Apple vs Creative - Your views?
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
One just left me for Shanghai this morning and the last message I received was at 5.40 am. Sigh.
Will Creative's patent suit sour Apple's core?
Apple's success with the iPod is leaving competitors in the dust, but at least one of them is striking back. Creative Technology Ltd recently filed a patent suit against Apple Computer Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming the user interface in the iPod, iPod Nano and iPod Mini players directly infringes upon a patent used in its own portable media players.
At the same time, Creative asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to investigate whether Apple has violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling iPods and offshoot products that infringe the patent, designated U.S. Patent 6,928,433 and referred to by Creative as the Zen patent.
Creative is asking the ITC to prohibit Apple from selling and importing iPod and iPod Nano products into the United States, as well as bar Apple from marketing and advertising the iPod and related products. Apple assembles its iPods in China, according to its 10-K report.
Apple was the leading supplier of MP3 players in 2005, with 32 million units shipped, according to iSuppli Corp. Creative was a distant second, with shipments of 8 million units. With iSuppli projecting a boom in both unit shipments and sales of MP3 players, the Creative moves may be a desperate attempt to prevent Apple from bolstering its market share, said Chris Crotty, an analyst for the market research firm.
"I'm skeptical about these patents," Crotty said. "I often wonder about suits that have to do with the look and feel of navigation. From a commonsense standpoint, how else can you navigate through electronics, other than menus and selections? It's like types of doors and windows on a house."
Rival plays
Given the soaring popularity of media players and other portable devices, the possibility of other patent suits is very real, said Martin Zoltick, an attorney and partner in the Washington-based intellectual-property (IP) firm Rothwell Figg, Ernst & Manbeck.
"There's a convergence of technologies in portable devices," he said. "Video and other multimedia technologies are finding their ways into cellphones, as is e-mail."
Zoltick believes rival consumer electronics companies, unable to put a significant dent in Apple's MP3 player market share, will try to attack the company at the IP level.
"Companies spend money to build patent portfolios to gain a competitive foothold," Zoltick said. "It is part of the business reason Creative might have decided to enforce their patents."
Creative declined to comment for this article, as did Apple. But iSuppli's Crotty said, "It seems Apple is not taking the threat [from Creative] very seriously."
Best known a decade ago for its SoundBlaster cards, used in PCs, Creative in recent years has also developed a line of MP3 players, including the Creative Zen and Nomad Jukebox models. It was issued the Zen patent for its MP3 player interface last August.
According to Creative's complaint, discussions between Creative and Apple took place as early as 2001. At one point, the two companies executed an agreement enabling Apple to license Creative's driver source code, with Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs hinting the company was interested in a smaller version of Creative's Nomad Jukebox player.
But according to the complaint, talks soon soured, with Apple proposing that Creative not only license its technology but also spin off its portable media player business into a separate company in which Apple would take a stake. Creative refused that offer.
Apple subsequently introduced its first iPod in October 2001.
Crotty is skeptical whether Creative's legal action can generate much traction for the company. "Why did they wait until now to file the lawsuit?" he said. "Maybe this is the end result of trying to negotiate with Apple and not getting anywhere. It reeks of desperation."
Crotty and attorney Zoltick agreed the burden of proof will be on Creative Technology. But Zoltick noted that the decision to file a complaint with the ITC "puts a lot of pressure on Apple. They had better get their defenses ready."
He also noted that Apple previously filed a patent application for an MP3 player interface but that the application was rejected because Microsoft had patent applications covering similar technology.
In a tailspinMeanwhile, even without the added expense and distractions of a patent dispute, Creative has its hands full as it tries to reverse a tailspin. In its most recent quarter, the company posted a $114.3 million loss, which it said doubled the $55 million to $65 million shortfall expected in its April guidance.
Creative blamed the huge loss on falling memory prices, though the company said in a statement at the time that it hoped the trend would also erode Apple's ability to undercut its competitors on volume purchase agreements.
Adding to its woes, Creative's Zen portable players have had some teething pains in the marketplace. The company acknowledged last August that 4,000 of the players had been infected with the Wullik.b worm, a mass-mailed worm code. The company wound up temporarily suspending shipments.
- Spencer ChinEE Times
Yeah. So that's the big issue about Creative sueing Apple and Apple now couter-attacking by sueing Creative.
Many people had their views on it and as adapted from the Digital Life, there was one guy who stood on Creative's side. This all started over the market of MP3 players which Apple is still dominating despite many electronic manufacturers are manufacturing MP3 players . This lawsuit is about banning shipping of IPod and IPod Nano into the US.
Let's compare the Creative Zen Vision:M and the Apple's 30GB player
They're about the same size and the screen size is about the same. Now this is where the difference come in.
1) Sound quality - Creative is well-known for it's Soundblaster cards to produce amazing sound off the computer. This apply for their MP3 players as well. The Creative MP3 players have amazing sound quality and it's better than the IPod Video.
2) Battery life - For the IPod Video, the 30GB version can play up to 14 hrs of music. Zen Vision:M offers 14 hrs of music as well. But there's a difference in video playback. IPod Video only offers 2 hrs of video playback. Zen Vison:M offers 4 hrs of video playback.
3) Screen - Both players have a 2.5 inch screen but the colour screen of the IPod Video's screen is QVGA transflective over 65,000-colour liquid crystal display with white LED backlight. Creative's screen is a 262,144 colour screen which will give crisp, detail detail even under bright lighting.
4) The IPod Video has a changable battery while the Zen Vision:M doesn't. That's a sad point.
5) Zen Vsion:M has a built-in FM tuner and while you have to purchase an extra FM tuner for the IPod Video.
6) Others would be almost the same. Just that Zen Vision:M doesn't have games while the IPod Video does.
People would normally go for the IPod Video cause everyone's owning an IPod. More of the " monky-see-monkey-do " theory. Everyone's having it doesn't mean you have to have it also. Go for the quality one.
Enough said, with all the differences pointed out, what's your choice? Tmr's the PC Show. If you want to get a MP3 player, make sure you do your homework before getting one.
This entry ain't no biasness to Creative or Apple. I love Apple. Not for their IPods, but for the Macs. They're the best editing tool on planet earth you can ever find. Sad thing that they're expensive.
posted by Rod @ 5:29 PM,
