or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by KPOM

Plus, it isn't as if Apple didn't ask Verizon back in 2006 whether they wanted to carry the iPhone. Remember that back in those days, the carriers wielded the power, and didn't like being told by Apple that they couldn't install their own applications or branding on the phone. No one knew whether it would even sell. AT&T took a chance on the phone, agreed to Apple's terms regarding pricing, branding, and marketing, and in return got an exclusive contract.
Apple's issue in the 1990s was mismanagement, not a lack of market share. Pepsi and Avis do just fine as the #2 players in large markets. Ford (#2 in the US) was the only US automaker that didn't go bankrupt in 2009. Apple's biggest operational issue was that they used proprietary parts and had supply issues. By switching to Intel, they have easy supply access, and can promote compatibility, to boot. Their biggest strategic issue was not having CEOs who could develop new...
I think you are overreacting. iOS just needs enough market share to survive and thrive. It doesn't need to be the top seller. It isn't as if John Sculley or Michael Spindler were named CEO. There is room for 2 or even 3 or 4 major mobile operating systems. That said, I do think that Apple is secretly a fan of Windows Phone and Windows 8 ARM. Any growth that those operating systems experience will probably be largely at the expense of Android.
Samsung doesn't earn Apple-style margins, however. They aren't at razor-thin Motorola margins, either, but Apple still commands a premium.It remains to be seen how well the Galaxy Tab actually sells in Australia. It hasn't really caught on here in the US. All the non-iPad attention is on the Kindle Fire.
Full disclosure: I'm long AAPL. I agree. Apple is trading at utility P/E ratios right now. "Analysts" are tough to figure out. On the one hand, they all seem to think that Apple is prime for a fall (hence the 9.76 forward P/E). On the other hand, they keep on ratcheting up expectations and putting out higher and higher guidance on the iPhone and iPad. At the end of the day, it comes down to this. Do you think that the management team and board that Steve Jobs left behind...
That was a German regional court. The EU investigation is completely separate. The German court was simply applying existing German law. The EU may separately determine that Motorola Mobility's use of the law, when viewed in light of other actions, amounted to anti-competitive behavior.
The crux of the debate is that to definitively assert a FRAND defense, apparently one needs to admit prior infringement. The net effect of this is that someone who genuinely believes a FRAND patent is invalid is caught between a rock and a hard place. Either pay the FRAND royalty and waive the ability to contest the patent, or take your chances in court. Apple has the resources to do the latter. But not every company does. This exposes a flaw in the FRAND system (one...
You're not a patent lawyer, so no, there's nothing wrong with that last bit. Enjoy the sales spike for as long as it lasts.
Apple approached Motorola years ago about licensing the patents on FRAND terms. Motorola Mobility decided to play hardball. Apple is more than happy to settle out of court. Nokia is a good example. Nokia has far more patents than Motorola Mobility and has done more to develop mobile communications standards than anyone else. They had a brief war of words, but then later came to an amicable settlement.
I disagree. Motorola Mobility was looking to use a rather ordinary patent as a gold mine, much the same way that Microsoft has done with Android licensees.
New Posts  All Forums: