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."
Thread beginning with comment 534600
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Losing money?
by Windows Sucks on Mon 10th Sep 2012 15:48 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Huh? Jobs died with 15 billion in personal wealth and almost 100 billion in Apple bank account. And today with all the Android around Apple is still making the most money and the most profits.

I think the most simple answer is that Google made it look like they would partner on the iPhone by providing what they did (YouTube, maps, search etc) instead in almost the same way Microsoft did it, Google came out with a similar product and in similar Microsoft fashion Jobs felt that those on the inside namely Schmidt stole ideas from Apple.

If it was money then why would jobs just not license their patents like MS did and make the money like MS does.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Losing money?
by Yehppael on Mon 10th Sep 2012 16:03 in reply to "Losing money? "
Yehppael Member since:
2012-08-01

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.

Jobs, might know hardware/software and design, but he's done a poor job of when it comes to choosing leadership.

Honestly though, I really have no idea why this is tech news at all, since all this is just business, has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with technology.

Concerning the future, I'd say this, invest in Microsoft and Google, Apple, only if you stay on your toes and can sell everything in a split second.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Losing money?
by Windows Sucks on Mon 10th Sep 2012 16:13 in reply to "RE: Losing money? "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

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.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Losing money?
by Tony Swash on Mon 10th Sep 2012 17:42 in reply to "RE: Losing money? "
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

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.


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

Weaknesses in Google's core business strategy are significant but are obscured by rising revenues. The most important number in Google's recent quarter was revenue-per-click which was down a whopping 16% year on year. The previous quarter it was down 12% year on year. The one before that down 8%. Dollars-per-click is essentially the price of an ad. However Google's ad revenues were up, they managed that feat by packing search results pages with many more money making ads. The volume of clicks have increased but the earned revenue from each click is deteriorating. You can see the evolution of Googles ad density by looking at a typical search page comparison from 2008 and 2012.

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-has-taken-over-its-search-res...

Obviously Google cannot continue packing more ads into search pages and may already be hitting the limits of that strategy. If revenues per click continues the decline shown in the last three quarters, even if the decline slows, then Google will feel the impact financially. Add that to the continuing problem Google faces in earning revenue from ads on mobile devices, which is a problem that the very expensive Android strategy has utterly failed to solve, and Google has some significant pressures on their core business model.

There seems to be a steady drift away from internet access via the desktop and towards access via mobile devices. Nobody seems to be able to earn much from mobile advertising. If you are Apple that makes a tiny part of your business portfolio less profitable, if you are Google that makes your core business less profitable

On the issue of the Apple Google history some basic things are clear. Google did break it's alliance with Apple and did so in a way that was experienced by Apple and it's leadership team as a nasty betrayal of trust. The Android design was reset once the game changing success of the iPhone became apparent to make it basically just like iOS. Google decided to attack Apple's business, as it has attacked the business of other companies large and small, Apple did not attack Google's core business. Who started a war is often forgotten or disputed. What counts is who wins the war. This war is far from over. I know who my money is on (literally).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Losing money?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 11th Sep 2012 04:00 in reply to "RE: Losing money? "
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

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


You do understand AAPL could lose 50% of its value and would still be 50% more valuable than GOOG, right?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Losing money?
by Laurence on Mon 10th Sep 2012 16:27 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

RE[2]: Losing money?
by tylerdurden on Mon 10th Sep 2012 16:56 in reply to "RE: Losing money? "
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

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 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, Apple sues other vendors who they think infringe on their designs (and design languages by extension). Because Apple's design is perhaps their principal value proposition that helps them justify/achieve their high margin business model.

Microsoft and Google have both very different business models from each other, and Apple as well. They are all going to be fine. Apple will eventually execute poorly at some point (perhaps the iPhone 5 will be just too evolutionary and lead to an stagnant image), and they will be brought down back to reality. A bit over a decade ago, it was Microsoft who was unstoppable and couldn't do no wrong, alas...


People so emotionally vested on specific technology companies, that they have nothing to do with, is an odd phenomenon. Perhaps a hint towards the possibility of an ill adjustment to reality.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Losing money?
by jared_wilkes on Mon 10th Sep 2012 21:23 in reply to "RE: Losing money? "
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Apple's revenue almost entirely come from iOS-related projects (iPhone, iPad, App store sales, etc)...


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.


This doesn't say anything. Revenue declines will often mean income declines. This is true of every company.

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


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.

Furthermore, Apples shares are exceptionally high.


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?

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.


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

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...


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?

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).


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 seem to be trying to conjure?

Edited 2012-09-10 21:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Losing money?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 11th Sep 2012 01:37 in reply to "RE: Losing money? "
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I thought I'd revisit your original post that you think is so brilliant and well-supported by evidence...

Apple's revenue almost entirely come from iOS-related projects (iPhone, iPad, App store sales, etc)


Demonstrably false. Apple derives 65% of its revenue from iOS; Microsoft derives 90% of its revenue from Windows and Office, Google makes 95% of its revenues from advertising.

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


This is meaningless at it applies to everyone. (Less so for Apple, as they have been able to grow profits faster than revenue... particularly in comparison to the competition.)

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


Again, evidence is to the contrary. Your conclusion is baseless. And it more strongly applies to Google and Microsoft.

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).


All of this is unsupported, mostly nonsense, and you claim you do not believe this will happen nor do you base any claims on it... why it has significance for you, I have no idea.

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).


Where is any evidence for this? Remember, the only fact you've really claimed so far is that Apple is somehow more dependent on iOS than Google or Microsoft are their core revenue stream. A "fact" that has been clearly refuted a while ago....

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.


Again, all of this is your own imagining based on the idea that Apple is more dependent on iOS than its competition is its core revenue source (proven false) and the "possibility" that the stock is going to crash (something that is not supported and which you yourself do not believe will occur.)

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.


You notice how you say "thus" and "so" a lot? Those words don't make an argument for you.

Microsoft, however, don't need to artificially inflate their business.


Again, when did you provide any evidence that Apple "has to artificially inflate their business?" This is your imagination.

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).


Microsoft KNOWS this even though their market share has declined from 4% to 2% and continues to decline? Really? Microsoft is happy with their current position and in better health than Apple. Really? Do you think others agree with you? Do you think you have enough time in the world to demonstrate this?

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.


You and Microsoft can go ahead and make that bet; Apple will go on kicking their ass, running the house.

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.


Apple is less dependent on their primary sales revenue than Microsoft is. Even if they were so, Apple's iOS business is far, far healthier than Microsoft's Windows/Office business. You haven't argued well and you certainly haven't provided any evidence of anything.

Edited 2012-09-11 01:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: Losing money?
by segedunum on Tue 11th Sep 2012 09:20 in reply to "Losing money? "
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Jobs wasn't stupid and he could see the writing on the wall with the kind of supply Android would have at its disposal and the size of the market they could have.

It was limited supply and market Mac versus large supply and large market PCs all over again. Jobs didn't have any way of solving that in his thinking other than to litigate.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Losing money?
by koffie on Tue 11th Sep 2012 10:38 in reply to "Losing money? "
koffie Member since:
2010-05-06

Funny thing is - Apple has a patent agreement with MS ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Losing money?
by Windows Sucks on Tue 11th Sep 2012 11:13 in reply to "RE: Losing money? "
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Funny thing is - Apple has a patent agreement with MS ;)


They have had agreements for ever. And I bet Google may have been in the same position as MS if Apple didn't feel like Google was pulling the sneak move.

Reply Parent Score: 2