'What really made Steve Jobs so angry at Google?'
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."
E-mail Print r 1   81 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/kcb
Thread beginning with comment 534642
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Losing money?
by jared_wilkes on Mon 10th Sep 2012 21:23 UTC 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[3]: Losing money?
by Laurence on Mon 10th Sep 2012 21:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Losing money? "
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


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

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

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.


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.

It does when your biggest product is easily replicated by said 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?

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


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

Being insulting doesn't prove a point.



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'm only speculating here, but I can't foresee the smartphone market growing that significantly for the next few years and I can't see Apple eating away at Androids market.



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?

I've spoken to plenty on here who believed Apple dominated the smartphone market. Jobs even exclaimed that Apple were the biggest mobile manufacturers (or words to that effect). Now I know Jobs was carefully spinning statistics (including laptop sales and iPod touch, etc) to give favourable -albeit unrealistic- headlines, but many are not as astute as us when it comes to these things.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Losing money?
by jared_wilkes on Mon 10th Sep 2012 22:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Losing money? "
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

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


In fact, I am. And I suspect you've never looked at AAPL's financials nor would you have a clue what to do with them if you did.

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


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.

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


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


Being insulting doesn't prove a point.


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



I'm only speculating here...


Yeah, I can tell.


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


It's cute that you are astute enough to know this but not astute enough to espouse a theory predicated on everyone being not as astute as you (even though I know of no such people).

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >