Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Sep 2012 14:51 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
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 534613
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-26
Apple does not monopolize anything,
I never said they did. In fact that was part of my bloody point in regards to their financial bubble
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.
Many of whom? I'm talking purely about financial side of things.
Apple is not suing anyone because they can't compete,
I didn't say that either
In fact, did you even read anything I said or did you just decided you'd go off on your own random counter-argument on the assumption I'd probably be spouting some emotional BS?
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.
Edited 2012-09-10 21:23 UTC
Member since:2009-03-17
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.
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:
Thus they need to monopolise the market and thus they need to prevent their biggest competition from, well, competing.
Cheers.
Edited 2012-09-11 17:43 UTC
RE[3]: Losing money?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 10th Sep 2012 22:25
in reply to "RE[2]: Losing money? "
Member since:2008-06-02
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...
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.
Apple is not suing anyone because they can't compete
You know, I actually agree with you there. Apple doesn't sue because they can't compete, it's because they'd rather not have to compete. An important distinction, thanks for clearing that up.
Member since:2011-04-25
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.
Who is doing this? We are talking financially, right? The health of a company is largely on financial terms... Yes, everyone is copying Apple, but who is competing with Apple? Samsung in some segments, that's it. HP, Dell, Nokia, RIM, Palm, Motorola, Microsoft... It is easy to trade profit for share; it is not easy to compete with Apple.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
The third and final WWDC product I want to talk about is - of course - OS X 10.9 Mavericks. While iOS 7 was clearly the focus of this year's WWDC, its venerable desktop counterpart certainly wasn't left behind. Apple announced OS X 10.9 Mavericks, the first OS X release not to carry the name of a big cat.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
We already talked about iOS 7 yesterday (after a night of sleep, it's only looking worse and worse - look at this, for Fiona's sake!), so now it's time to talk about the downright stunning and belly flutters-inducing new Mac Pro. As former owner and huge, huge, huge fan of the PowerMac G4 Cube - I haven't been this excited about an Apple product since, well, I would say the iMac G4. This is the Apple I used to love.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Apple held its big keynote event thing at WWDC earlier this evening, but since I was away with friends I've had to read up on it later in the evening. The company announced iOS 7, OS X 10.9 Mavericks, and they gave a preview of the new Mac Pro. Especially the Mac Pro impressed me, and while iOS 7's new Holo/Metro-inspired theme looks messy and garish to me, I do commend Apple for finally breaking the mold. This news item will focus on iOS 7 - I'll dive into the Mac Pro and OS X 10.9 tomorrow (it's late here now).
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
And yes, the PRISM scandal is far, far from over. More and more information keeps leaking out, and the more gets out, the worse it gets. The companies involved have sent out official statements - often by mouth of their CEOs - and what's interesting is that not only are these official statements eerily similar to each other, using the same terms clearly designed by lawyers, they also directly contradict new reports from The New York Times. So, who is lying?
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
This story is getting bigger and bigger. Even though most Americans probably already knew, it is now official: the United States government, through its National Security Agency, is collecting the communications and data of all American citizens, and of non-Americans using American services, through a wide collaboration with the large companies in technology, like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and so on. Interestingly enough, the NSA itself, as well as the US government, have repeatedly and firmly denied this massive spying on Americans and non-Americans took place at all.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Ah, patents - the never-ending scourge of the technology industry. Whether wielded by companies who don't actually make any products, or large corporations who abuse them because they can't compete in the market place or because they're simply jerks, they do the industry a huge disservice and are simply plain dangerous. According to The Wall Street Journal (circumvention link), president Obama is about to take several executive actions to address patent trolls - which may seem like a good idea, but I am very worried that all this will do is strengthen the positions of notorious patent system abusers such as Apple and Microsoft.
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
With version 13.05, the developers of the Genode OS Framework take measures to ensure that Genode continues to scale well with a growing number of users and the steadily broadening platform coverage. Further highlights are the improved SoC support for Exynos 5, OMAP4, Raspberry Pi, i.MX, and new components for realizing headless systems.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
At the D11 conference, Apple CEO Tim Cook once again took the stage to be interviewed by Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher. While most of the interview can be replicated by picking and reading 10 random Apple fanblog stories - there were still a number of very interesting things that warrant some closer scrutiny.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
So, the Xbox One disaster continues. Microsoft's policy for dealing with the used games market has reportedly leaked - and it's a clear and direct attack to destroy the used games market. Prices for used games will be set at the retail value of a new game, and retailers have to hook into Microsoft's computer systems and comply with Microsoft's terms and conditions.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
At an event earlier today, Microsoft unveiled the next Xbox - the third model, but confusingly named Xbox One. The big focus was TV, integrated Kinect, and all the other stuff we all expected to be forced down our throats. I think it took them 25 minutes to actually come to what should be the core of the story: gaming. Nothing groundbreaking in the gaming department, except for how Microsoft intends to handle the used games market and borrowing games from friends: pay up, buddy!More Features »
Sponsored Links
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.