Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product' - Page 10

deleted

deleted

So that's why Apple is hoarding cash! For the longest time people couldn't figure out why Apple is hoarding cash. Investors and analysts all wanted them to do something with it, either a dividend or stock buy backs but Steve refused. It now all makes sense.

Jobs knows that at some point down the line he's going to have to battle Google in law suits. That's very expensive and he wanted the biggest war chest he can have as Google also generate billions of dollars each year. It's the only way to protect against those who freeload off of Apple's IP.

As someone was asking on Mac Rumors. Can. Someone, anyone, detail what Android has stolen from iOS?

Not obscure minor IP even God can't avoid violating but what specifically was copied?

It can be very difficult to jump straight to contributory infringement. Let alone get billions of damages that way on a product that is "given away". The judge already threw out most of that argument in the Oracle case where Google is far more directly accused of violating IP, so I would think it would be even harder for Apple to go after Google in that manner.

10's of Trillions? So at a minimum that is 10 trillion dollars...or 10,000 billion dollars. I really don't expect iOS to make that much money over its life cycle. That is almost the national debt!!!

Also, I think you are attempting to say my shortsightedness is limited...not limiting.

Finally, yes, it is about squandering Apple's resources! If a company wastes its money in an attempt to get revenge then it is wasting its resources. Yes, Apple might loose some potential profits over the long term, but they are hardly hurting. Apple doesn't need to be #1, all they need to do is make good profits and have their stock value increase.

deleted

Exponential earnings growth over a 20-30 year product space cycle, even in the early lower slope part of the curve it will be quite dramatic. So yes I did mean 10's of trillions of $$. Your inability to see that is a typical majority reaction of those who don't get what rates of growth do, especially when you compound product space growth rates with inflation rates.


No, I said exactly what I meant to say. Having your point of view limits what you will be able to conceive of in the future.


Take those two points above. If Apples growth rate is only 5% different due to reducing what Apple considers unfair competition, over 30 years that can be a earnings difference at the end of the road of 4.3x without considering inflation and over 10x considering inflation. That could end up with earnings differing by almost $61B per quarter those 30 years out. Notice I said differing by, not at, the actual number (not just the difference) could be much higher given my conservative 5% difference and 3% inflation.

Yes, those are subject to lots of potential ways to underperform, they are also subject to ways to over perform. The real takeaway is you aren't thinking long term, you are short-term quarter blind. When you think long term and look at the difference an investment today could change the all important growth rate calculus, it makes the legal bill today investment utterly inconsequential in size.

One thing I don't think a lot of folks gave Steve credit for was how he thought long-term. We only have seen short and medium-term results of his Apple involvement (post 1997). When you want to get an insight to how he operated long-term look at his Pixar purchase. Look at what has happened with it over 25 years and what he turned a cool $5Mil into. Now think like that and start with $6Bil per quarter... Even if I'm off by a factor of 1000 in full earnings we are talking totals likely exceeding a trillion, but compounded growth says I won't be off by that much given the math alone.

Apple would have to make several really bad choices for that kind of 30 year money to be off the table. Sure they might, but my response and post is about why Apple isn't squandering $$ now in the legal arena. And for that argument you cannot use worst case bad business decisions to nullify the potential effects of using the legal investment to leverage a favorable change in growth rate.

There seem to be some contradicting feelings from Apple over Google. Long after Android was out and about, at the Antennagate Q&A, Steve said the following:

"Maybe it's human nature -- when you're doing well, people want to tear you down. I see it happening with Google, people trying to tear them down. And I don't understand it."

Maybe it's similar to the Samsung issue where they want to come down hard on them for their plagiarism but still be on good terms for everything else.

Personally, I'd much rather have Android and iOS succeed together and Windows Phone fail miserably than have Windows Phone replace Android and as I've said before, I think it's an inevitable outcome that Apple will not take over 100% of the smartphone market so it has to be one of those scenarios.

deleted

mine replied with:

"I think differently."

I guess the difference is that Xerox didn't know how brilliant the PARC group was until 20 years had gone by. In other words, these were inventions that were openly laughed at by their own board chairman. Microsoft helped themselves to some of it too. It was literally there for the taking.

Patents unenforced are worthless after a while. Xerox can't come out now and sue the whole mouse making world.

I am generally opposed to old people running high tech anything unless they have a long background in it.

I'll double down on that and say that Jobs biographer is too old to quite grasp the importance of his subject's inventions.

I tried getting an Otterbox case. On Amazon.com it CLEARLY says it's not compatible. What now? \

Don't forget that the LG Prada was shown 4 to 5 months before Apple mention the IPhone.
On screen shortcuts, home button in someways similar, ill say Apple took some ideas from LG and used them to create a better phone, a beast back then(2g, no camera flash, no flash content support, no MMS, no bluethoot share ect). I've owned 2 2gs, 1 3g and 1 3gs then I switch to Android. Reasons were customization and open platform or source. All my iPhones were jailbroken, Androids u can Rooted but out of the box you can almost do everything. Google voice search existed before Siri, siri made it more personalized, Apple always made things that already existed better they weren't used to somebody else making their things better and that's what Google is doing. Monopolies are bad for us the consumers, Takes away options, why fight Google nor Apple pay my bills, let's b realistic Google has more features than an iPhone for example Galaxy S3 will be competing with the iPhone 6 not 5 at the speed Apple is moving with the iPhone. They should stop wasting money on courts and put it on a device. Let's not be fanboys a micro 3.5 screen, close platform, no customization, no expandable memory, no recent features on phones like burst shot, record a video a snap pics, no share shot, wi fi direct, android beam, not 10 % of gestures, no USB on the go and I can keep going. Best computers Apple, best tablets Asus transformers quad core, best phones Nexus with Jellybean, Galaxy S3 UK Quad core and US versions Dual core S4.

if they come out with a 4.5 in super amoled screen iPhone with real multitasking and more features I'll buy it. Can't be just one single capacitive touch screen smartphone in the market they have to have competition that's how we get more options and better prices. Apple refuses to give you a better phone for that price that's why they can't stand Google making a lot better phones for the same price. Windows can't make a clean OS like Apple, their computers doesn't compare to Apple's in terms of reliability and performance, Apple takes advantage of that and selling us the consumers an overpriced piece of equipment. Google have manage to give us better product with more capabilities than Iphone for the same price.

 

Your Mother must be so proud.

Don't forget that this thread is nearly a year old, so there's no reason to have brought it back up. Also no, the LG Prada was never seen TURNED ON before the introduction of the iPhone. It is not a valid argument in any fashion.

What? No.

Well, the latter isn't the case, so why'd you switch, again?

I love posts like yours. I can just run down the list and point out things you say that make no sense. And I HAVE to do that, because there are just SO many things that are utterly wrong… They can't all be addressed any other way.

Ha! Hardly.

Here we go. Here we FRICKING go again. I tell you, if I see one more post about how Apple wants a monopoly and they don't provide any proof, I'm going to lose it*. I will just lose it*. This is abject nonsense and you know it.

…for example Galaxy S3 will be competing with the iPhone 6…[/QUOTE]

Hooray! Even though you seem to be a deluded Android fan, you managed to get the old (now defunct) name of the next…

…iPhone… righ–YOU MEAN THE ONE TWO YEARS FROM NOW, DON'T YOU?!

So, and if I may be so bold as to paraphrase, *ahem*

Innovate, don't litigate.

Let's not use that word. Thanks.

Yep, you don't get it.

Explain to me just what the frick this is, please. I must be missing something.

Once again, you just don't get it.

{Citation needed}

{Citation needed}

Look up the definition of 'overpriced' before deciding you understand how to use it again.

*No, I won't. I'm a very calm person. This is simply figurative language to express my utter distaste at those who try to play this card.