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 534649
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Losing money?
by Laurence on Mon 10th Sep 2012 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Losing money? "
Member since:

This says nothing but speaks to your personal self-delusions.

oh goody. Personal insults. I forgot it was impossible to discuss Apple without normally rational adults turning into complete arsehats....

Nonsense. Apple is way, way, way ahead in profit, revenue, margin,

...which is what i just said

inventory mgmt, supply chain, etc...

Not really. Samsung aren't that far behind Apple and Nokia and RIM probably aren't either (in fact if you talk about cell phones in general, then Nokia are probably ahead).

Well, okay, let's assume they are "only" ahead in income and stock price. Making more income from a smaller fraction of the market is riskier than making less money from a bigger fraction of the market? Seriously? Because I'm pretty sure making twice as much money as the entire rest of the industry with only 15% market share is a massive, massive advantage.

I didn't say that either. I said making more income from a smaller fraction of an easily replicated market was risky. Some financial analysts refer to this as a companies "moat"; basically how fortified they are from other businesses competing with a similar products. In Apples case, it's very easy for competitors - as Google have proven with the rise of Android.

I'm not saying Apple are going to crash tomorrow - or even ever. Just that Apple aren't sitting as securely as Microsoft were or even are now.

Reply Parent Score: 3