A patent shows a “virtual shopping world” that will eventually — i.e. never — end up in the Apple store. The project, which is similar to Second Life, will allow you to walk through a virtual store and buy real things. My problem with this is that when you visit an online store, you’re not shopping — you’re buying. You go to the Apple store to pick up a laptop, not look at 50 laptops. But that’s just me. Maybe I’m just a crank.
Unless you’re familiar with how powerful the shopping urge/experience is for many people within Second Life you really can’t understand what Apple is doing, in my opinion. Their stated goal of improving the “social” experience is dead on (and was a major point I argued with the no-social Kinset CTO).
Thing is, this level of interaction should, in my opinion, be considered too obvious for a patent award. I liken it to Amazon’s “1-Click”. There are more far-reaching, less obvious virtual/real shopping ideas already in the public domain, including one of my own ( http://blog.rebang.com/?p=577 ). But unlike Apple, many of us have to more carefully weigh the cost/benefit of a patent application.
If I had corporate dollars and lawyers at my disposal I’d have patented my idea and plenty of others. So it appears to me at least that we have yet another example of how deep pockets determine who “owns” innovation. And unlike Amazon, Apple has an army of fanboi’s to defend whatever actions they take. Wonderful.
I’ve heard this idea being discussed for almost a decade now….not so sure it’s the product of inebriation….
Virtual shopping mall you say?
Welcome to 1993 at Bell Atlantic in Virginia.
http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1993/b333877.arc.htm