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 534638
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Losing money?
by Laurence on Mon 10th Sep 2012 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Losing money? "
Laurence
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

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Losing money?
by tylerdurden on Tue 11th Sep 2012 17:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Losing money? "
tylerdurden 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

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Losing money?
by Laurence on Wed 12th Sep 2012 09:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Losing money? "
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


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

That's purely your emotional interpretation of my post and nothing more. So please don't accuse me of emotional bias because you're unable of impartiality yourself.

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

You do comprehend what "needs" means? It represents a desire, not a literal quantitative. Perhaps next time you decide to drop Latin into your comments, you learn grasp English first. ;)

Anyhow, the crux of the point you're querying is that exponential growth cannot be sustained (neither by iOS nor by Android) without:
1) absorbing their competitors market,
2) and eventually monopolising the market.

Thus -as I had stated- Apple need a monopoly if that want to sustain the exponential growth that their currently displaying.

Reply Parent Score: 4