"Computer style OS" was just an off-the-cuff phrase. I agree that touch oriented input has been a key factor in mobile computing's popularity, but what I was getting at is the sophistication of the OS. iOS was a spin-off of OS X, and provided a depth of function and application use that was more like a desktop computer than a cell phone.
The revisionist history on display here is laughable. Okay, think back to the beginning of 2007. Microsoft, which was an OS-centric company, had already been involved in the cell phone industry for years, correct? But they weren't dominating the market. They were being soundly beaten by stuff like Symbian OS. They hadn't figured out how to compete against that yet. And Microsoft's idea of competing with Apple in 2007 was to launch a competitor to the iPod...the Zune. So it's pretty obvious that Microsoft wasn't thinking of the iPhone as a "clear cut" next step for Apple or cell phones. Their own cell phone products lagged behind the market leaders, and they seemed to think Apple's consumer market edge consisted of the iPod. It's literally taken MS until 2012 to launch something anyone considers as a legitimate competitor to either iOS or Android. Now think about Apple's mobile product line prior to the original iPhone presentation in 2007. It consisted entirely of various versions of the iPod. The OS that ran on the iPod was the click wheel interface, which didn't do much more than scroll through lists, launch music/video files, and play some rudimentary games. There is NO WAY anyone can seriously try to claim that iOS was an obvious next step for Apple in 2007 when looking at their prior mobile products. The difference between iOS and the click wheel interface was like night and day. Apple took the cell phone industry by complete surprise with the sophistication and power of iOS vs. other industry mobile products AND Apple's own prior mobile products. And it's pretty obvious that the market leaders in cell phones that Microsoft had struggled to compete against were largely in ruins 3 years down the road after iOS and Android came out. They didn't have a competitive answer to the operating system or software, which means they didn't see it coming. There was nothing "obvious" about what Apple did in 2007. Samsung and Sony are also examples of highly sophisticated electronics companies that also had legit software development arms and missed the boat completely. Where was their answer to iOS in 2007 if it was so obvious? Pretty much every "tech savvy" competitor against Apple missed the boat when it came to Apple's plans for mobile. iOS took the majority of the industry by complete surprise. Not only was it different from what the cell phone industry was using at the time, it was also different from what Apple themselves had been using.
There wasn't anything special about the iphone's OS though, It's just Windows desktop and a touchscreen, right?
Now Apple wants to ban the S3. Even when Samsung innovates and releases a phone that's absolutely nothing like the iPhone, they still get sued. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/apple-asks-court-to-ban-samsungs-galaxy-note-and-galaxy-s-iii-from-us/
And Google owned Motorola wants to ban the iPhone. And Samsung wants to use LTE patents covered by FRAND to ban the iPhone. Actually, they're targeting most of Apple's product line. Cry me a river about the Galaxy S III. People on this forum just completely ignore this stuff, or perhaps play the double-game of claiming that Apple's patents are wrong but Google's and Samsung's are right? And, of course, Microsoft has been constantly suing Android hardware makers over patents and constantly winning. You never hear a peep about that on this forum.
Jobs went all emo anime kid and committed seppuku after promising to bring google down with him by wasting his whole fortune on it rather than giving a single cent to charity - which wouldn't make sense until his company is profitable (being the richest company in the world is classified as not turning a profit, apparently). Now Google are fighting back. No one wins, thanks for starting this shit, Jobs you bitter hypocritical immoral thief.
Yes, Google is "the victim" who's simply "fighting back", but Apple is the bad guy. Meanwhile, Microsoft is successfully suing Google and Android hardware makers left and right...and you have nothing bad to say about that. My guess is that your attitude about MS would be "those patents are legitimate".
The difference is that MS isn't going bonkers all over the world with this. When MS went after Barnes and Noble, that was all over the press. When they won against HTC, that was everywhere too. When you look at how many times Apple has went against Android OEMs so far, it dwarfs in comparison to MS. Also, none of the upper execs at execs at MS got outed that they were going to go thermonuclear against Android. Also think this to yourself. Do you actually think Google would've bought Motorola if Apple didn't start constantly going after Android and their OEMs?
I don't see Microsoft trying take their competitors' devices completely off the market. Apple is being anti-competitive and anti-consumer. I really hope all these companies Apple is pissing off band together and win an anti-trust suit. Apple has turned into the cartoonishly evil monopoly everyone thought Microsoft would become back in the 90s.
Microsoft has been suing Android hardware makers in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere (just like Apple). And the types of patents that they're using are the same types that Apple does: non-FRAND patents, meaning that they're not suing over standards essential technology. The real difference between Apple's approach and Microsoft's is largely due to their business models for mobile. Apple's livelihood is the hardware sales, while Microsoft's is not. Thus, Apple is more likely to try and block the sales of hardware that violate patents than Microsoft. Yes. Both Microsoft and Google are starting to move towards Apple's business model because the profitability of "software only" approaches are starting to erode. Android has a big market share, but it doesn't really directly produce $$ for Google. It's simply protection for Google's search revenue.
What are they monopolizing? They don't have the largest market share in mobile or PCs. They are better at making profits, but that has nothing to do with monopoly power.