or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola

post #1 of 116
Thread Starter 
In a recent conference call with investors, Apple's chief financial officer was unsurprisingly tight-lipped, but did admit he thinks Google spent "a lot of money" to acquire Motorola.

Peter Oppenheimer took part this week in a conference call hosted by investment firm Gleacher & Company. When asked about Google's announcement on Monday that it would acquire Motorola, the Apple senior vice president reportedly commented on the sale price by saying: "$12.5 billion is a lot of money."

If the Motorola purchase receives necessary regulatory approval, it will be the largest acquisition in Google's long history of purchases. The final sum well exceeds the $3.1 billion sale price of online advertiser DoubleClick in 2008, and $1.65 billion purchase of YouTube in 2006.

For its part, Apple does not make a significant number of major acquisitions, and none of Apple's deals have been nearly as large as Google. In 1997, Apple acquired NeXT for $404 million, and more recently, it bought microprocessor designer P.A. Semi for $278 million in 2008, and mobile advertising firm Quattro Wireless in early 2010 for $275 million.

Google's chief executive, Larry Page, has freely admitted that his company's mega-deal with Motorola was prompted, in part, by growing patent litigation in the smartphone business. Page said that he feels lawsuits from Apple and Microsoft targeting platforms like Google Android is "anticompetitive" activity.

Industry watchers believe that Google's ownership of Motorola will give it a stronger foothold in ongoing legal challenges from competitors. But at the same time, analysts on Wall Street do not expect the Google-Motorola deal to have a major impact on Apple or to affect sales of its wildly popular iPhone.

When asked about the Google-Motorola combination during this week's conference call, Oppenheimer said Apple strongly believes in competition, but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others. He said customers should be allowed to choose what is the superior product on the open market.

The CFO also reiterated the company's stance that Apple will "vigorously" defend its intellectual property as necessary. In keeping with that strategy, Apple is currently involved in patent infringement suits with a number of major companies, including HTC, Motorola, Samsung, and Kodak.

Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer.

Oppenheimer has worked for Apple since 1996 and in his role as senior vice president and CFO reports directly to Chief Executive Steve Jobs. He previously worked at Automatic Data Processing, where he was also CFO.

During Apple's most recent quarterly earnings conference call in July, Oppenheimer revealed that his company is planning a major "future product transition" that will have a material impact on the September quarter. He also hinted that Apple has "neat stuff coming" to its iTunes Store in the coming months.
post #2 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

During Apple's most recent quarterly earnings conference call in July, Oppenheimer revealed that his company is planning a major "future product transition" that will have a material impact on the September quarter. He also hinted that Apple has "neat stuff coming" to its iTunes Store in the coming months.

Let the guessing games begin!

Another CPU architecture switch? Apple TV (TV not box)? No more Mac's just Mobile devices (the horror!)?

Safest bet is iCloud TV possibly iCloud gaming.
post #3 of 116
Quote:
When asked about the Google-Motorola combination during this week's conference call, Oppenheimer said Apple strongly believes in competition, but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.

Couldn't agree more! I've been saying this since these lawsuits have started. People accuse Apple of trying to stifle competition for suing over patent infringement, but I don't see cloning another company's product as competition. I think that's setting the bar for competition very, very low. I don't consider what Samsung or RIM or Motorola do in the tablet space to be competition.

And because I anticipate being accused of fanboy-ism, I'll point out an example of what I think is true competition in the tablet market. Sony has shown some competitive spirit and real initiative with their S2. While it doesn't appeal to me personally, it's the kind of creative, tangential thinking in product design that I consider true competition.
post #4 of 116
He should have said: "Libertyville, start you photocopiers!"
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #5 of 116
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others
post #6 of 116
Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.

Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:

1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.

2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)

The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.
The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.

Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?
post #7 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlevier View Post

Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.

Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:

1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.

2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)

The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.
The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.

Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?

2) is not really a negative because it's pretty obvious that Google is on the hook if Android manufacturers lose the suits to Apple anyway. In fact Google would lose at least $150-200 in stock price if Android devices cannot be sold anymore. It's almost like the last resort on Google's part, to by Moto and hope that they can somehow win the suits.

Right now the potential big winner is not Apple but Microsoft, it's stock is dirt cheap and if Android is dead, WinPhone7 will become the 2nd largest mobile OS very quickly and there's no way Apple can win suits against MSFT's huge patent warchest.
post #8 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

Maybe. But Apple bought all these raw ideas and spent massive amounts of time and money to develop them to the point where they a) worked properly; b) were marketable: c) were affordable; and d) were profitable. Mr. Oppenheimer's comments are aimed at those who simply take someone else's ideas, without paying for them, and who don't develop them but simply copy them to make a profit for themselves.
post #9 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

"Copying" and "extending" are two very different things.

Oh, as for the mouse and GUI, they were involved actually. It was a research project at Xerox and they invited Apple to produce a commercial product, the Lisa and then the Macintosh. While they were in development, Apple invited Microsoft in to see their new GUI OS so Microsoft could get a head start on development of Office, which they did, but also copied everything pretty much verbatim to make Windows 1.0.
post #10 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

Well you have a lot of chutzpah to post this here.

Needless to say yo don't know what you're talking about and are wrong on on almost every one of these points, but it isn't worth the time to debate it with you. I'm guessing you are either a teenager or just a complete troll. Do a bit of reading up on the facts and tell us if you still believe this rot when you are done.
post #11 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...self-image.ars
post #12 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Well you have a lot of chutzpah to post this here.

Needless to say yo don't know what you're talking about and are wrong on on almost every one of these points, but it isn't worth the time to debate it with you. I'm guessing you are either a teenager or just a complete troll. Do a bit of reading up on the facts and tell us if you still believe this rot when you are done.

Oh Prof. Peabody. "Almost every one of these points" is unusually vague for you. Your posts are usually so levelheaded. You shouldn't let this sort of post get to you.

In related news, Google has halted all hiring for the rest of the 2011 year.
post #13 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

the Apple senior vice president reportedly commented on the sale price by saying: "$12.5 billion is a lot of money."

And the ocean is big. Do I also get an article in AI for stating the obvious?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #14 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

Welcome to the forums. Nice to see you have an Axe to grind. I really like the Psion one, that is cute. By the way, you have been posting two days and made 10 posts. You have already managed to copy yourself.

There has got to be a joke in that somewhere.
post #15 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea - Apple paid for the visit, with the understanding that they could commercialize the ideas they would see. Besides, there were massive improvements between what Xerox had, and Apple did. Xerox did not think these could make commercial products at all.
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes: How did they not invent the iPod? You are right about iTunes. They purchased the company that invented it.
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion: I have no idea about this.
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks: Which is why Apple licenced the technology and subsequently bought them.
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea: Umm, and?
- that didn't invent Coverflow: Yup. They bought the company that invented it.
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS... yeah, because those MS tablets looked exactly like what the iPad does now...just because Apple borrowed the name doesn't mean they aren't substantially different products.
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format: Huh?

all these idea's taken from others

These ideas were all fairly licenced or purchased from others. Unlike Google which simply stole the idea (and patented ones at that). I am not sure why you can't tell the difference. In fact, you missed the classic example of when Apple pulled a Google. Dashboard. This was a very clear ripoff of Konfabulator (sp?), and Apple got a ton of flak for it.

They learnt their lesson, and the next time they wanted to take an idea someone else had used (CoverFlow) they purchased it from the developer.
post #16 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

You forgot THE WHEEL, Apple didn't invent that too.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #17 of 116
Meh, I think Apple should have kept their mouth shut, like they usually do.

$2.5 billion is alot to pay for NORTEL patents, too. It's a fair price and well worth it, mind you, but still alot, and one of their bigger purchases.
post #18 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

Meh, I think Apple should have kept their mouth shut, like they usually do.

$2.5 billion is alot to pay for NORTEL patents, too. It's a fair price and well worth it, mind you, but still alot, and one of their bigger purchases.

They did pay a 60%+ premium on an overvalued company that has never made a profit...
post #19 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

Oh Prof. Peabody. "Almost every one of these points" is unusually vague for you. Your posts are usually so levelheaded. You shouldn't let this sort of post get to you.

In related news, Google has halted all hiring for the rest of the 2011 year.

Well, it's such obvious nonsense I shouldn't have replied at all. So I started to, then I realised every single thing he said was crap and that not only that the point of view he is working from is flawed as well. I shouldn't have replied at all.
post #20 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

I think you're in the wrong room. Try engadget.com.
post #21 of 116


Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band

This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP
post #22 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Well you have a lot of chutzpah to post this here.

Needless to say yo don't know what you're talking about and are wrong on on almost every one of these points, but it isn't worth the time to debate it with you. I'm guessing you are either a teenager or just a complete troll. Do a bit of reading up on the facts and tell us if you still believe this rot when you are done.

Don't quote the troll please.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #23 of 116
What interests me the most is:

Quote:
During Apple's most recent quarterly earnings conference call in July, Oppenheimer revealed that his company is planning a major "future product transition" that will have a material impact on the September quarter.

Listening to the earnings call, this was in response to a question asking why Apple's [profit] projections were low.


Based on rumors at the time, I figured:

1) an iPad 3, Retina Display, A6 -- at the same, or slightly price -- and the iPad 2 at a significantly reduced price, say, $249 for the base WiFi model

2) an iP5 world phone

Now, it appears that neither the retina display nor the A6 will be ready for the September quarter!

So, now I am at a loss...

... Maybe content deals with the cablecos and studios to integrate ATV and the HDTV. Might require AppleTV 3 for, say, $150:

--->cable--->CableCo STB--->ATV 3--->HDTV
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #24 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post


Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band

This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP

And it didn't create an entirely new and wildly successful product category because . . . ?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #25 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- ...
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- ...
all these idea's taken from others

This is getting tiresome.

If you truly believe that all new ideas come out thin air, then I can't really help you with that delusion. However, if you're open to learning the difference between using other ideas as a starting point and building your own breakthroughs off of them vs just repackaging the work of others, then I encourage you to read the following pages on the real history of the topics you're being so glib about:

On Xerox, Apple and Progress by Bruce Horn
Busy Being Born by Andy Hertzfeld
Multi-touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved by Bill Buxton
Who invented Unix by Ken Thompson

I'm hoping that what you take away from this is that there is no clear starting point for the history of inventions. There is always work that came before. However, there are clearly people who add new ideas to things, and it's hard to argue that engineers at Apple haven't contributed a fair number of new ideas along the way (even if there is work that came before them which they built off of).
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #26 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the cfo of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the gui; it was xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the ipod nor itunes
- that didn't invent the pda; that was psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was fingerworks
- that didn't invent os x; unixe was bell labs' idea
- that didn't invent coverflow
- that didn't invent tabletpcs; that was ms
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's legally acquired or legally reverse engineered and executed differently from others. not illegally copied.

tftfy
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #27 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post



Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band

This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP

You forgot to mention the cheap plastic and nearly 7 pound weight that would let even a blind person differentiate the HP and Apple products correctly. Not to mention the totally different operating system GUI which alone would be enough for sighted folks to not get confused.

Really, are you trying to prove trolls are all idiots? Every damn one of you cites the same poorly thought out tripe that self defeats your cause. It's pathetic.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #28 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

If you are honestly interested in this topic, may I suggest :

Creation Myth - Xerox PARC, Apple, and the truth about innovation.
by Malcolm Gladwell

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2..._fact_gladwell

I think that this explains the actual nature of modern tech development in a concise way. It is also an amazing analysis of how tech works.
post #29 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post



Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band

This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP

And if you happen to look at the picture, the HP tablet looks absolutely nothing like Apple's tablet. Now, put the Samsung tablet next to Apple's and try to tell me that your HP example is relevant.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #30 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

Couldn't agree more! I've been saying this since these lawsuits have started. People accuse Apple of trying to stifle competition for suing over patent infringement, but I don't see cloning another company's product as competition. I think that's setting the bar for competition very, very low. I don't consider what Samsung or RIM or Motorola do in the tablet space to be competition.

And because I anticipate being accused of fanboy-ism, I'll point out an example of what I think is true competition in the tablet market. Sony has shown some competitive spirit and real initiative with their S2. While it doesn't appeal to me personally, it's the kind of creative, tangential thinking in product design that I consider true competition.

I agree. I always point to Windows Phone 7. Rather than copy Apple's iPhone, they went in a similar direction, but really made it their own. It's not bad... Pretty good actually.

I don't dislike Android. It's a nice OS. I simply have a problem with how it came to be.
post #31 of 116
What is truly anticompetitive is sitting in board meetings and stealing ideas from a truly innovative company and then turning around and selling a knockoff of that product.


Google is the anticompetitive company here. Apple has to protect themselves.

12.5 Billion ?!?

desperation move. Google knows they were being "evil" and is doing everything to avoid the consequences.

They are not a mobility company. They are a software company. google just might be shooting themselves in the foot here.

wht do they gain? Motorola's mobility division is going down, their hardware is lame and their software isn't any better.

It has to be the patents they hold.

Beyond that, Google gains nothing. Not even CPU know-how. Motorola long ago spun off FreeScale, os that option is not on the table.

12.5 billion to gain some patents that may not even be defensible.

pure desperation. Be interesting to see what this does to Google's value over the next two years. I'll be grabbing some popcorn...
post #32 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

Oh god, here we go again. Another person who doesn't understand that innovation means making ideas successful. By your definition, no one has 'invented' anything.
Invention is recombination with a bit of something 'extra', that turns the past on its head.
To go through your silly list...
- Xerox was famous as the place where great ideas went to die
- and before iPod/iTunes, MP3 players were a geeky, niche market.
- Yeah, I remember EVERYONE walking around with a Psion
- Again, how much is my Fingerworks stock worth today and how many people do they employ?
- How's that Bell Labs computer and network working out for you?
- Coverflow is such a silly idea that even Apple isn't really using it any more
- Yup, MS Tablets just took the world by storm.

Rent 'Connections' by James Burke to understand what creativity, innovation, and invention are really about.

Apple does them all in spades.
post #33 of 116
Oppenheimer is being way too charitable. By any stretch of imagination, this is a ridiculously overpriced acquisition that will come back to bite them in the bu**.

The detritus is already evident, with the (massive) stock price drop and the downgrades. If I was a direct shareholder of the company I'd be quite ticked off with this decision.

Let's hope -- and I have no doubt that it's a well-placed hope -- that Oppenheimer never does anything so remotely reckless.
post #34 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

What is truly anticompetitive is sitting in board meetings and stealing ideas from a truly innovative company and then turning around and selling a knockoff of that product.


Google is the anticompetitive company here. Apple has to protect themselves.

12.5 Billion ?!?

desperation move. Google knows they were being "evil" and is doing everything to avoid the consequences.

They are not a mobility company. They are a software company. google just might be shooting themselves in the foot here.

wht do they gain? Motorola's mobility division is going down, their hardware is lame and their software isn't any better.

It has to be the patents they hold.

Beyond that, Google gains nothing. Not even CPU know-how. Motorola long ago spun off FreeScale, os that option is not on the table.

12.5 billion to gain some patents that may not even be defensible.

pure desperation. Be interesting to see what this does to Google's value over the next two years. I'll be grabbing some popcorn...

Actually Google is more of an Advertising company in my opinion. They want as many ways as they can to keep their greasy fingers in our lives. To Google we are nothing more than food. They offer "free services" (often using IP that they don't own) as a way of keeping a good supply of food for their real customers, the advertisers.

Honestly, I don't have as much of a problem with the similar hardware as I do with Android.

Having your "partner" and board member steal your stuff is bad enough, but when they simply give it away for "free", that is hard to swallow. It's pretty difficult to compete with "FREE" and when that "FREE" OS is actually YOUR hard work, it's a double whammy. Yes, Google is the anti-competitive one. Then again, this is the way that they've operated for years.

Can't stand Google. Can't stand Eric Schmidt.
post #35 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band

This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP


Troll! The Tab design is a total rip off of the iPad. There has never been anything that uses the same design as the ipad before let alone anything from Samsung.



post #36 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Well, it's such obvious nonsense I shouldn't have replied at all. So I started to, then I realised every single thing he said was crap and that not only that the point of view he is working from is flawed as well. I shouldn't have replied at all.

Most trolls register on these forums to pick a fight with Apple fans because they think Apple fans are stupid, ignorant or sheep. Or they want you to pay attention to them. They rarely deserve a reply.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #37 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band

Let's see…



Check.
Check.
Check.
Plastic, but check.
Check.

Oh, I'm sorry HP. 2001! Beaten again.

You're so full of nonsense, I could open a nonsense store and sell everything at half cost and still make a profit.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #38 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Oh god, here we go again. Another person who doesn't understand that innovation means making ideas successful. By your definition, no one has 'invented' anything.
Invention is recombination with a bit of something 'extra', that turns the past on its head.

Rent 'Connections' by James Burke to understand what creativity, innovation, and invention are really about.

Apple does them all in spades.

Seriously, James Burke is awesome, but I'm afraid such nuanced and intellectual understanding is above his intellectual grasp. He really believes Apple is a sham. HP is obviously the "real innovator" here.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #39 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others

Apple actually made them matter.
post #40 of 116
Beside a lot of your history being messed up (e.g. the first mouse was credited to Douglas Engelbart from the Stanford Research Institute who built the first prototype in 1963), what is your point?

You somehow seem to equate first with being original. For instance, you could create an MP3 player before me, and I can build one much later that is significantly different, maybe even better. Are you suggesting because I build a MP3 player after you, I didn't invent my own technology. That is BS. Take for instance your incorrect example of the computer mouse. Xerox's Bill English built a mouse based on Englehert's work. It cost $400 to build. Apple was looking to bring a computer to market for about $2, 000. It couldn't use a mouse that cost that much to build. Instead, Apple created some serious magic and figured out how to build a mouse that did the same thing as the $400 mouse, but for $25.

Out of all the examples you provide below, Apple either paid for the technology upon which it build on (e.g. iTunes, Cover Flow, Finger works), or outright brought its own design to the table. People don't understand Apple paid Xerox by giving it one million dollars worth of its Pre-IPO shares. Do you know what that would be worth today? In exchange, all Apple got was a visit to Xerox Parc where Apple could view a GUI in action (which was helpful because Apple's engineers already wanted to build a GUI product, but needed to convince Jobs it was feasible).

Apple isn't complaining about HP or Microsoft because those companies are bringing their own designs to the table. Samsung's products are almost exact replicates of some of Apple's products, right down tot he packaging.


Quote:
Originally Posted by invoice View Post

but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.


Says the CFO of the company:

- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...

- that didn't invent the rectangular format

all these idea's taken from others
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola