shout for money, the average Joe.
I mentioned the four layers of the stack. The smartphone universe & # 39; # 39; These 4 very important components are Carrier Networks (AT & T, Vodafone, Verizon, etc., which provide smart data connections), tools and decision makers (HTC, Samsung, Nokia, carrier networks) mobile operating systems (representing the software platform running on the devices), and not least Applications and Application Developers (who are involved in small programs running on devices within the operating system) that all these layers are integrated and interdependent: anyone who is lucky / smart enough to regulate as many layers as possible, it has enormous control over consumers and, of course, revenue sources. Contracts, trademarks, copyrights and various patents: everything a consumer can do, fight laws and encourage governments to adopt consumer protection laws
a few years ago, the first generation of smartphones between Symbian, BlackBerry and the first versions of iOS. At that time, mobile OS, Symbian and Windows Mobile are not widely accepted. The hardware was not ripe enough either, or the price. In those days, companies have created only huge ports of tens of thousands of patents. It was a very cold war, while the missiles were aimed at each other, and if anyone even made the slightest mistake, the whole smartphone universe blows. Exactly & # 39; Mutual Guaranteed Destruction of the Cold War companies knew that the best solution was to deal with the situation because it made it easy … to shoot, shoot back, and as a result they all died. Litigation and settlements were a beneficial way of mutual destruction.
With the launch of the Android operating system, things have become messier because this operating system has been very successful and quick to accept, so it has provided room for the full war. It did not take long for Microsoft to sue HTC for violating various Android phones, and at the end of the day, the Taiwanese company decided to settle a small charge on Microsoft for each phone on the phone. The same thing happened between Microsoft and Samsung, and now, Microsoft obviously doubles the money in the two settlements like their own Windows Phone 7 smartphones. Another important war continues between Apple and Samsung in a war that is called a global world without exaggeration as it comes to the courts in Africa, Europe, India, China, Japan and the United States. The Cupertino-based company accuses Samsung of infringing copyright and patent infringement in many designs, such as the iPhone and iPad. Samsung has sued Apple all over the world, but it does not seem to be a big success. In any case, the vast majority of these texts of patent laws usually come with a cross-licensing agreement and perhaps even a small financial settlement. This means that the participating parties agree to share these patents and thus can not be used with each other.
Now that I've summarized the ideas behind the smartphone wars, let's see how they act as clients. Basically, two things tend to happen; First, when competition is slower and slows down, it makes the monopoly easier, which is obviously bad news for the customer. In addition, litigation has nothing to do with improving products or services, and I do not like to improve these areas. This large amount of money can result in significant improvements in the research and development of both new and better products. At this rhythm, we only pay less for less. The smartphone war is bad because it does not allow people the right to make their own decisions. Instead, companies tend to compete in the courtroom, which means that a small person will answer for each of us. Sounds like a communist sound, do not you think?