"he had been betrayed by the two young men he had been attempting to mentor."

Google has been growing only in Ad revenue. Any day that people feel they are not getting their bang for their buck though Google its a rap since they have no other revenue sources.

If you look at Apple, the iPhone by its self brings in more money and profits then Microsoft total company. If you scratch the iPhone Apple still makes more money then Microsoft from the rest of their businesses and growing.

Microsoft is basically dead. Windows and Office make them their most money and both are played out. They still make a bunch of money on increased licenses fees, but the days of people getting excited over Microsoft products are long gone.

Isn't it interesting that when Mr. Schmidt was on Apple's board and aware of the iPhone, Google was not "late" to the smart phone market (Google-Android now has dominant market share), but when Google's Schmidt was out of the loop as a board director on the existence of the iPad, Google is somehow "late" to the tablet market?

You could reverse that view and say that Apple basically only have one revenue stream, and that's from iOS. Where as Microsoft's income is significantly more varied (though granted MS have their cash cows too). But should, overnight, iPhones and iPads stop selling, then Apple could end up in a lot of trouble very quickly.

I wont repeat myself as I go into a lot more detail here: http://www.osnews.com/thread?534606

Suffice to say, I think MS realised they couldn't grow much more and hence why they expended into the console market and such like.

Google, has been steadily growing, almost all the time since it's inception. They're thinking long term.

Make this comparison in another 10 years. If Apple still exists by then.

WTF are you smoking there!?!?!
Apple makes money essentially off iPhone and iPad. Anything happens to them - they're dead.
Compared to that, Microsoft can actually hold on for another 10 years - Office on Windows kills anything on Mac.
Google is in a strange place... they kind of have a lot of information hoarded.

No, Apple did not make more money off the Mac than Microsoft did "period". Microsoft had record shattering revenues and profits and decided this was a better time to write off a stupid acquisition than later, when the write-off will make Windows 8 seem even worse. For a failing company, Microsoft still does ridiculously well. Windows 7 is still growing faster than the iPad.

Apple does not monopolize anything,

What they have are the highest margins from almost any other vendor in the markets they are in, which is very different picture from the "soap opera" scenario many of you mistakenly assume the technology field is.

Apple is not suing anyone because they can't compete,

They made a profit just selling Macs many years ago and they still do. If the whole iOS business goes belly up Apple could survive on those Macs, but they will become a very small player in the tech world.

i don't think they can continue being ahead of the market forever, one day they will rejoin the pack just like Microsoft did.

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...

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).

You could reverse that view and say that Apple basically only have one revenue stream, and that's from iOS.

Since when is 65% equal to "almost entirely"?

so they need to keep that revenue up else they'll see a significant drop in income.

No, simply no. Adding "thus" in there doesn't make it so. Again, every company needs to not have revenue decline. This does not mean that every company must monopolize a market or prevent competition.

Adjusting for earnings, they are cheaper than GOOG and almost the same price as MSFT. You're not one of those silly fools who thinks the individual price for a single share of a stock actually measures the "cost" of a stock are you?

All you are doing is stringing a bunch of garbage together. What bubble?

They have 15% share (at best) of a market that is barely 50% developed as yet. Where is the lack of potential growth? What is your definition of soon?

I don't know anyone under the delusion that Apple dominates the market. Why would they need to, never mind be able to, sustain an illusion that only you seems to be trying to conjure?

That's assuming they survive the subsequent crash of their share prices after their financial bubble bursts.

The problem is, Apple aren't ahead of the market in anything but income and stock price.

And that's a pretty risky game to play if nearly all your income is tied up in a small fraction of your business.

Thom, chill man. You're way to anti-Apple. Everything has some degree of prior art, but the move from a PDA (stylus based UI) to a modern smart-phone (finger based UI) was started with the iPhone.

Everyone argues that for each individual element there was prior art, and they are right, but the balance of elements is the unique part.

I still consider the iPhone to be the reinvention of the modern telephone, just like Prius is the reinvention of the car (although it's a sucky car by itself).

Stop buying into the obvious argument as it's BS. Everything was obvious AFTER someone came up with it. BEFORE being obvious, it was next to impossible. The real art in coming up with a good product is to come up with exactly what everyone already needs and the market doesn't cover.

You're not accounting for App Store sales and so on.

It does when your biggest product is easily replicated by said competition.

But this goes back to the point I was making about revenue and their iOS stream.

Being insulting doesn't prove a point.

I'm only speculating here...

...but many are not as astute as us when it comes to these things.

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

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

inventory mgmt, supply chain, etc...

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.

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.

Apple does not monopolize anything, in fact they don't have the biggest market shares in many of the segments in which they compete. What they have are the highest margins from almost any other vendor in the markets they are in, which...

Apple is not suing anyone because they can't compete

Suffice to say that Apple have been around for nearly four decades and have reinvented themselves and their products on a number of occasions.

They will need to be ahead of the rest and come with the next big thing, which rumors have it be the television.

Samsung may be easily able to superficially copy Apple. I don't see them replicating Apple's financial success nor do I see their attempts to copy erasing what Apple actually created.

My point is: you don't have a point and you aren't very well informed.

And saying bubble over and over and over doesn't make for a bubble.

You could claim that, but you'd be wrong. Unless 30+% is now equivalent to zero in your book.

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

That's assuming they survive the subsequent crash of their share prices after their financial bubble bursts.

...which is what i just said

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Which makes them a tempting target for competition, and incredibly vulnerable to competition - because Apple's obscene margins make them incredibly easy to compete with on price.

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

Yup. Did you think otherwise?

No I wasn't. It was never a dig and the bubble was a side issue.

My point was Apple don't have much in the way of unique products so need to prevent sales of their competitors to protect their revenue.

The patent argument was the central and primary point of my post. You're the one that took this off on a tangent.

I made it perfectly clear that I didn't think Apple were going out of business any time soon.

So please don't twist my words around to suit your own agenda.

Ahh, so everyone who doesn't match your view point is obviously deluded.

Typical fanboy mentality.

So unless you have anything more compelling than the tripe you've already posted (and baring in mind I'm the only one who's offered up opinions and evidenced them), I'm ending this discussion here.

Enjoy your evening and remember, not everyone who offers up a non-idealogical view of Apple are haters out to "dig". So you'd go much further in life if you didn't treat us like so.

NO, it's not assuming. You are making a massively unsupported argument that Apple WILL crash.

What is your evidence for this? Most evidence supports Apple as having the healthiest position in the marketplace.

There is also historical evidence of Apple surviving far more precarious circumstances (2% share of one market, only 1.5 billion in cash, some quarterly losses, etc.).

Did you? I have no idea what your point is.

You bring it up an awful lot though.

Let's be clear: I'm saying Apple leads in most of the most important factors for ecosystem/company health (moat protections, network effects, financials, its audience, etc.) by a massive margin but does not dominate any market (they are usually self-selective for a minority share of a broader market).

If you think that what makes Apple unique is specific patents, or if you think that's what I think, you aren't doing a very good job of following along. Moreover, even if that were so, I don't see others attempting to copy that uniqueness as a sign that it is not unique. Often, it's an affirmation of the uniqueness to begin with and remains a poor imitation.

This is why I am arguing with your stupid theory even if you claim that you think Apple is going to be around for a very long time... If you think that, then you can't support your own theory because it's predicated on your "worst case" scenario.

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.

Wasn't it Jobs who said "great artists steal" or something to that effect?

Make this comparison in another 10 years. If Apple still exists by then.

"Make this comparison in another 10 years. If Apple still exists by then.

but I am an idiot

I've never run a business or project.

"Make this comparison in another 10 years. If Apple still exists by then.

"Make this comparison in another 10 years. If Apple still exists by then.

And the write off goes to my point of Microsoft and it's money losing businesses.

Yes, and because cabbages are green it must be a Tuesday.

Funny thing is - Apple has a patent agreement with MS

I can't blame you for skimming my post (it was a bloody long one), but if you're not going to read it properly then please don't waste your time responding as I really can do without these pathetic misunderstandings.

Thus they need to monopolise the market and thus they need to prevent their biggest competition from, well, competing.

"[q]Make this comparison in another 10 years. If Apple still exists by then.

Technically your response was already emotional enough, since it was basically an ad hominem.

BTW, here let me help you remember what you actually wrote , so perhaps now you can comprehend my previous post

In any case, a comment on the article answered the question properly: "Jobs was a businessman. He was angry he was losing money. Simple."

"You broke the cardinal rule of our profession. You allowed business to become personal"

Scott Cleland is President of Precursor LLC, a research consultancy serving Fortune 500 clients, some of which are Google competitors. He is also publisher of GoogleMonitor.com and Googleopoly.net, and author of the book: "Search & Destroy: Why You Can't Trust Google Inc.

He has testified before Congress three times on Google

Suffice to say that Apple have been around for nearly four decades and have reinvented themselves and their products on a number of occasions.