Submitted by 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.”
What an utterly arrogant opinion to hold. Even in the timeline in question, Google were a hugely successful multi-million dollar business and Schmidt (et al) were anything by “n00bs” needing the guidance of Jobs.
I swear to God, peoples evangelical views of Apple just get crazier and crazier.
Anyhow, and @Thom; if you think the article is BS, then why publish it here?
Edited 2012-09-10 15:31 UTC
Uhhh…BOTH companies stole their little behinds off…is this a surprise? Wasn’t it Jobs who said “great artists steal” or something to that effect?
And following some of the links down the line i think this article gives a better overview of Google, who are anything but warm and fuzzy..
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/20/the-evidence-go…
The simple fact is its tech folks, and there isn’t a single company in tech that made it to the top without ripping off everything that wasn’t nailed down, going all the way back to Jobs ripping off Xerox and Gates ripping off Jobs.
Anybody who think Apple is “innovating” just hasn’t paid attention, that’s all. Of course you can replace Apple in that previous sentence with pretty much any fortune 100 tech company, MSFT, Google, Oracle, you name the company I can find a couple of dozen pages listing the stuff they ripped off from other people.
Heretic! Stop spreading that evil anti-Apple propaganda. Lies, lies and lies! Apple use pixie dust and purple elephant dung to make magic and that’s a fact.
Edited 2012-09-11 02:25 UTC
The sad part? I’ve actually dealt with Apple users that seem to have drank that much iKoolaid, Linux users too only their Koolaid comes from the feet of St iGNUcious. The Windows users are a cynical bunch and don’t believe in much of nothing and the BSD guys? hell they are just happy someone acknowledges they exist, poor lonely bastards.
Speaking of cynical bunches, did anyone read the authors bio at the end of his article? Then why are we even discussing this crap?
Edited 2012-09-12 17:02 UTC
Actually, in a sort of meta-theft, Jobs apparently got it from Pablo Picasso. While I can’t find an authoritative source, I know I heard it long before Apple was founded. I had always heard it was Picasso who said it, though.
The full quote is either, “Good artists copy, great artists steal” or “Good artists borrow, great artists steal.” I assume something was lost in the original translation from Spanish to English.
Huh? Jobs died with 15 billion in personal wealth and almost 100 billion in Apple bank account. And today with all the Android around Apple is still making the most money and the most profits.
I think the most simple answer is that Google made it look like they would partner on the iPhone by providing what they did (YouTube, maps, search etc) instead in almost the same way Microsoft did it, Google came out with a similar product and in similar Microsoft fashion Jobs felt that those on the inside namely Schmidt stole ideas from Apple.
If it was money then why would jobs just not license their patents like MS did and make the money like MS does.
Google, has been steadily growing, almost all the time since it’s inception. They’re thinking long term.
Make this comparison in another 10 years. If Apple still exists by then.
Jobs, might know hardware/software and design, but he’s done a poor job of when it comes to choosing leadership.
Honestly though, I really have no idea why this is tech news at all, since all this is just business, has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with technology.
Concerning the future, I’d say this, invest in Microsoft and Google, Apple, only if you stay on your toes and can sell everything in a split second.
Google has been growing only in Ad revenue. Any day that people feel they are not getting their bang for their buck though Google its a rap since they have no other revenue sources.
If you look at Apple, the iPhone by its self brings in more money and profits then Microsoft total company. If you scratch the iPhone Apple still makes more money then Microsoft from the rest of their businesses and growing.
Microsoft is basically dead. Windows and Office make them their most money and both are played out. They still make a bunch of money on increased licenses fees, but the days of people getting excited over Microsoft products are long gone.
You could reverse that view and say that Apple basically only have one revenue stream, and that’s from iOS. Where as Microsoft’s income is significantly more varied (though granted MS have their cash cows too). But should, overnight, iPhones and iPads stop selling, then Apple could end up in a lot of trouble very quickly.
I wont repeat myself as I go into a lot more detail here: http://www.osnews.com/thread?534606
Suffice to say, I think MS realised they couldn’t grow much more and hence why they expended into the console market and such like.
Edited 2012-09-10 16:37 UTC
There are two issues with that.
1. Apple has NO money losing enterprises at this time. Every business they are in makes some kind of profit. Microsoft on the other hand has several businesses that lose money to the point that they made no profit last quarter. (Esp their entertainment division)
2. For Apple to have a serious problem that would mean all their iOS devices would have to crash. Interesting part is everything Apple sells right now is still growing while MS has nothing that is growing and Google really only has Ad growth.
I’d already covered all that in the post I linked to
Edited 2012-09-10 21:03 UTC
You could claim that, but you’d be wrong. Unless 30+% is now equivalent to zero in your book.
Fair point. That was a massive exaggeration on my part.
Wow, could you supply any actual figures to back up your silly claims?
Edited 2012-09-10 16:39 UTC
WTF are you smoking there!?!?!
Apple makes money essentially off iPhone and iPad. Anything happens to them – they’re dead.
Compared to that, Microsoft can actually hold on for another 10 years – Office on Windows kills anything on Mac.
Google is in a strange place… they kind of have a lot of information hoarded.
? What
Did you pay attention to last quarter. Hello Apple made more money on each separate business then MS made period. MS had a loss. iTunes by its self made more money then MS as a whole last quarter.
MS has NO growth businesses! NONE. Not Windows not Office. And they have money losing businesses like their whole entertainment unit, their cloud unit etc. If Windows and or Office (Cause without Windows Office would not sell) were to ever crash that would be it, MS’s other businesses don’t make money. Where as Apple’s PC division is still growing. Doesn’t make a ton of money, but still billions in profits, so do iPods (Even though that business is shrinking)
And if you want to say who would last longer if their main businesses crashed? Last I looked Apple had over $120 billion in the bank. Thats more then MS and Google combined with a whole lot of change left over!
Leave the pipe alone!
No, Apple did not make more money off the Mac than Microsoft did “period”. Microsoft had record shattering revenues and profits and decided this was a better time to write off a stupid acquisition than later, when the write-off will make Windows 8 seem even worse. For a failing company, Microsoft still does ridiculously well. Windows 7 is still growing faster than the iPad.
And the write off goes to my point of Microsoft and it’s money losing businesses.
And Windows 7 is growing faster then the iPad in place (Meaning most are not new Windows users or new PC’s) just upgrades that don’t make much money.
Every new Windows license sold, upgrade or not, makes Microsoft money. Their quarterly revenue for Q2 2012 was $18.06 billion, and their operating income $6.93 billion. They made up for a huge failed investment with the profits from one quarter.
Hating Microsoft is fine, being a delusional moron is something else entirely.
Yes, and because cabbages are green it must be a Tuesday.
Right yet fact is at this time Apple has no money losing businesses sad to say.
Which is great, and I’m sure Microsoft would also love to be in the same position, but that doesn’t change the fact that a write down doesn’t mean the entire business is unprofitable.
Owning stocks in all three companies I kind of tend to look how their financials are going.
They made a profit just selling Macs many years ago and they still do. If the whole iOS business goes belly up Apple could survive on those Macs, but they will become a very small player in the tech world.
They had a hit with the iPod and while it still makes a profit, this revenue steam is shrinking each year. This could happen to the iPhone or the iPad too.
They will need to be ahead of the rest and come with the next big thing, which rumors have it be the television. This market is probably more difficult than phones and tablets, certainly on a global business.
i don’t think they can continue being ahead of the market forever, one day they will rejoin the pack just like Microsoft did.
That’s assuming they survive the subsequent crash of their share prices after their financial bubble bursts.
For some companies, that along has been enough to kill them off.
The problem is, Apple aren’t ahead of the market in anything but income and stock price. And that’s a pretty risky game to play if nearly all your income is tied up in a small fraction of your business. What’s more, Apples products are, essentially, luxury items. Where as Windows Desktop / Server, Office and Visual Studio are not.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Apples days are numbered, just that their business model isn’t as stable as they’d like you to believe. Sadly the old adage: “do one thing and do it really well” doesn’t apply when it comes to multi-million dollar businesses – and particularly not when your successful product is an item that’s easily replicated.
This says nothing but speaks to your personal self-delusions.
Nonsense. Apple is way, way, way ahead in profit, revenue, margin, inventory mgmt, supply chain, etc…
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.
oh goody. Personal insults. I forgot it was impossible to discuss Apple without normally rational adults turning into complete arsehats….
…which is what i just said
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).
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.
This is what you said:
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.
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.
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.
You bring it up an awful lot though.
Edited 2012-09-10 23:04 UTC
Let’s be clear: I’m saying Apple leads in most of the most important factors for ecosystem/company health (moat protections, network effects, financials, its audience, etc.) by a massive margin but does not dominate any market (they are usually self-selective for a minority share of a broader market). You are saying that Apple doesn’t lead any of these categories (or where it does, they are illusory) and is at greatest risk of collapse so it has to delude investors, the markets, consumers, and competition into believing that it leads these categories that it does not lead. Correct? Incorrect?
So did America before 2007…
Don’t be so fucking ridiculous. I was playing out a worst case scenario based upon years of continued exponential growth but with little additional support outside the iOS arena.
I’ve said a multitude of times that I can’t foresee Apple crashing under normal circumstances. I was using an extreme worst case scenario to explain why Apple need to watch their growth carefully and ensure that they have “safety nets” to ensure that, once the market reaches maximum saturation, that they can at the very least find a stable plateau.
And I’m stating all this as my reasoning for why they are after sales bans rather than licensing. Basically I was countering the other commenters view that Apple are missing an opportunity by not licensing their patents and then giving a (somewhat long winded) explanation as to why.
So all in all, you’re being far to emotional about Apple as you’re twisting my comments way out of proportion. But then I guess sanity isn’t one of the side effects of being a fanboy :p
I’d already cited evidence from one financial expert.
To be fair, Apple only survived due to cash injections from Microsoft, and MS only did that to avoid a total monopoly and guaranteed break up.
But that’s besides the point. I don’t think Apple are going to crash any more than I think exponential growth is sustainable indefinitely.
You’ve not really given it a fair read though as you’ve been to busy going “OMG APPLE HATER!!” :p
Because if you don’t account for the worst case scenario then you cannot prevent it from happening. And thus the reason I raise it is to demonstrate that Apple have realised that their growth cannot be sustained indefinitely without protecting their revenue.
I was simply offering some background to explain their motives. Not a suggestion that Apple will crash. You just took the negatives of my posts and ignored everything else – then got all defensive for no reason!
Anyway, we’re going round in circles now. So goodnight
Your argument is: Apple is litigating patents because it can’t compete otherwise > Apple can’t compete otherwise because… who knows why? There’s plenty of evidence they can kick the shit out of everybody for three years prior to litigation and another two years of litigation with little market impact and only one player coming remotely close to competing with them… This is where you jump to “bubble” and “collapse” and “illusions” which is nonsense and completely unsupported.
In other words, your argument is ridiculous and unsupported.
You claim you are just arguing why Apple isn’t doing what Microsoft is doing (when that is really simple and evident — Apple values its uniqueness more than the dollar, unlike Microsoft) while that entire argument is predicated on the notion that Apple is about to collapse under an indefensible position. And it’s fundamentally absurd. Claiming that you aren’t predicating your entire position on this… That you are instead putting yourself in Apple’s shoes and preparing for the worst case scenario (You do understand that if Apple dropped 50%, the US economy would be in a far worse position than Apple would be vis-a-vis any of their competitors?) is nonsense. You aren’t on the same continent as Apple’s shoes.
You’ve provided zero evidence for a bubble, a collapse, an illusion that forces Apple’s hand to prevent competition rather than grow its own business. All of the evidence flies in the face of that theory: Apple is has been, still is, and will likely continue to kick ass. Competitors are not easily copying Apple. Apple isn’t diminishing in the market place. Even if it did massively and absurdly fall down, it would still lead the market.
This is why I am arguing with your stupid theory even if you claim that you think Apple is going to be around for a very long time… If you think that, then you can’t support your own theory because it’s predicated on your “worst case” scenario.
Edited 2012-09-11 01:02 UTC
You’ve never run a business nor even managed a project of any importance have you?
If you had, then you’d know about business continuity planning. While I accept that this isn’t quite the same thing, similar principles apply: understand your worst case scenarios to prevent them from happening.
Furthermore, when talking about the future, nothing is absolute. So you work of probabilities. Thus arguing that I can only present one potential future of Apple is just plain idiotic.
Anyway, I’ve now lowered myself to your level of trading insults out of laziness. So now is as good a time as any to head to bed.
Of course, you’ve insulted me: with this stupidity. You don’t know me, don’t claim I’ve never run a business or project. Your entire theory is based on Apple somehow duping someone over something… What any of this nonsense is you now seem unwilling to explain.
You just say: Apple has to litigate to monopolize a market because it can’t compete because they might not survive the collapse of their bubble because the illusion will fade. Every word is unsupported nonsense.
Edited 2012-09-11 03:51 UTC
You you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about then.
Glad we’ve cleared that up
(and before you whine about taking portions of comments out of context, that what you’ve been doing all this argument so you are in no position to complain)
Edited 2012-09-11 08:28 UTC
LOL WUT? TV the next big, seriously?
Oh, there’s a call from the 1920s on line 1. A Mr. Logie Baird would like to have a word with you…
Edited 2012-09-10 22:29 UTC
The TV as we know it was developed by RCA engineers in England. Baird’s “TV” was basically a stroboscopic fax machine.
Apple make most of their money because phone carriers subsidise their overpriced handsets. The carriers hate providing these subsidies and will drop Apple at the first opportunity. Goodbye Apple.
Apple are doomed again I see. Suffice to say that Apple have been around for nearly four decades and have reinvented themselves and their products on a number of occasions.
Weaknesses in Google’s core business strategy are significant but are obscured by rising revenues. The most important number in Google’s recent quarter was revenue-per-click which was down a whopping 16% year on year. The previous quarter it was down 12% year on year. The one before that down 8%. Dollars-per-click is essentially the price of an ad. However Google’s ad revenues were up, they managed that feat by packing search results pages with many more money making ads. The volume of clicks have increased but the earned revenue from each click is deteriorating. You can see the evolution of Googles ad density by looking at a typical search page comparison from 2008 and 2012.
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-has-taken-over-its-search-res…
Obviously Google cannot continue packing more ads into search pages and may already be hitting the limits of that strategy. If revenues per click continues the decline shown in the last three quarters, even if the decline slows, then Google will feel the impact financially. Add that to the continuing problem Google faces in earning revenue from ads on mobile devices, which is a problem that the very expensive Android strategy has utterly failed to solve, and Google has some significant pressures on their core business model.
There seems to be a steady drift away from internet access via the desktop and towards access via mobile devices. Nobody seems to be able to earn much from mobile advertising. If you are Apple that makes a tiny part of your business portfolio less profitable, if you are Google that makes your core business less profitable
On the issue of the Apple Google history some basic things are clear. Google did break it’s alliance with Apple and did so in a way that was experienced by Apple and it’s leadership team as a nasty betrayal of trust. The Android design was reset once the game changing success of the iPhone became apparent to make it basically just like iOS. Google decided to attack Apple’s business, as it has attacked the business of other companies large and small, Apple did not attack Google’s core business. Who started a war is often forgotten or disputed. What counts is who wins the war. This war is far from over. I know who my money is on (literally).
And they spent one of those decades circling the drain, while releasing products that were steadily more and more pathetic when compared to their competition.
Granted, that was a different time, and many blame those problems on the fact that Steve Jobs was no longer with Apple. And, of course, the situation today is completely differ… oh, wait…
I’m sorry… Since when is 2 classified as numerous?Computer -> iPod -> iPhone -> (Today)*
*If you do not subscribe that iPad was in development prior to iPhone, then I’ll grant you 3 times. But I bet you’re not in that camp.
You do understand AAPL could lose 50% of its value and would still be 50% more valuable than GOOG, right?
Yes, but AAPL could easily lose 50% of its value.
And only a fanboy would try to compare these two companies. They are not in the same market. No matter who makes the hardware/software, Google’s business model is safe and shows steady future growth. They are not dependent upon ‘fads’ or popularity. No one can compete currently with their services. Could it change? Perhaps. But it is not as high a probability as the negatives that can and will befall Apple.
If Apple loses one patent case, there stock is predicted by market analyst far smarter than you to drop at least 50 to 100 points. As you pointed out, Apple is a 40 year old company. Apple is currently trading in the market in a parabolic fashion. This happens at the end and not the middle of a cycle. Apple can not maintain this rate of growth for much longer. Analysts conservatively predict low 700’s for the remainder of this year and if all goes well maxing out in 2013 around 1000. Then the bubble will burst. It has to.
Apple is not immune to the economics that all businesses are a part of. There is nothing so special about Apple as a corporation which means they will never have this bubble burst and then settle down to a long-term steady state. Their target markets are becoming saturated. There is a great deal of competition in those market segments in spite of Apple’s willingness to litigate against it. This entire market as a whole has been bolstered by cheap money in the last four years. As the rate rises, problems will occur. Apple will also need an infusion of capital to attempt to maintain this ‘innovation’ on a quarterly basis. Most of their cash is held overseas. It is not a matter of if but rather when Apple needs that cash brought back to America, they are going to be hit with a higher tax rate than they have in a decade.
Finally while Apple is currently the highest market cap stock in the world, it is still lower than Microsoft at their peak in 1999. And their 4.3% weighting in the S&P 500 is still significantly lower than IBM’s record high of 6.4% in 1982.
Apple is the belle of the ball. The market will tire of her ‘innovations’ and Apple’s stock will crash. The question is have they made the right choices to allow them to maintain a steady business after the high (like Microsoft and IBM) and not disappear once and for all as other have before them – Polaroid, Sun, SGI, etc. They are betting the farm on iOS and the mobile/tablet market. That is a big bet given how fads come and go.
Jobs and Apple’s emotional obsession with Google/Android and their ‘supposed’ copying is ridiculous. Betting a company and basing your current decisions on an emotionally driven tirade and not sound business fundamentals is a sure sign that a company, no matter how popular, is destined for a very bad fall from grace.
AAPL’s current market cap is approximately 600B. GOOG’s current market cap is approximately 250B. If AAPL lost 50% of its market cap it wouldn’t be worth that much more in the market than GOOG.
Take a look at the historical graphs of these two corporations to see why Apple is in a ‘bubble’. Google has been a publicly traded company for roughly seven years and has shown consistent and steady growth with only a single minor dip. Apple on the other hand has been a publicly traded company for 25 years and has shown only an incredibly rapid rise in value in the last three years. Historically Apple traded well below 100 and Google opened at 105. Apple didn’t breach 100 until 2007 and in that same year Google was around 500.
AAPL’s current market cap is approximately 600B. GOOG’s current market cap is approximately 250B. If AAPL lost 50% of its market cap it wouldn’t be worth that much more in the market than GOOG. Take a look at the historical graphs of these two corporations to see why Apple is in a ‘bubble’. Google has been a publicly traded company for roughly seven years and has shown consistent and steady growth with only a single minor dip. Apple on the other hand has been a publicly traded company for 25 years and has shown only an incredibly rapid rise in value in the last three years. Historically Apple traded well below 100 and Google opened at 105. Apple didn’t breach 100 until 2007 and in that same year Google was around 500. [/q]
I’m not a very big fan of Apple these days, but it’s not a bubble. The P/E is 15.61 and their earnings are $42.55 per share. If anything, the stock might be slightly undervalued. Suggesting that they will be lucky to still exist in 10 years is pure idiocy (their market cap in GDP terms would put them at 18 in the world and they have $100 billion cash on hand). All of that being said, there’s plenty of room for them to fall from where they’re at and I expect they will. 10 years from now they’ll most likely be like Microsoft is today; a very valuable, very profitable company, but not the cool kid on the block.
I address the undervaluation in my previous to the post you are quoting part of. By 2013, they will reach ~1000. After that the bubble will burst, and yes, it is a bubble.
I never said they would definitively disappear in 10 years. That is actually a part of another poster’s quote tacked on to mine. But it is possible that if they have bet too strongly on a single market and their stock bubble burst, which it will by 2014 at the earliest, then they could end up like other tech corporations that were tops and then went bankrupt.
If things go a different route, then yes, Apple could and would end up being like Microsoft. Check out MSFT’s parabolic rise, then drop-off, and finally their flat but stable stock price for the last 7+ years. Either way, Apple is not destined to maintain this ‘high’ either creatively, financially, or psychologically with its ‘customers’.
A lot of people make this comment, but I think Microsoft and Apples position are very different. Please excuse the long post, but I’ll explain why:
Apple’s revenue almost entirely come from iOS-related projects (iPhone, iPad, App store sales, etc), so they need to keep that revenue up else they’ll see a significant drop in income. Thus they need to monopolise the market and thus they need to prevent their biggest competition from, well, competing.
Furthermore, Apples shares are exceptionally high. 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. 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 – and the very best scenario there is they plateau (but as past history has shown us – that rarely happens when bubble burst).
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). Then you need to ensure that your products also sell – and when your product is easily copied (ignoring, for the moment, the argument of whether Apple did “invent” multi-touch et al), the easiest way to sell your product is to prevent others from selling theirs.
Thus Apple go after their biggest rivals with sales bans and loud exclamations that they basically own the mobile paradigm and how everyone else should either change their designs (read: reinvent themselves with less attractive / usable designs) to booster their own sales and booster their public image to potential and current investors alike.
Microsoft, however, don’t need to artificially inflate their business. Redmond know that if your OS is available to OEMs then all you need to do is get that OS to reach critical mass before users select those types of handsets over rivals (much like how Android has taken off as a household name). So Microsoft licence their patents at exactly the same price as their OS licences to encourage OEMs to chose Windows Phone over Android. It’s a bit more of a long term game, but MS have the backing of the desktop Windows brand. With Win8 on the horizon, I’m guessing their betting the success of that (which seems far from certain at the moment) will booster their smart phone sales too.
tl;dr version: Microsoft licence because they’re trying to sell their OS to OEMs, Apple seek sales bans because they can’t afford to lose their primary sales revenue.
Edited 2012-09-10 16:28 UTC
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.
I never said they did. In fact that was part of my bloody point in regards to their financial bubble
Many of whom? I’m talking purely about financial side of things.
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
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:
Cheers.
Edited 2012-09-11 17:43 UTC
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Since when is 65% equal to “almost entirely”?
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.
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?
All you are doing is stringing a bunch of garbage together. What bubble?
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 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
You’re not accounting for App Store sales and so on.
This doesn’t say anything. Revenue declines will often mean income declines. This is true of every company.
It does when your biggest product is easily replicated by said competition.
But this goes back to the point I was making about revenue and their iOS stream.
Being insulting doesn’t prove a point.
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’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.
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.
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.
My point is: you don’t have a point and you aren’t very well informed.
And saying bubble over and over and over doesn’t make for a bubble.
Yeah, I can tell.
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).
You don’t need any one company to erase Apples market – it might be more a case of multiple companies eating smaller chunks of Apples pie.
Anyhow, we’re both just speculating here and I’m not about to say that I even believe Apple will lose significant market share in at least the foreseeable future.
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.
Clearly there’s other misinformed people out there – some of whom write for financial magazines:
http://www.moneyweek.com/investment-advice/share-tips/apple-shares-…
Hence why you explain your point like an adult rather than a child. Insults are not persuasive, do not educate people nor progress the discussion in any way, shape nor form. All they do is undermine your argument.
And quite honestly, from the lack of substance you’ve contributed to this discussion, I’m inclined to think that you’re yet another fanboy: all bark and no bite.
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. Because it’s ever so easy to be derogatory towards someone else who is brave enough to offer their suggestions, but a hell of a lot harder to stick your own neck on the line.
So don’t be a coward, lets hear your “expert” insight. However if you have to fall back to insults then clearly your argument isn’t strong enough to stand on it’s own merits.
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.
Yup. Did you think otherwise?
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.
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
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.
The patent argument was the central and primary point of my post. You’re the one that took this off on a tangent.
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.
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.
Your made-up bubble is not a side issue. Your entire theory is predicated on it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
Thanks. You too?
Edited 2012-09-11 00:06 UTC
Yeah iOS is so utterly unique that no-one infringes on Apple’s patents and Google / Samsung have never accused of copying. Oh hang on. I guess even you don’t know what you’re talking about either then
For someone who is so quick to call others “idiots” you really do make some dumb claims.
If you think that what makes Apple unique is specific patents, or if you think that’s what I think, you aren’t doing a very good job of following along. Moreover, even if that were so, I don’t see others attempting to copy that uniqueness as a sign that it is not unique. Often, it’s an affirmation of the uniqueness to begin with and remains a poor imitation.
lmao Now you’re just clutching at straws. I mean seriously you should listen to yourself.
I think the reports of you intellect were greatly exaggerated: you’re clearly little more than a deluded novice.
Really? You think others trying to copy Apple means there is nothing unique about Apple, but I am an idiot? Okay.
Yes, my “intellect” has no problem with the notions that Samsung and others have been accused of copying some patents granted to Apple and that no one has successfully copied the unique success that Apple has created over the last half decade. If you can’t weight those facts and ideas together as true and not mutually exclusive… well, why bother….
Yup, glad you finally admit that
(and before you whine about misquoting, that what you’ve been doing all this argument so you are in no position to complain)
I thought I’d revisit your original post that you think is so brilliant and well-supported by evidence…
Demonstrably false. Apple derives 65% of its revenue from iOS; Microsoft derives 90% of its revenue from Windows and Office, Google makes 95% of its revenues from advertising.
This is meaningless at it applies to everyone. (Less so for Apple, as they have been able to grow profits faster than revenue… particularly in comparison to the competition.)
Again, evidence is to the contrary. Your conclusion is baseless. And it more strongly applies to Google and Microsoft.
All of this is unsupported, mostly nonsense, and you claim you do not believe this will happen nor do you base any claims on it… why it has significance for you, I have no idea.
Where is any evidence for this? Remember, the only fact you’ve really claimed so far is that Apple is somehow more dependent on iOS than Google or Microsoft are their core revenue stream. A “fact” that has been clearly refuted a while ago….
Again, all of this is your own imagining based on the idea that Apple is more dependent on iOS than its competition is its core revenue source (proven false) and the “possibility” that the stock is going to crash (something that is not supported and which you yourself do not believe will occur.)
You notice how you say “thus” and “so” a lot? Those words don’t make an argument for you.
Again, when did you provide any evidence that Apple “has to artificially inflate their business?” This is your imagination.
Microsoft KNOWS this even though their market share has declined from 4% to 2% and continues to decline? Really? Microsoft is happy with their current position and in better health than Apple. Really? Do you think others agree with you? Do you think you have enough time in the world to demonstrate this?
You and Microsoft can go ahead and make that bet; Apple will go on kicking their ass, running the house.
Apple is less dependent on their primary sales revenue than Microsoft is. Even if they were so, Apple’s iOS business is far, far healthier than Microsoft’s Windows/Office business. You haven’t argued well and you certainly haven’t provided any evidence of anything.
Edited 2012-09-11 01:40 UTC
Jobs wasn’t stupid and he could see the writing on the wall with the kind of supply Android would have at its disposal and the size of the market they could have.
It was limited supply and market Mac versus large supply and large market PCs all over again. Jobs didn’t have any way of solving that in his thinking other than to litigate.
Funny thing is – Apple has a patent agreement with MS
They have had agreements for ever. And I bet Google may have been in the same position as MS if Apple didn’t feel like Google was pulling the sneak move.
Please! Google was as late to the smartphone market as much as they were late to the tablet market. Can we stop with the damn conspiracy theories? Smartphone market was just a greener pasture for Android.
Facts are:
iPhone introduced in January 2007
Android demoed November 2007 (10 months apart)
iPad introduced in January 2010
Honeycomb on XOOM first appears on screen December 2010 (11 months apart)
Math kills that stupid logic. In fact, there’s no logic there after all.
What is interesting is that Scott Cleland doesn’t bother actually looking at facts with a clear mind.
(Scott Cleland: “He has testified before Congress three times on Google.” Objectivity be damned!)
Edited 2012-09-10 17:19 UTC
Thom, chill man. You’re way to anti-Apple. Everything has some degree of prior art, but the move from a PDA (stylus based UI) to a modern smart-phone (finger based UI) was started with the iPhone.
Sure, you can argue that there were tablets before the iPad, but even considering the insane amounts of PR and money Microsoft pushed into the concept, it still took an iPad to make them common. Apple really worked to make their devices usable by average humans, regardless if it’s the iPod, iPhone or iPad and everyone, even if there were similar products before, they were mostly market failures.
Everyone argues that for each individual element there was prior art, and they are right, but the balance of elements is the unique part. Think of it this way: before the Prius, there were no hybrids, right? Well, as it turns out, most diesel train engines from the 60’s onwards are hybrids. In the 30’s Porsche designed a hybrid car, etc.
I still consider the iPhone to be the reinvention of the modern telephone, just like Prius is the reinvention of the car (although it’s a sucky car by itself).
Given the argument that the right balance is the one making the difference, you can imagine that Apple spent hundreds of thousands of man hours for the first iPhone. The web is full of stories of Jobs sending everyone back to the drawing board countless times. Jobs was correctly infuriated by Google when, after years of trial-and-error at the “Apple Labs”, Google comes with something so similar to the iPhone. This is especially infuriating since Schmidt was on the Apple board and had pre-release access to the iPhone information.
Stop buying into the obvious argument as it’s BS. Everything was obvious AFTER someone came up with it. BEFORE being obvious, it was next to impossible. The real art in coming up with a good product is to come up with exactly what everyone already needs and the market doesn’t cover. What everyone needs is always obvious, but still requires development and research. And if you believe in patents (I personally don’t, especially not in their current format), getting payed for your R&D that produces obviousness is a must. Since the rules of the game are FOR patents instead of AGAINST, why shouldn’t Apple get money out of it?
‘Nuff said!!!
Actually surface was first displayed by MS an created the huge multitouch hype. Also HTC was the first to use touch gestures (no multitouch yet). Apple was just the first to use multitouch on mobile devices. Also when released iphone was not a smartphone in my opinion since apple didn’t allow 3rd party apps.
Yep… but for me it is still just an evolution of htc touchflo 3d and also they do not have a patent on the balance of the design. Get your hands on a HTC Touch Pro and you will find it similar to HTC One X.
You do… I don’t, just first multitouch commercial mobile device. And an evolution, not a revolution.
Given the argument that the right balance is the one making the difference, you can imagine that Apple spent hundreds of thousands of man hours for the first iPhone. The web is full of stories of Jobs sending everyone back to the drawing board countless times.
That was jobs style on anything he managed…still it is not an revolution… just a freak on micromanagement when it comes to design. Android didn’t copy that much iOS as you belive. IPhone was not much more revolutionary than Nokia N80 or HTC.
Yes… but iPhone didn’t come up with exactly what everyone already needs… app store was late and still is to restrictive for me… file management is BS for me… etc… irrelevant…
what it is relevant is that the price for being the first is the sales and brand recognition that you get.
Also the price for adaptability is not loosing too much when someone else comes first. And android was designed to be adaptable and is evolving faster and nicer than iOS.
It goes even further than that: if you compare them based on their tactics, creationists & iFanboys are virtually indistinguishable.
Both groups desperately try to twist every topic into being about them/their object of obsession. Both groups use borderline-spam tactics, repeating the same lame talking-points over and over again (“it’s just a theory!” / “OMG Google is an advertising company OMG!”). When challenged to back up any of their claims, both groups tend to get angrily-defensive & just repeat the same talking-points more emphatically (AKA the “la la la, I’m not listening” strategy)… after all, if you have to repeat talking points because you can’t come up with your own argument, then you probably don’t have the wits to defend an argument that someone else came up. And last, both groups are overly-fond of using deliberate misunderstanding/willful ignorance as a debate tactic.
For that matter, the revisionist history spouted by Apple fanboys might as well be considered a creation myth at this point. It’s not like it has any less basis in facts or reality.
And even beyond that, remember good ‘ol MrHasBean? Yep, not only was he an obsessive Apple apologist – but it turns out that he’s a bon-a-fide creatard to boot:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/02/indiana-backing-away-from-bi…
It is so entertaining to see fandroids vs apple fanboys.
I hope at least some of you get pay.
And what are you, sir? MS fanboy?
Joke aside, the article thom linked sure is full of flaws. And that what’s make this debate.
This one for example:
“In secrecy, Apple started development of the iPhone in 2004. In August 2005, Google quietly bought the Android start-up, when no one outside of Apple was supposed to know that Apple was working on the iPhone. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt joined Apple’s Board in August 2006.”
Well, guess what? Google didn’t bought it quietly, cause EVEN I KNOW THAT EVENT! There’s on internet everywhere, when google acquire Android.
PS: It’s quite hard to have internet access on 2004-2207 in my country.
He was a greedy asshole, er… I mean, a businessman, and didn’t like even the thought that he might have to share the money of the economy with companies other than his own, and people who are not either himself or working under him for his company. It’s quite simple, really.
It’s just like sports fans rooting for their favorite team(s) and hoping the other teams lose. Only in this guy’s case, these “teams” are individual corporations (his own Apple) and the “score” is money. Never mind the fact that Steve was a crooked asshole and “cheated” to get his ways–a trait Apple seems to have not lost, as they continue to sue over dumb shit relating to pointless patents against Android.
Edited 2012-09-11 06:06 UTC
Are you kidding me ?
The only one thing apple did not copy was the firewire standard. Anything else is copy… Watch the movie “The triumph of the nerds” and conclude yourself…
Oh Jesus H Christ – the issue isn’t money (that happens to be a flow on effect) but Steve saw this as a the PC vs. Mac wars again with Google being the ‘Microsoft’ in this case and he was hell bent on ensuring that it would be a repeat of history. One thing to remember about Steve Jobs is that Apple and Steve Jobs are pretty much one in the same – Apple being an extension of Steve Jobs thus anything that is perceived to be a threat results in an emotional response hence the ‘going thermonuclear’ was his response. He has a view of history that he was shafted from the market by Microsoft and he is hell bent on ensuring that his re-emerged Apple won’t suffer the same fait hence we see the law suits we see today.
Personally I’m happy that Microsoft no longer has Bill Gates given that the focus is now on products rather than endless litigation but I wonder to what extent will the drama play out between Samsung and Apple only for there to be a anti-climatic finishing where Apple saves face. Long run it makes no sense for Apple to chase after Samsung but it seems that Apple lacks confidence about its future and products if it feels the need to take the litigation route rather than putting out products to the market and let consumers make their own choice.
As for me, I’m looking at getting a Samsung Galaxy S3 in the next couple of months – nothing to do with the litigation and everything to do with the fact that ‘one size doesn’t fit all’ – I want a big ass screen, sdcard and user replaceable battery which is something Samsung provides and Apple doesn’t hence the move away from Apple when it comes to phones.
Edited 2012-09-11 16:09 UTC
A Deep Space Nine quote comes to mind ….
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Inter_Arma_Enim_Silent_Leges_(episo…)