Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Sep 2012 14:51 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Apple Written by Scott Cleland: "With so many fanboys spinning Silicon Valley history, it's sometimes easy to forget about the real chain of events that led to the ongoing Apple-Google thermonuclear war, how the romance turned to hate. This timeline presents an interesting case about why, despite patents and prior art, Steve Jobs had plenty of personal reasons to despise Schmidt, Page, and Brin." Cleland has a very, very good point; quite coherent and well-reasoned... That is, if you haven't got a single shred of historical sense and completely and utterly ignore the 30-odd years of mobile computing development that preceded our current crop of smartphones. It's hard not to be reminded of how certain groups of people dismiss millions of years of fossil records because this record inconveniences their argument. In any case, a comment on the article answered the question properly: "Jobs was a businessman. He was angry he was losing money. Simple."
Permalink for comment 534606
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Losing money?
by Laurence on Mon 10th Sep 2012 16:27 UTC in reply to "Losing money? "
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

A lot of people make this comment, but I think Microsoft and Apples position are very different. Please excuse the long post, but I'll explain why:

Apple's revenue almost entirely come from iOS-related projects (iPhone, iPad, App store sales, etc), so they need to keep that revenue up else they'll see a significant drop in income. Thus they need to monopolise the market and thus they need to prevent their biggest competition from, well, competing.

Furthermore, Apples shares are exceptionally high. They're very much in their own economic bubble; and like all financial bubbles in the technology sector, Apple knows that if said bubble would burst, their business could potentially crash quite significantly. However as Apple have grown so exponentially, they'll quickly end up in a situation where there isn't any physical room for more growth - and the very best scenario there is they plateau (but as past history has shown us - that rarely happens when bubble burst).

So Apple have to artificially sustain their shares by creating the illusion that they're dominating the market to keep investors from selling shares (as once that happens, you could end up with a domino effect where yet more shareholders sell stock before the price drops further). Then you need to ensure that your products also sell - and when your product is easily copied (ignoring, for the moment, the argument of whether Apple did "invent" multi-touch et al), the easiest way to sell your product is to prevent others from selling theirs.

Thus Apple go after their biggest rivals with sales bans and loud exclamations that they basically own the mobile paradigm and how everyone else should either change their designs (read: reinvent themselves with less attractive / usable designs) to booster their own sales and booster their public image to potential and current investors alike.

Microsoft, however, don't need to artificially inflate their business. Redmond know that if your OS is available to OEMs then all you need to do is get that OS to reach critical mass before users select those types of handsets over rivals (much like how Android has taken off as a household name). So Microsoft licence their patents at exactly the same price as their OS licences to encourage OEMs to chose Windows Phone over Android. It's a bit more of a long term game, but MS have the backing of the desktop Windows brand. With Win8 on the horizon, I'm guessing their betting the success of that (which seems far from certain at the moment) will booster their smart phone sales too.

tl;dr version: Microsoft licence because they're trying to sell their OS to OEMs, Apple seek sales bans because they can't afford to lose their primary sales revenue.

Edited 2012-09-10 16:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6