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 534663
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 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Losing money? "
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

I was more making a point about why I believed Apple were the patent aggressors at this very moment rather than trying to predict the future.


Apparently, you tried to make a digressive dig at Apple's patent strategy while trying to argue that Apple stood a high risk of collapsing from some made-up bubble.

You seem to think that by injecting this unrelated patent argument into the conversation that it proves that it is "easy" to "compete with" or "copy" Apple... I'm not buying that it is "easy" to "do" Apple -- superficially, technologically, strategically, or financially. Least of all financially.

In retort to your notion of many players nibbling away at Apple: several of the players have been losing money for several quarters and are depleting their cash hoard. Apple has continued to grow its most profitable share of the marketplace nearly 100% each year, while not only preserving profit share but often increasing it. And they have industry-leading, virtually record-setting consumer satisfaction and loyalty rates. Even if half of their current business mysteriously disappeared overnight, they would still be as profitable as Samsung and tower over any other player.

Clearly there's other misinformed people out there - some of whom write for financial magazines.


Yup. Did you think otherwise?

Hence why you explain your point like an adult rather than a child.


You seem to think you've made some explanation of some point. You haven't even begun to present any evidence that Apple is artificially and incorrectly valued by the marketplace.

If what I've posted (and that link I referenced) is really that inaccurate, then please offer your own hypothesis as to why Apple are presenting a different business strategy to Microsoft.


Have I been unclear about what I think is nonsense, unsupported, or wishful thinking? I thought I was pretty clear about that and what my evidence was.

Edited 2012-09-10 23:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Losing money?
by Laurence on Mon 10th Sep 2012 23:47 in reply to "RE[6]: Losing money? "
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Apparently, you tried to make a digressive dig at Apple's patent strategy while trying to argue that Apple stood a high risk of collapsing from some made-up bubble.

No I wasn't. It was never a dig and the bubble was a side issue. My point was Apple don't have much in the way of unique products so need to prevent sales of their competitors to protect their revenue.

You're reading way too much into things.


You seem to think that by injecting this unrelated patent argument into the conversation that it proves that it is "easy" to "compete with" or "copy" Apple... I'm not buying that it is "easy" to "do" Apple -- superficially, technologically, strategically, or financially. Least of all financially.

The patent argument was the central and primary point of my post. You're the one that took this off on a tangent.


In retort to your notion of many players nibbling away at Apple

There was nothing to retort to given I said that was a highly speculative flipside to the absurd suggestion you made that for one business to go under, it must be from the direct hands of another business.

I made it perfectly clear that I didn't think Apple were going out of business any time soon.

So please don't twist my words around to suit your own agenda.

Yup. Did you think otherwise?

Ahh, so everyone who doesn't match your view point is obviously deluded.

Typical fanboy mentality.

As you're one of those guys who simply has to have the last word, I'll end this cycle now. So unless you have anything more compelling than the tripe you've already posted (and baring in mind I'm the only one who's offered up opinions and evidenced them), I'm ending this discussion here.

Enjoy your evening and remember, not everyone who offers up a non-idealogical view of Apple are haters out to "dig". So you'd go much further in life if you didn't treat us like so. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Losing money?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 11th Sep 2012 00:02 in reply to "RE[7]: Losing money? "
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No I wasn't. It was never a dig and the bubble was a side issue.


Your made-up bubble is not a side issue. Your entire theory is predicated on it.

My point was Apple don't have much in the way of unique products so need to prevent sales of their competitors to protect their revenue.


Exactly. You think Apple has nothing unique. I think it has something eminently unique. You think any impression of uniqueness is illusory. Its not only fake, it's easily replicatible. I think both are ludicrous and unsupported.

The patent argument was the central and primary point of my post. You're the one that took this off on a tangent.


Umm, okay. I see a whole lot more "collapse" and "bubble" than I see "patent"... but okay, you are primarily trying to make a patent fight argument now.

I made it perfectly clear that I didn't think Apple were going out of business any time soon.

So please don't twist my words around to suit your own agenda.


Seriously? You've been posting over and over about bubbles and collapses and maybe surviving, but you now argue that Apple is not going out of business soon? Okay.

Ahh, so everyone who doesn't match your view point is obviously deluded.

Typical fanboy mentality.


The "typical fanboy mentality" is to know that you can find any idiot expressing any idiotic opinion, especially when it comes to the financial markets?

So unless you have anything more compelling than the tripe you've already posted (and baring in mind I'm the only one who's offered up opinions and evidenced them), I'm ending this discussion here.


Not only are you not reading, you seem to be unaware of what you yourself are posting. You've shown zero evidence of anything. I've clearly stated my arguments and the evidence is so widely known as to not need citation (financials and market share %s).

Enjoy your evening and remember, not everyone who offers up a non-idealogical view of Apple are haters out to "dig". So you'd go much further in life if you didn't treat us like so. ;)


Thanks. You too?

Edited 2012-09-11 00:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0