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 534646
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Losing money?
by jared_wilkes on Mon 10th Sep 2012 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Losing money? "
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

That's assuming they survive the subsequent crash of their share prices after their financial bubble bursts.


This says nothing but speaks to your personal self-delusions.

The problem is, Apple aren't ahead of the market in anything but income and stock price.


Nonsense. Apple is way, way, way ahead in profit, revenue, margin, inventory mgmt, supply chain, etc...

And that's a pretty risky game to play if nearly all your income is tied up in a small fraction of your business.


Well, okay, let's assume they are "only" ahead in income and stock price. Making more income from a smaller fraction of the market is riskier than making less money from a bigger fraction of the market? Seriously? Because I'm pretty sure making twice as much money as the entire rest of the industry with only 15% market share is a massive, massive advantage.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Losing money?
by Laurence on Mon 10th Sep 2012 22:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Losing money? "
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

This says nothing but speaks to your personal self-delusions.

oh goody. Personal insults. I forgot it was impossible to discuss Apple without normally rational adults turning into complete arsehats....

Nonsense. Apple is way, way, way ahead in profit, revenue, margin,

...which is what i just said

inventory mgmt, supply chain, etc...

Not really. Samsung aren't that far behind Apple and Nokia and RIM probably aren't either (in fact if you talk about cell phones in general, then Nokia are probably ahead).

Well, okay, let's assume they are "only" ahead in income and stock price. Making more income from a smaller fraction of the market is riskier than making less money from a bigger fraction of the market? Seriously? Because I'm pretty sure making twice as much money as the entire rest of the industry with only 15% market share is a massive, massive advantage.

I didn't say that either. I said making more income from a smaller fraction of an easily replicated market was risky. Some financial analysts refer to this as a companies "moat"; basically how fortified they are from other businesses competing with a similar products. In Apples case, it's very easy for competitors - as Google have proven with the rise of Android.

I'm not saying Apple are going to crash tomorrow - or even ever. Just that Apple aren't sitting as securely as Microsoft were or even are now.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Losing money?
by jared_wilkes on Mon 10th Sep 2012 22:59 in reply to "RE[7]: Losing money? "
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I forgot it was impossible to discuss Apple without normally rational adults turning into complete arsehats....


This is what you said:

That's assuming they survive the subsequent crash of their share prices after their financial bubble bursts.


NO, it's not assuming. You are making a massively unsupported argument that Apple WILL crash. What is your evidence for this? Most evidence supports Apple as having the healthiest position in the marketplace. There is also historical evidence of Apple surviving far more precarious circumstances (2% share of one market, only 1.5 billion in cash, some quarterly losses, etc.). But I, ME?, I'm assuming that Apple somehow manages to survive this mythical crash that's not happening.

...which is what i just said


Did you? I have no idea what your point is. You said "Apple have to artificially sustain their shares by creating the illusion that they're dominating the market." So now you are saying Apple's industry leading revenues, profits, margins are not an illusion but are actually real? Because I thought you said Apple was tricking everybody and needs to keep fooling them, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows that Apple's financial lead in the smartphone market is real and not illusory in the least.

In Apples case, it's very easy for competitors - as Google have proven with the rise of Android.


We've witnessed 3 smartphone leaders disappear (Palm, SE, and MMI acquired) and all of the rest, except Samsung, are losing money or barely breaking even. All of these remaining players have fewer units (we won't even touch financials) than Apple. The two leading market encumbants (RIM, Nokia) are falling apart. And Google may make a few billion that it would have made regardless of whether or not Android existed at all. I don't see anyone having an easy time competing with Apple. Only Samsung is competing at all, and I don't think it's easy. On unfair, maybe illegal, and brutally hard fought terms, but not easily.

I'm not saying Apple are going to crash tomorrow - or even ever.


You bring it up an awful lot though.

Edited 2012-09-10 23:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1