This is an interesting conversation. It was an interesting auction too.
Some things I thought were interesting and noteworthy.
Apple and MS have been continuing their vast cross licensing deals. This is either the third or forth time they've ended up on the same side of a big deal. The last was the deal for the 880 or so patents from Novell. It seems in a number of ways that they've buried the hatchet.
In this auction, it appears from the article, that the moving alliances did have Apple and Google on the same side for a time. I'd love to know why all the changes occurred.
$4.5 billion does seem to be a lot of money for a patent portfolio, but we're talking about literally hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten to fifteen years. Looking at it that way, this isn't so much.
I'd like to know just why some companies decided to stop bidding when they did. If Google went to $4 billion, why not 4.5, why not 5? I read that Google doesn't seem to be totally committed to Android. Possibly that's correct.
This appears to be the most complex consortium I've ever seen. How will this work? Some companies seem to have bought groups of patents altogether, while possibly participating in the purchase of others with some other companies. Some companies are just getting the right to what may be a perpetual license to those patents, until they run out, or if they're modified for an extention. Companies that have bought some seem to be licensing others, etc.
These are extremely complex deals, and it's amazing that they were worked out in such a hurry in the short time available during the auction process which was changing daily, and even hourly. I'm assuming that the details will be worked out over the next few weeks.
As for the simplistic statements that this is to kill Android, well, that's likely a subset of the idea. Not so much as killing it, but slowing down some of its future development. And that actually fair, after all, Android companies are suing Apple and others as well.
But it's much more complex than that, which we can see with Apple and Google briefly turning up on the same side.
I'd like to know just why some companies decided to stop bidding when they did. If Google went to $4 billion, why not 4.5, why not 5? I read that Google doesn't seem to be totally committed to Android. Possibly that's correct.
I've been saying this for weeks now. It's like the old joke about the chicken and the pig, the chicken was involved in breakfast but the pig was committed - Google is only involved in mobile.
Quote:
But it's much more complex than that, which we can see with Apple and Google briefly turning up on the same side.
I've been saying this for weeks now. It's like the old joke about the chicken and the pig, the chicken was involved in breakfast but the pig was committed - Google is only involved in mobile.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Quote:
Where are you reading that?
Near the top of the article:
Quote:
The auction started with five parties, including two consortiums: Apple, Intel, Google, a consortium of Ericsson, Research in Motion, Microsoft, Sony and EMC, and a group led by defensive patent purchasing firm RPX.
It's not clear exactly why Google wanted the patents, did it want them to defend Android handset makers? It hasn't made a big effort to defend Android handset makers thus far so that seems odd. Did it want them to stop MS getting them? If so mission was accomplished. Did it want them to try to make handset makers adopt Android? Seems unlikely since it already has plenty of handset makers, but it's not impossible - there are occasional rumblings of discontent from the big Android OEMs.
Whatever it wanted them for we know one thing pretty much for sure, it didn't want them more than it wanted 5 billion dollars in cash or it could have kept bidding. I suspect this isn't as big a blow as is generally suggested.
My take on Google in mobile is unconventional, I think it's perfectly happy with the status quo where Android takes up all of the low end of the handset market, Apple taking up all of the high end. So long as MS can be kept out of mobile search things are OK by google and it can redirect resources to fighting on other fronts such as against facebook or IE.
I think those whimsical mathematical constant bids were just about it tweaking Apple's nose a bit, and it never really intended to go all out for the patent package.
Google doesn't want the patents for their technical merit in terms of implementing LTE rather the value the patents bring to the bargaining table when they are being sued.
Lets look at it this way. Right now Oracle claims that Google is infringing on its Java related patents. Since Google is relatively new, they have no patent portfolio so they really have nothing to bargain with outside of cash (licensing which is what they want to avoid).
Now if Google was able to secure these patents then they have something of value (outside of cash) that they can bring to the table.
The same thing can be said about their device manufacturers and Apple. Google would be able to come to the table and say hey Apple, you are infringing on our patents so drop the suits against the manufacturers infringing on your patents.
Like I said, the value in these patents really has nothing to do with the technical merits of them rather the defensive positioning they give the owner. Apple & Co used this patent auction as an offensive platform to proactively keep a defensive component out of Googles arsenal.
You're misreading it, well in your defence AI isn't phrasing it clearly - let me reparse it
The auction started with five parties, Apple, Intel, Google and two consortiums (sic) one of Ericsson, Research in Motion, Microsoft, Sony and EMC, and a group led by defensive patent purchasing firm RPX.
So to start with A, I and G were all independent, and there were two consortia E/RIM/MS/S/EMC being one and RPX the other, standing for a bunch of asian makers we've barely heard of.
Lets look at it this way. Right now Oracle claims that Google is infringing on its Java related patents. Since Google is relatively new, they have no patent portfolio so they really have nothing to bargain with outside of cash (licensing which is what they want to avoid).
Now if Google was able to secure these patents then they have something of value (outside of cash) that they can bring to the table.
Well it's unlikely to help against Oracle, Nortel just doesn't have a big overlap with them - it's unlikely Google has an equally significant patent to use against Oracle as Oracle has to use against them.
Quote:
The same thing can be said about their device manufacturers and Apple. Google would be able to come to the table and say hey Apple, you are infringing on our patents so drop the suits against the manufacturers infringing on your patents.
If they were willing to do that why aren't they helping with the current fights Apple v Samsung or Apple v HTC? They could have publicly stated their financial support for the litigation, they could have gone all out to invalidate some of Apple's key multitouch patents. They haven't.
You're misreading it, well in your defence AI isn't phrasing it clearly - let me reparse it
The auction started with five parties, Apple, Intel, Google and two consortiums (sic) one of Ericsson, Research in Motion, Microsoft, Sony and EMC, and a group led by defensive patent purchasing firm RPX.
So to start with A, I and G were all independent, and there were two consortia E/RIM/M/S/EMC and RPX standing for a bunch of asian makers we've barely heard of.
Yes, that does read better. I'd did read elsewhere that Apple and Google were negotiating over this, and I suppose that led me to read it that way.
Yes, that does read better. I'd did read elsewhere that Apple and Google were negotiating over this, and I suppose that led me to read it that way.
I actually read it the same way you did at first, did a double take, then I put on my Lisp programmer hat and tried to figure where the author had intended the brackets to be
Well it's unlikely to help against Oracle, Nortel just doesn't have a big overlap with them - it's unlikely Google has an equally significant patent to use against Oracle as Oracle has to use against them.
If they were willing to do that why aren't they helping with the current fights Apple v Samsung or Apple v HTC? They could have publicly stated their financial support for the litigation, they could have gone all out to invalidate some of Apple's key multitouch patents. They haven't.
Google, as has been pointed out, has a small portfolio of patents, just a few hundred, and most of these have nothing to do with the issues at hand. So Google has little to back up any threat they may make. That's the point to buying large aggregations of relevant patents.
What's been also pointed out by those in the industry is that Google, so far, has had no interest in indemnifying their OEMs in any of these fights, and that's a telling situation. They haven't even made a public statement about what Ludsec, or whatever their name is, is doing in their lawsuits against Android developers, while Apple has gone to court, and other companies are in the process of suing them.
It seems to me that being a business partner of Google is a tenuous proposition. It's not responsible. By bidding on these patents, Google intended to give themselves a quick injection of weight. I've also bought a great many things on eBay, some of them quite expensive, and deciding on what my maximum bid is going to be is a difficult process. I'm not trying to make money on what I buy though, so cash flow and future profits don't come into consideration, just my desire for the item.
With almost $28 billion in the bank, Google could have spent whatever they thought was required. $4 billion for one company is a lot though, and as a company that isn't making devices, where much more money flows in, they likely thought that this was already several years of Ad profits from the Android platform, and so it was enough.
Perhaps Microsoft & Sony instead each put in only $500 million.
It seems as though some companies paid others in the consortium, rather than contributed directly to the purchase. That could account for the disparity.
AI is like Drudge Report: it's an obviously slanted partisan tool designed for the sole purpose of driving eyeballs to narrowly-targeted ads at any cost, but can be helpful to even those interested in more balanced news on the occasional chance they turn up a good scoop, which like their ultra-rightest brethren Drudge happens at least once every week or two. Slanted or not, they're often quick.
I post here because I've been buying Macs since most of the readers here were in grade school, and chances are good that I've purchased many times more Macs than the majority here will buy over their lifetime. I want Apple to not just make money today, but to also be here in ten years.
Over this long span of enjoying Apple products, I've seen the company go through many phases. While the current phase looks good to those with a short-term view, awash in cash and all, such a short-term perspective overlooks the long-term implications of pissing off entire industries and would-be partners every month.
Tides change. Today is Apple's greatest day, but it would be a mistake to believe it will last forever. Nothing does.
When the tide changes again, will Apple have any friends left to keep itself afloat?
Those of us who've been Apple fans for as long as I have understand that sometimes building healthy relationships is as important as money, even for corporations.
In recent years we've seen Apple change its policies in sometimes radical ways, only to later backpedal after they generate enough backlash. The iOS SDK license 4.0, later undone by 4.1, is one example, and the in-app purchasing is another.
In the end Apple often winds up doing what the market demands of it, but along the way they just garner a lot of ill will and a reputation for being fickle. Had they simply done the right thing from the start, they could have generated a tremendous amount of goodwill and support. But insead they chose a different path, one that leads other companies and more than a few developers to distrust them.
I realize all this may seem silly to many of the readers here, and I suspect such skepticism will be rewarded by another eight quarters of strong performances.
But beware the third year?.
It's funny that you say that you've been around for such a long time and that you have a long term view yet you then say that Apple has garnered all sorts of ill will. What??!! You mean the ill will they garnered by partnering with some of the biggest names in the tech industry. You mean the ill will garnered by being Barron's #1 most respected company 2 years in a row. Or do you mean the ill will they garner from being in the Price Waterhouse top 4.
Apple garners more ill will than Microsoft? Google? Intel?
What??!
You're not letting that little spat with Adobe or the legal battle with Samsung colour your view, are you... that would be a very narrow line of site... imho.
Apple garners more ill will than Microsoft? Google? Intel?
Well, there is a lot of hate towards Apple nowadays. There's always been Apple haters, but there's even more now, since Apple is so big and successful and they're crushing everybody else. Apple is the one to beat, currently. They're also the one to copy from, apparently.
If you visit generic forums and you start an Apple topic, there is guaranteed to be some retarded haters showing up within 7 milliseconds. Some people are simply incapable of controlling their hatred and just the mention of the word "Apple" instantly sets off an internal trigger in these primitive beings.
Rather like the US senator said in response to Abu Ghraib: "At least we're not Saddam Hussein."
If you like the way Google and Microsoft operate, then there is no problem.
So lets get this right, you think that Google is more evil than Apple but that Apple should have let them win the patents because Apple has to be better than Google, and if Google wants the patents then owning the patents must be evil - so Apple must not do it?
You see, by violating Oracle's Java patents and Copyrights, Google is putting the whole company at risk just for Android. Larry Ellison going after them very hard, and when all is said and done, Android handset makers still have to pay royalties to Microsoft.
Time will tell.
Not hard enough. 17 of the 21 lawsuit claims were dismissed by the courts.
Not hard enough. 17 of the 21 lawsuit claims were dismissed by the courts.
It's all preliminary stages with the Oracle suit, just because a patent is excluded at this stage doesn't mean it will remain excluded. Bloggers who want to generate clicks will take preliminary rulings and write sensational headlines to drive up advertising revenues.-
I suggest you read http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...e-patents.html -Mueller gives an example of a recent case where patents were excluded in a preliminary stage, only to be later included and upheld against a major player (microsoft no less).
Not hard enough. 17 of the 21 lawsuit claims were dismissed by the courts.
It's also been stated that those aren't central to the case. Often, more IP is entered than is required, just in case. You never know how it will be ruled.
Rather like the US senator said in response to Abu Ghraib: "At least we're not Saddam Hussein."
If you like the way Google and Microsoft operate, then there is no problem.
You're not making sense... and you also cherry picked my response.
Microsoft has pissed off everyone for over 20 years... boy does that show... nobody wants to do business with them and their business is almost bankrupt... what? wait...
I would like to know who is "really" pissed off at Apple other than a few fandroids.
Business is business... everyone knows that in the industry. I'd like to know one very successful company that hasn't pissed off a few other companies in their day... and yet they are still around.
Comments
Some things I thought were interesting and noteworthy.
Apple and MS have been continuing their vast cross licensing deals. This is either the third or forth time they've ended up on the same side of a big deal. The last was the deal for the 880 or so patents from Novell. It seems in a number of ways that they've buried the hatchet.
In this auction, it appears from the article, that the moving alliances did have Apple and Google on the same side for a time. I'd love to know why all the changes occurred.
$4.5 billion does seem to be a lot of money for a patent portfolio, but we're talking about literally hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten to fifteen years. Looking at it that way, this isn't so much.
I'd like to know just why some companies decided to stop bidding when they did. If Google went to $4 billion, why not 4.5, why not 5? I read that Google doesn't seem to be totally committed to Android. Possibly that's correct.
This appears to be the most complex consortium I've ever seen. How will this work? Some companies seem to have bought groups of patents altogether, while possibly participating in the purchase of others with some other companies. Some companies are just getting the right to what may be a perpetual license to those patents, until they run out, or if they're modified for an extention. Companies that have bought some seem to be licensing others, etc.
These are extremely complex deals, and it's amazing that they were worked out in such a hurry in the short time available during the auction process which was changing daily, and even hourly. I'm assuming that the details will be worked out over the next few weeks.
As for the simplistic statements that this is to kill Android, well, that's likely a subset of the idea. Not so much as killing it, but slowing down some of its future development. And that actually fair, after all, Android companies are suing Apple and others as well.
But it's much more complex than that, which we can see with Apple and Google briefly turning up on the same side.
I'd like to know just why some companies decided to stop bidding when they did. If Google went to $4 billion, why not 4.5, why not 5? I read that Google doesn't seem to be totally committed to Android. Possibly that's correct.
I've been saying this for weeks now. It's like the old joke about the chicken and the pig, the chicken was involved in breakfast but the pig was committed - Google is only involved in mobile.
But it's much more complex than that, which we can see with Apple and Google briefly turning up on the same side.
Where are you reading that?
I've been saying this for weeks now. It's like the old joke about the chicken and the pig, the chicken was involved in breakfast but the pig was committed - Google is only involved in mobile.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Where are you reading that?
Near the top of the article:
The auction started with five parties, including two consortiums: Apple, Intel, Google, a consortium of Ericsson, Research in Motion, Microsoft, Sony and EMC, and a group led by defensive patent purchasing firm RPX.
It's not clear exactly why Google wanted the patents, did it want them to defend Android handset makers? It hasn't made a big effort to defend Android handset makers thus far so that seems odd. Did it want them to stop MS getting them? If so mission was accomplished. Did it want them to try to make handset makers adopt Android? Seems unlikely since it already has plenty of handset makers, but it's not impossible - there are occasional rumblings of discontent from the big Android OEMs.
Whatever it wanted them for we know one thing pretty much for sure, it didn't want them more than it wanted 5 billion dollars in cash or it could have kept bidding. I suspect this isn't as big a blow as is generally suggested.
My take on Google in mobile is unconventional, I think it's perfectly happy with the status quo where Android takes up all of the low end of the handset market, Apple taking up all of the high end. So long as MS can be kept out of mobile search things are OK by google and it can redirect resources to fighting on other fronts such as against facebook or IE.
I think those whimsical mathematical constant bids were just about it tweaking Apple's nose a bit, and it never really intended to go all out for the patent package.
Google doesn't want the patents for their technical merit in terms of implementing LTE rather the value the patents bring to the bargaining table when they are being sued.
Lets look at it this way. Right now Oracle claims that Google is infringing on its Java related patents. Since Google is relatively new, they have no patent portfolio so they really have nothing to bargain with outside of cash (licensing which is what they want to avoid).
Now if Google was able to secure these patents then they have something of value (outside of cash) that they can bring to the table.
The same thing can be said about their device manufacturers and Apple. Google would be able to come to the table and say hey Apple, you are infringing on our patents so drop the suits against the manufacturers infringing on your patents.
Like I said, the value in these patents really has nothing to do with the technical merits of them rather the defensive positioning they give the owner. Apple & Co used this patent auction as an offensive platform to proactively keep a defensive component out of Googles arsenal.
Near the top of the article:
You're misreading it, well in your defence AI isn't phrasing it clearly - let me reparse it
The auction started with five parties, Apple, Intel, Google and two consortiums (sic) one of Ericsson, Research in Motion, Microsoft, Sony and EMC, and a group led by defensive patent purchasing firm RPX.
So to start with A, I and G were all independent, and there were two consortia E/RIM/MS/S/EMC being one and RPX the other, standing for a bunch of asian makers we've barely heard of.
Lets look at it this way. Right now Oracle claims that Google is infringing on its Java related patents. Since Google is relatively new, they have no patent portfolio so they really have nothing to bargain with outside of cash (licensing which is what they want to avoid).
Now if Google was able to secure these patents then they have something of value (outside of cash) that they can bring to the table.
Well it's unlikely to help against Oracle, Nortel just doesn't have a big overlap with them - it's unlikely Google has an equally significant patent to use against Oracle as Oracle has to use against them.
The same thing can be said about their device manufacturers and Apple. Google would be able to come to the table and say hey Apple, you are infringing on our patents so drop the suits against the manufacturers infringing on your patents.
If they were willing to do that why aren't they helping with the current fights Apple v Samsung or Apple v HTC? They could have publicly stated their financial support for the litigation, they could have gone all out to invalidate some of Apple's key multitouch patents. They haven't.
You're misreading it, well in your defence AI isn't phrasing it clearly - let me reparse it
The auction started with five parties, Apple, Intel, Google and two consortiums (sic) one of Ericsson, Research in Motion, Microsoft, Sony and EMC, and a group led by defensive patent purchasing firm RPX.
So to start with A, I and G were all independent, and there were two consortia E/RIM/M/S/EMC and RPX standing for a bunch of asian makers we've barely heard of.
Yes, that does read better. I'd did read elsewhere that Apple and Google were negotiating over this, and I suppose that led me to read it that way.
Yes, that does read better. I'd did read elsewhere that Apple and Google were negotiating over this, and I suppose that led me to read it that way.
I actually read it the same way you did at first, did a double take, then I put on my Lisp programmer hat and tried to figure where the author had intended the brackets to be
Well it's unlikely to help against Oracle, Nortel just doesn't have a big overlap with them - it's unlikely Google has an equally significant patent to use against Oracle as Oracle has to use against them.
If they were willing to do that why aren't they helping with the current fights Apple v Samsung or Apple v HTC? They could have publicly stated their financial support for the litigation, they could have gone all out to invalidate some of Apple's key multitouch patents. They haven't.
Google, as has been pointed out, has a small portfolio of patents, just a few hundred, and most of these have nothing to do with the issues at hand. So Google has little to back up any threat they may make. That's the point to buying large aggregations of relevant patents.
What's been also pointed out by those in the industry is that Google, so far, has had no interest in indemnifying their OEMs in any of these fights, and that's a telling situation. They haven't even made a public statement about what Ludsec, or whatever their name is, is doing in their lawsuits against Android developers, while Apple has gone to court, and other companies are in the process of suing them.
It seems to me that being a business partner of Google is a tenuous proposition. It's not responsible. By bidding on these patents, Google intended to give themselves a quick injection of weight. I've also bought a great many things on eBay, some of them quite expensive, and deciding on what my maximum bid is going to be is a difficult process. I'm not trying to make money on what I buy though, so cash flow and future profits don't come into consideration, just my desire for the item.
With almost $28 billion in the bank, Google could have spent whatever they thought was required. $4 billion for one company is a lot though, and as a company that isn't making devices, where much more money flows in, they likely thought that this was already several years of Ad profits from the Android platform, and so it was enough.
the "Rockstar" team, who placed a winning bid of $4.5 billion.
Update: I, Cringely reports:
Apple paid $2 billion
RIM and Ericsson paid $1.1 billion together
Microsoft and Sony reportedly each put up $1 billion.
EMC brokered a side deal for about $400 million
Which adds up to $5.5 billion.
Perhaps Microsoft & Sony instead each put in only $500 million.
Which adds up to $5.5 billion.
Perhaps Microsoft & Sony instead each put in only $500 million.
It seems as though some companies paid others in the consortium, rather than contributed directly to the purchase. That could account for the disparity.
Please find the post where I wrote, "I hate AI".
AI is like Drudge Report: it's an obviously slanted partisan tool designed for the sole purpose of driving eyeballs to narrowly-targeted ads at any cost, but can be helpful to even those interested in more balanced news on the occasional chance they turn up a good scoop, which like their ultra-rightest brethren Drudge happens at least once every week or two. Slanted or not, they're often quick.
I post here because I've been buying Macs since most of the readers here were in grade school, and chances are good that I've purchased many times more Macs than the majority here will buy over their lifetime. I want Apple to not just make money today, but to also be here in ten years.
Over this long span of enjoying Apple products, I've seen the company go through many phases. While the current phase looks good to those with a short-term view, awash in cash and all, such a short-term perspective overlooks the long-term implications of pissing off entire industries and would-be partners every month.
Tides change. Today is Apple's greatest day, but it would be a mistake to believe it will last forever. Nothing does.
When the tide changes again, will Apple have any friends left to keep itself afloat?
Those of us who've been Apple fans for as long as I have understand that sometimes building healthy relationships is as important as money, even for corporations.
In recent years we've seen Apple change its policies in sometimes radical ways, only to later backpedal after they generate enough backlash. The iOS SDK license 4.0, later undone by 4.1, is one example, and the in-app purchasing is another.
In the end Apple often winds up doing what the market demands of it, but along the way they just garner a lot of ill will and a reputation for being fickle. Had they simply done the right thing from the start, they could have generated a tremendous amount of goodwill and support. But insead they chose a different path, one that leads other companies and more than a few developers to distrust them.
I realize all this may seem silly to many of the readers here, and I suspect such skepticism will be rewarded by another eight quarters of strong performances.
But beware the third year?.
It's funny that you say that you've been around for such a long time and that you have a long term view yet you then say that Apple has garnered all sorts of ill will. What??!! You mean the ill will they garnered by partnering with some of the biggest names in the tech industry. You mean the ill will garnered by being Barron's #1 most respected company 2 years in a row. Or do you mean the ill will they garner from being in the Price Waterhouse top 4.
Apple garners more ill will than Microsoft? Google? Intel?
What??!
You're not letting that little spat with Adobe or the legal battle with Samsung colour your view, are you... that would be a very narrow line of site... imho.
Lucy, you got some splainin to do!
Apple garners more ill will than Microsoft? Google? Intel?
Well, there is a lot of hate towards Apple nowadays. There's always been Apple haters, but there's even more now, since Apple is so big and successful and they're crushing everybody else. Apple is the one to beat, currently. They're also the one to copy from, apparently.
If you visit generic forums and you start an Apple topic, there is guaranteed to be some retarded haters showing up within 7 milliseconds. Some people are simply incapable of controlling their hatred and just the mention of the word "Apple" instantly sets off an internal trigger in these primitive beings.
Which adds up to $5.5 billion.
Perhaps Microsoft & Sony instead each put in only $500 million.
You suck at math, go back to 1st grade.
Rather like the US senator said in response to Abu Ghraib: "At least we're not Saddam Hussein."
If you like the way Google and Microsoft operate, then there is no problem.
So lets get this right, you think that Google is more evil than Apple but that Apple should have let them win the patents because Apple has to be better than Google, and if Google wants the patents then owning the patents must be evil - so Apple must not do it?
Or would you like to put it differently?
You see, by violating Oracle's Java patents and Copyrights, Google is putting the whole company at risk just for Android. Larry Ellison going after them very hard, and when all is said and done, Android handset makers still have to pay royalties to Microsoft.
Time will tell.
Not hard enough. 17 of the 21 lawsuit claims were dismissed by the courts.
Not hard enough. 17 of the 21 lawsuit claims were dismissed by the courts.
It's all preliminary stages with the Oracle suit, just because a patent is excluded at this stage doesn't mean it will remain excluded. Bloggers who want to generate clicks will take preliminary rulings and write sensational headlines to drive up advertising revenues.-
I suggest you read http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...e-patents.html -Mueller gives an example of a recent case where patents were excluded in a preliminary stage, only to be later included and upheld against a major player (microsoft no less).
Not hard enough. 17 of the 21 lawsuit claims were dismissed by the courts.
It's also been stated that those aren't central to the case. Often, more IP is entered than is required, just in case. You never know how it will be ruled.
Rather like the US senator said in response to Abu Ghraib: "At least we're not Saddam Hussein."
If you like the way Google and Microsoft operate, then there is no problem.
You're not making sense... and you also cherry picked my response.
Microsoft has pissed off everyone for over 20 years... boy does that show... nobody wants to do business with them and their business is almost bankrupt... what? wait...
I would like to know who is "really" pissed off at Apple other than a few fandroids.
Business is business... everyone knows that in the industry. I'd like to know one very successful company that hasn't pissed off a few other companies in their day... and yet they are still around.
Shit happens... nuff said.