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 534663
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Losing money?
by jared_wilkes on Mon 10th Sep 2012 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Losing money? "
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

I was more making a point about why I believed Apple were the patent aggressors at this very moment rather than trying to predict the future.


Apparently, you tried to make a digressive dig at Apple's patent strategy while trying to argue that Apple stood a high risk of collapsing from some made-up bubble.

You seem to think that by injecting this unrelated patent argument into the conversation that it proves that it is "easy" to "compete with" or "copy" Apple... I'm not buying that it is "easy" to "do" Apple -- superficially, technologically, strategically, or financially. Least of all financially.

In retort to your notion of many players nibbling away at Apple: several of the players have been losing money for several quarters and are depleting their cash hoard. Apple has continued to grow its most profitable share of the marketplace nearly 100% each year, while not only preserving profit share but often increasing it. And they have industry-leading, virtually record-setting consumer satisfaction and loyalty rates. Even if half of their current business mysteriously disappeared overnight, they would still be as profitable as Samsung and tower over any other player.

Clearly there's other misinformed people out there - some of whom write for financial magazines.


Yup. Did you think otherwise?

Hence why you explain your point like an adult rather than a child.


You seem to think you've made some explanation of some point. You haven't even begun to present any evidence that Apple is artificially and incorrectly valued by the marketplace.

If what I've posted (and that link I referenced) is really that inaccurate, then please offer your own hypothesis as to why Apple are presenting a different business strategy to Microsoft.


Have I been unclear about what I think is nonsense, unsupported, or wishful thinking? I thought I was pretty clear about that and what my evidence was.

Edited 2012-09-10 23:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1