Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Aug 2011 21:19 UTC
Permalink for comment 486577
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-22
Well, to invoke a discussion I had with MOS6510 recently...
If that's so clear-cut, why do Apple sue competitors instead of leaving them doing business ?
Liebherr and Miele respectively make the best fridges and washing machines in the high-end market, and are well-known for that. Yet they have never sued Samsung. "
Apple may be suing it's competitors but to the best of my knowledge those legal actions have not yet actually constrained the supply of any competing product, so as of today consumers have in reality a free choice as to which products to buy.
It seems therefore to me that there are two possible hypothesis here:
Either
a) Apple products are so very popular with consumers because they do meet/satisfy the needs and requirements of those consumers better than competing products
or
b) Apple products are so very popular with consumers even though they do not meet/satisfy the needs and requirements of those consumers because of other factors unrelated to the nature of the products themselves such as advertising, fashion, fad, etc
I find (b) not only inherently implausible but frankly ludicrous.