Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2012 21:39 UTC, submitted by Yoni
Google Larry Page on Steve Jobs' comments on Android being a stolen product: "I think the Android differences were actually for show. [...] I think that served their interests. For a lot of companies, it's useful for them to feel like they have an obvious competitor and to rally around that." We'll never know for sure, but considering Tim Cook is reportedly looking to start settling all these lawsuits, Page might be right. Let's hope the lawsuits - settled or no - at least lead to patent reform.
Thread beginning with comment 512917
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by cyrilleberger
by Tractor on Thu 5th Apr 2012 09:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by cyrilleberger"
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

Apple never was #1, i don't know where you get your numbers.
The IBM PC has been an instant success, just looking by the number of unit solds its first 2 years in existence. And the difference is absolutely huge, in the range of 10 to 1 for IBM against Apple.

Only the C64 have been able to outsell the IBM PC, and then only for a limited time, and certainly not on revenue.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Apple never was #1, i don't know where you get your numbers.
The IBM PC has been an instant success, just looking by the number of unit solds its first 2 years in existence. And the difference is absolutely huge, in the range of 10 to 1 for IBM against Apple.

Only the C64 have been able to outsell the IBM PC, and then only for a limited time, and certainly not on revenue.

Indeed. and the iOS was never top of the smart phone market either. Symbian and BlackberryOS basically owned the market originally and by the time their market share started to collapse, Android was already on a par with iOS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by cyrilleberger
by ricegf on Thu 5th Apr 2012 10:24 in reply to "RE: Comment by cyrilleberger"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

While you may find it hard to believe now, the IBM PC was not around during the early years when the Apple ][ was the most influential personal computer on the market.

While the Tandy TRS-80 Model 1 sold roughly as many machines as Apple, it was a text-only model with limited expandability. Apple was generally viewed as the future of the home computer, given its color graphics and expansion slots. (It pains me to say this, by the way, since I was programming my beloved Atari 800 for NASA Langley at the time. But we all had a little Apple envy back then.)

You might find http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars as interesting as I did. Here's a relevant paragraph:

"What really turned the company around, however, was the release of the first ever "killer app." This was VisiCalc, the original spreadsheet application, which was released in 1979. The author, Dan Bricklin, wrote it for the Apple ][ simply because that machine, borrowed from his publisher Dan Fylstra, was the only one he had available. A combination of great marketing and even better luck propelled the Apple ][ from an also-ran to a serious contender. In 1981 the company sold 210,000 units, leaving the PET in the dust and nearly equaling the TRS-80's numbers."

When IBM introduced its PC, it was widely viewed by home computer enthusiasts as an over-priced also-ran. Apple even took out a full page ad, "welcoming" IBM to the market. But businesses saw it as a business rather than home computer, sales soared, and the world changed almost overnight.

Seems like only old geezers like me even know about the pre-IBM personal computers nowadays. *sigh*

Reply Parent Score: 6

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

since I was programming my beloved Atari 800 for NASA Langley at the time.



Right.

Reply Parent Score: 2

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Right. The Apple ][ was the #1 home computer in the time before the home computer. It was dethroned by the C64. The IBM PC was a business computer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by cyrilleberger
by kovacm on Sat 7th Apr 2012 23:34 in reply to "RE: Comment by cyrilleberger"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

Apple never was #1, i don't know where you get your numbers.
The IBM PC has been an instant success, just looking by the number of unit solds its first 2 years in existence. And the difference is absolutely huge, in the range of 10 to 1 for IBM against Apple.

Only the C64 have been able to outsell the IBM PC, and then only for a limited time, and certainly not on revenue.

of course, that's right! but only because BUNCH of STUPID people bought IBMs TRASH and make absolutely WORST TRASH industry standard. ;) ((

C:\NGRTLNS !

Reply Parent Score: 1