The phone manufacturers will be fine. There won't really be any massive damage to their revenue, the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer.
>> the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer.
Even this remains to be seen.
I don't think vanilla Android is going to be affected very much. There might be a chilling effect on anyone trying to re-skin Android as an iPhone wannabe, but that's probably a good thing.
I'm an iPhone user who thinks that some of Samsung's older models were blatantly trying to knock off the iPhone, but on the whole, I don't think that Android itself does, especially with the more recent releases of the OS.
Samsung just got a deserved spanking for some past bad behaviour, but even they have moved past the "aping" phase and have been producing non-infringing phones lately.
> Even this remains to be seen. I don't think vanilla Android is going to be affected very much.
You're obviously not familiar with the lawsuit on universal search. [1] Apple forced Samsung to remove a feature from its phone. Even from the stock Android Galaxy Nexus, which is much different from the iPhone. This lawsuit is already affecting consumers today. My tablet was just updated yesterday and had universal search removed. Meaning Apple already directly made my device worse.
I had heard about the universal search part, but I tend to think that at some point in the near future you'll see Google and Apple work out a cross-licensing agreement similar to the one between Apple and Microsoft, which means that feature will be coming back.
Apparently the universal search is back in 4.1 in a non-infringing way.
>> Google significantly revamped search in Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) by introducing their new search product, Google Now. The persistent search bar stayed, but it now pulled up Google Now with its fancy prediction and useful cards. It now intelligently pulls in weather, driving directions, sports scores, and more without the user even asking. They also tweaked the way it searched both the web and the device, side-stepping Apple's patent. In addition, they countered Apple's Siri by offering a similar (but often faster) voice search and actions within Google Now.
So when you said "that remains to be seen". You actually meant "that does not remains to be seen" and "that remains to stay that way before the end of times"?
Sometimes admitting you were wrong is the right way to go.
>> the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer.
>> Even this remains to be seen.
>> So when you said "that remains to be seen". You actually meant "that does not remains to be seen -- but remains to stay that way before the end of times"?
Long run to me means 3-4 years, not "end of times". I think Google and Apple will come to a licensing deal in a shorter time period, because it's in both of their interests to do so.
Because of this, I don't think that the consumer is hurt in the long run, so it does remain to be seen if the statement I replied to will happen.
