or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple tells court it would pay no more than $1 per iPhone to license Motorola patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple tells court it would pay no more than $1 per iPhone to license Motorola patents

post #1 of 60
Thread Starter 
Apple has indicated to a Wisconsin court that it is willing to pay Google-owned Motorola Mobility to license standard-essential wireless patents, but it will not pay more than $1 per iPhone sold.

The admission by Apple marks the first time the company has indicated it would license standard-essential patents from Motorola, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Apple said that if the court sets a FRAND rate at or below $1, the company will take a license and start paying Motorola immediately.

But if the court sets a royalty rate higher than $1 per iPhone, Apple has signaled that it will appeal the decision and make it more difficult for Motorola and Google to collect.

"Motorola cannot offer evidence at this trial that the rate should be higher than $1 per phone, but to the extent the Court sets the rate higher than $1 per unit, Apple reserves the right to exhaust all appeals," Apple's filing reads, "and needs also to reserve the right available to any party offered a license: the right to refuse and proceed to further infringement litigation. Make no mistake, that is not an outcome Apple desires."

Motorola


The new details come five days ahead of the start of the FRAND contract trial in the Western District of Wisconsin. In that trial, Apple intends to employ expert testimony and "copious real-world evidence ? including Motorola's contemporaneous licenses ??that establishes a ceiling for the FRAND rate Motorola could charge Apple for Motorola's worldwide portfolio."

The rate Apple has said it is willing to pay is significantly lower than the 2.25 percent of Apple's sales that Motorola seeks for standard-essential patents. Mueller, an intellectual property expert, said he doesn't expect Motorola to "ever" receive a payout that large.

"Apple's '$1 maximum' position may be justified from a FRAND point of view (I guess it is)," Mueller wrote, "but such a deal wouldn't give Google the strategic leverage over Apple that it hoped to get when it paid $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility."
post #2 of 60
Huh. Wonder how well it'll fly when Samsung follows suit and dictates to the court what penalties it's willing to pay, cuz that's apparently the world we live in now.
post #3 of 60
LOL @ Google. Those dirty bastards trying to cheat companies (read: Apple) using FRAND patents. I hope google get's their assess sued or that they get fined for unfair business practices.
post #4 of 60

not sure what the problem is. Google will get back their ROI back when Apple ships 12.5 billion iPhones.  Just have to sell two iPhones to every single person on the planet. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #5 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Huh. Wonder how well it'll fly when Samsung follows suit and dictates to the court what penalties it's willing to pay, cuz that's apparently the world we live in now.

Licensing Fee != Penalty
post #6 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


But if the court sets a royalty rate higher than $1 per iPhone, Apple has signaled that it will appeal the decision and make it more difficult for Motorola and Google to collect.
"Motorola cannot offer evidence at this trial that the rate should be higher than $1 per phone, but to the extent the Court sets the rate higher than $1 per unit, Apple reserves the right to exhaust all appeals," Apple's filing reads, "and needs also to reserve the right available to any party offered a license: the right to refuse and proceed to further infringement litigation. Make no mistake, that is not an outcome Apple desires."
"Apple's '$1 maximum' position may be justified from a FRAND point of view (I guess it is)," Mueller wrote, "but such a deal wouldn't give Google the strategic leverage over Apple that it hoped to get when it paid $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility."

 

 

This is what is meant by "Thermonuclear."

 

Good on ya, Tim.   :)

post #7 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Huh. Wonder how well it'll fly when Samsung follows suit and dictates to the court what penalties it's willing to pay, cuz that's apparently the world we live in now.


Huh....  this is a FRAND patent, and every other company is paying 1 dollar, so why would apple pay more....  And apple is ONLY dictating that it would accept that amount and all other amounts will be appealed which is exactly what the court is trying to avoid...  this makes perfect sense to me.. Not sure why you have a problem with that.....

post #8 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Huh. Wonder how well it'll fly when Samsung follows suit and dictates to the court what penalties it's willing to pay, cuz that's apparently the world we live in now.

 

 

Cash907:

 

Perhaps you should actually go read a little first before commenting on things you obviously don't understand. This is about licensing fees, not penalties. Apple hasn't been found to infringe Motorola's patents. Apple knows it might have to pay Motorola licensing fees. Motorola moreover knows it has to give Apple access to the patents per its contractual obligations with the standard setting committee. However, also per contractual obligations Motorola cannot charge whatever it wants. The rate has to be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.

 

Apple's position is any rate higher than a dollar a phone doesn't met that standard. I for one am surprised Apple is willing to pay anything so quickly as Motorola hasn't provided any evidence that the rate it wants doesn't discriminate against Apple. Motorola has to charge everybody the same rate. 

post #9 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by ko024 View Post


Huh....  this is a FRAND patent, and every other company is paying 1 dollar, so why would apple pay more....  And apple is ONLY dictating that it would accept that amount and all other amounts will be appealed which is exactly what the court is trying to avoid...  this makes perfect sense to me.. Not sure why you have a problem with that.....

He clearly has no idea of what he speaks and doesn't understand what exactly is going on here and how it differs with the Samsung suit.

post #10 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 I for one am surprised Apple is willing to pay anything so quickly ...

 

As I recall, the issue was Apple ALWAYS had to pay SOMETHING, they haven't been paying anything as a rate could not be determined. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #11 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Huh. Wonder how well it'll fly when Samsung follows suit and dictates to the court what penalties it's willing to pay, cuz that's apparently the world we live in now.


That is the problem with the arm chair lawyers they think they know everything.

post #12 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

Cash907:

 

However, also per contractual obligations Motorola cannot charge whatever it wants. The rate has to be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.

 

Apple's position is any rate higher than a dollar a phone doesn't met that standard. I for one am surprised Apple is willing to pay anything so quickly as Motorola hasn't provided any evidence that the rate it wants doesn't discriminate against Apple. Motorola has to charge everybody the same rate. 

...which according to them is 2.25% of the device BOM, with a cap on the total royalties for the FRAND pledged package of patents. There is evidence that their standard published base rate has been 2.25% of the device cost for several years now. Whether they actually  get that from companies with anywhere near the volume of an Apple or Microsoft is a big question-mark. Of course that's still well under the base rate that Nokia is reported to charge for their FRAND patents, and Apple found a way to settle with them.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 60

The root issue, I guess, is whether the license fee should be an absolute amount or a percentage. There are arguments for both. Although I am not familiar with history of FRAND patents and whether their license fees are percentage based or not, I am guessing it is not so clear out that either Motorola or Apple could convince the courts by simply citing all precedents.

post #14 of 60

Whatever standard this is, the FRAND terms of standards just stipulate that licensing (a) must be available and (b) must have the same pricing for everyone.  

 

Pretty much every standard has some FRAND licensing to someone (or some group).  If there weren't such licensing opportunities, nobody would build standards.  I can point you to a lot of industries where the technology developer decided not to standardize in order to have a monopoly.

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #15 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

 that's apparently the world we live in now.

you're dreaming... you might call it a nightmare.

post #16 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Huh. Wonder how well it'll fly when Samsung follows suit and dictates to the court what penalties it's willing to pay, cuz that's apparently the world we live in now.

That depends, is Samsung infringing on FRAND patents? These details matter, whether or not you've decided they are important.
post #17 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

not sure what the problem is. Google will get back their ROI back when Apple ships 12.5 billion iPhones.  Just have to sell two iPhones to every single person on the planet. 


Was that the price Google pay for Motorola initially?  You have to add in the loss it has quarter over quarter to come up with the real cost for Google.  Google should have fired their patent lawyers.

post #18 of 60
Originally Posted by ko024 View Post
Not sure why you have a problem with that.....

 

Because he's a troll.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #19 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Whatever standard this is, the FRAND terms of standards just stipulate that licensing (a) must be available and (b) must have the same pricing for everyone.  

 

With due respect, neither is true, particularly the second part.

post #20 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Huh. Wonder how well it'll fly when Samsung follows suit and dictates to the court what penalties it's willing to pay, cuz that's apparently the world we live in now.

If $1 is what everyone else pays then under FRAND rules, Moto has to use that fee, or close to, for everyone. And if Apple is making this demand they likely have proof that this is the case. So letting everyone else pay $1 and asking more like $50 from Apple isn't particularly fair or reasonable and might not be non discrim.

As for the Samsung comment, penalties aren't what this is about. But yes Samsung has dictated terms they are willing to pay for licenses. Sometimes folks say okay, sometimes they say no. It's how the game works. If it was a SEP and Samsung thought the other side was being non FRAND they sued. Also part of the game
Edited by charlituna - 10/31/12 at 2:17pm

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #21 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...which according to them is 2.25% of the device BOM, with a cap on the total royalties for the FRAND pledged package of patents. There is evidence that their standard published base rate has been 2.25% of the device cost for several years now. Whether they actually  get that from companies with anywhere near the volume of an Apple or Microsoft is a big question-mark. Of course that's still well under the base rate that Nokia is reported to charge for their FRAND patents, and Apple found a way to settle with them.

Is it confirmed that the rate is on BOM vs sale price for Moto? (I know you have been religiously saying it is BOM, but I thought I understood otherwise.)
post #22 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


Is it confirmed that the rate is on BOM vs sale price for Moto? (I know you have been religiously saying it is BOM, but I thought I understood otherwise.)

Actually I've posted both. Sometime back, several months ago now, I had read that while Qualcomm based their even higher percentage royalty rates on the BOM, Moto was pegging theirs to the wholesale price of the device, effectively making it a higher real dollar cost. More recently tho, in conjunction with the similar MS case, I've seen that Moto's requested royalty base is also on the BOM, with the additional cap limit on total royalties. No one, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft or Moto, Nokia etc, is particularly forthcoming on details with of them all spinning it in their best interests.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 60
In Apple's filing regarding the $1 figure they claim Motorola's demand for a percentage of revenue is too high.

Maybe my definition is wrong, but to me revenue equals retail price, not BOM.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #24 of 60

Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. Telephony is not a business Apple should be in, Apple has turned the telephone into a toy in my opinion. In their pony show with the iPhones, they have ignored their Pro customers and lost focus on what made the company great in the first place...The Mac Pro has been ignored, the 17" MacBook Pro has been dropped, XServe is no more, and Apple has burned bridges with Adobe (who used to be a strong industry partner of Apple's for many years). I don't like the direction Apple is headed these days, and everytime I read another one of these stories or discussion board about people milling over iPhone importance, it is like fingernails on a blackboard. Simply sick of this stuff. I'm ready for Apple to be Apple Computer, Inc. once again, not a consumer toy company.

post #25 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

not sure what the problem is. Google will get back their ROI back when Apple ships 12.5 billion iPhones.  Just have to sell two iPhones to every single person on the planet. 

:-) I'll take two iPhones any day! But seriously, so much for "do no harm", eh? Jerks.
post #26 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Huh. Wonder how well it'll fly when Samsung follows suit and dictates to the court what penalties it's willing to pay, cuz that's apparently the world we live in now.

 

Then Samsung would be guilty of contempt of court and would face further penalties.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #27 of 60

Come on Apple! Give them $4. That's $200 million if you sell 50 million phones which is nothing compared to your annual revenue of $100 billion  plus. Feed the children of motorola. 1smile.gif

Come visit and chat with me about Apple: Appstorechronicle.com

Email Me: Editor@appstorechronicle.com

Reply

Come visit and chat with me about Apple: Appstorechronicle.com

Email Me: Editor@appstorechronicle.com

Reply
post #28 of 60

Also, Motorola used to make the processor inside every Macintosh. The 68xxx chip was a Motorola chip, and the PowerPC was an Apple/IBM/Motorola alliance for design and manufacturing the chips. Motorola and Apple used have a great relationship, and Steve Jobs destroyed that when he wanted to produce a phone. That was when Apple computers started using intel processors, the TRUE main reason why Apple ditched PowerPC was over the iPhone and competition with Motorola.

 

The Macintosh would be better today, still running on PowerPC if it were not for the iPhone.

post #29 of 60
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
The Macintosh would be better today, still running on PowerPC if it were not for the iPhone.

 

It would certainly be slower, receive fewer updates, run hotter, not be in laptops… 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #30 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Also, Motorola used to make the processor inside every Macintosh. The 68xxx chip was a Motorola chip, and the PowerPC was an Apple/IBM/Motorola alliance for design and manufacturing the chips. Motorola and Apple used have a great relationship, and Steve Jobs destroyed that when he wanted to produce a phone. That was when Apple computers started using intel processors, the TRUE main reason why Apple ditched PowerPC was over the iPhone and competition with Motorola.

The Macintosh would be better today, still running on PowerPC if it were not for the iPhone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. Telephony is not a business Apple should be in, Apple has turned the telephone into a toy in my opinion. In their pony show with the iPhones, they have ignored their Pro customers and lost focus on what made the company great in the first place...The Mac Pro has been ignored, the 17" MacBook Pro has been dropped, XServe is no more, and Apple has burned bridges with Adobe (who used to be a strong industry partner of Apple's for many years). I don't like the direction Apple is headed these days, and everytime I read another one of these stories or discussion board about people milling over iPhone importance, it is like fingernails on a blackboard. Simply sick of this stuff. I'm ready for Apple to be Apple Computer, Inc. once again, not a consumer toy company.


You might want to educate yourself on a subject before making yourself look foolish.

The iPhone was released in 2007. Apple announced its transition to Intel in 2005. So how would they still be running on PPC if they had never released the iPhone? Furthermore, how would their holding off on releasing the iPhone have made IBM and Motorola magically fix the technical problems that they were never able to solve? Would IBM and Motorola have been able to magically cut the G5's power consumption to a low enough level to be used in laptops if Apple didn't release the iPhone 2 years later? How does that work?

Furthermore, even your basic premise is unfounded. It may well be that Apple's move to the iPod and iPhone and iPad are what has allowed them to thrive enough to continue to invest heavily in computers. Without the iOS devices, it is likely that Apple would have much lower share than they do today.

Adobe? You have things backwards. Adobe abandoned Apple in the 90s. They released products that were optimized for Windows and let the Mac versions languish. They even went so far as to offer free cross-grades for Mac users to switch to Windows. Adobe futzed around for what seemed like ages after the Intel transition before releasing even a half-hearted attempt at making an Intel version of their Mac software. And Adobe never took advantage of the features of iOS.

xServe? Completely irrelevant. Apple never had any significant server market share and has never been able to build a decent server business in spite of numerous attempts in the past. While it's unfortunate that the xServe was dropped, Apple made it clear that few people were buying them - so few people suffered from that change.
"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 #31 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwhiteco View Post


That is the problem with the arm chair lawyers they think they know everything.

 

And you expected to find practicing lawyers lurking in these forums? Because it doesn't pay very well...

"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 #32 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...which according to them is 2.25% of the device BOM, with a cap on the total royalties for the FRAND pledged package of patents. There is evidence that their standard published base rate has been 2.25% of the device cost for several years now. Whether they actually  get that from companies with anywhere near the volume of an Apple or Microsoft is a big question-mark. Of course that's still well under the base rate that Nokia is reported to charge for their FRAND patents, and Apple found a way to settle with them.

Cash's attempt to change the definition of FRAND to UUAD aside, I think 2.25% is fair...

...for Motorola to pay Apple.

Hey, it's been a long time since they sold the RAZR and they'd probably welcome to opportunity to be involved in a successful product again, not to mention the prestige of having their technology used inside one of the most successful phones in the world.

;-)
post #33 of 60

Jobs wanted to distance himself (the company) as far from Motorola as possible, going into the phone market...Motorola did not want to be partnered with Apple any longer if Apple was going to be in direct competition with them in the phone market. The transition to intel was in 2006, development having started about a year earlier...the iPhone was under development at Apple at the same time as well. All of this took place, the transition to intel, the iPhone release...within a year of each other. It was not coincidental.

post #34 of 60

I'm guessing that the latest iPhone is far more powerful than my last PPC based MacPro (Sawtooth.) I would imagine that any of the iPhone, iPad, iPod touch devices produced today would qualify as a 1999 supercomputer. Many people may see them as toys and treat them as toys, but they're sophisticated mobile computers that fit in your pocket and run on 99 cents of electricity a month.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. Telephony is not a business Apple should be in, Apple has turned the telephone into a toy in my opinion. In their pony show with the iPhones, they have ignored their Pro customers and lost focus on what made the company great in the first place...The Mac Pro has been ignored, the 17" MacBook Pro has been dropped, XServe is no more, and Apple has burned bridges with Adobe (who used to be a strong industry partner of Apple's for many years). I don't like the direction Apple is headed these days, and everytime I read another one of these stories or discussion board about people milling over iPhone importance, it is like fingernails on a blackboard. Simply sick of this stuff. I'm ready for Apple to be Apple Computer, Inc. once again, not a consumer toy company.

post #35 of 60
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. Telephony is not a business Apple should be in…

 

Please don't own Apple stock.

 

…Apple has turned the telephone into a toy in my opinion.

 

It's quite possible you're the only human on the planet with that opinion. 

 

I don't like the direction Apple is headed these days…
 

Profitability? Customer satisfaction? Creating multi-billion dollar industries and thousands of jobs out of absolutely nothing? Sheer success? 


I'm ready for Apple to be Apple Computer, Inc. once again, not a consumer toy company.

 

As someone who wants them to show more interest in computers as well, you're losin' it.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #36 of 60
Apple is simply setting the stage with an offer out in the public's mind so if Google comes back and says no, they look like they are being greedy and abusing FRAND standards patents.

Basically, it's a genius move. They look a lot more guilty of abuse if they don't at least counter or agree. If they come in at a higher rate, Apple can come back and say ok, REPRESENT and show us the money, ie.what others are paying so I know it's fair. 1biggrin.gif

Genius..

Of course, Google could always come back and request something under $1, and it goes away.. but I don't think so, they want leverage, so we know they are trying to look for some type of loop-hole. Will be interesting to watch..

1wink.gif
post #37 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post

Apple is simply setting the stage with an offer out in the public's mind so if Google comes back and says no, they look like they are being greedy and abusing FRAND standards patents.
Basically, it's a genius move. They look a lot more guilty of abuse if they don't at least counter or agree. If they come in at a higher rate, Apple can come back and say ok, REPRESENT and show us the money, ie.what others are paying so I know it's fair. 1biggrin.gif
Genius..
Of course, Google could always come back and request something under $1, and it goes away.. but I don't think so, they want leverage, so we know they are trying to look for some type of loop-hole. Will be interesting to watch..
1wink.gif

Do you really think that the general public has any knowledge of this? I believe it's a standard low ball offer and that they'll agree to go a little higher.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #38 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. Telephony is not a business Apple should be in, Apple has turned the telephone into a toy in my opinion. In their pony show with the iPhones, they have ignored their Pro customers and lost focus on what made the company great in the first place...The Mac Pro has been ignored, the 17" MacBook Pro has been dropped, XServe is no more, and Apple has burned bridges with Adobe (who used to be a strong industry partner of Apple's for many years). I don't like the direction Apple is headed these days, and everytime I read another one of these stories or discussion board about people milling over iPhone importance, it is like fingernails on a blackboard. Simply sick of this stuff. I'm ready for Apple to be Apple Computer, Inc. once again, not a consumer toy company.

 

Toy company??? Who cares about this stuff???

 

You missed the part where the iPhone business made more revenue for Apple than all of Microsoft's products for the last 35 years combined.

 

You missed the part where computing, wireless communications, and portability converged to create something the PC could never be: a take-anywhere, personal, always on, always plugged-in to the Internet computing device.

 

You missed the part where computing for work is vastly outnumbered by consumer computing, because not everyone works, but everyone is a consumer. In effect, the consumer interest in technology is now the tail that's wagging the IT dog.

 

Money talks, niche markets walk.

 

Nothing about your "I hate iPhone" post makes sense. You ding Apple for "burning bridges with Adobe"... over what? Flash? You're in favor of Flash over HTML5 on mobile platforms? Wow, who is that shortsighted? And what, exactly do you think was lost in "burning bridges"? The only thing I see lost was a potentially terrible Flash plug-in for Mobile Safari that never got written and the gaping security holes it would bring to the iPhone. Adobe still publishes Mac software.

 

You make it sound as if not licking Adobe's balls was the worst thing Apple ever did, but show me how it has had any net impact on Mac users, cause the last time I checked, Adobe is more than happy to take my goddamned upgrade money.

"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 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. ...
And Google should back to the industry them made them, search engine, and stop creating crappy phone OS.
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #40 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. Telephony is not a business Apple should be in, Apple has turned the telephone into a toy in my opinion. In their pony show with the iPhones, they have ignored their Pro customers and lost focus on what made the company great in the first place...The Mac Pro has been ignored, the 17" MacBook Pro has been dropped, XServe is no more, and Apple has burned bridges with Adobe (who used to be a strong industry partner of Apple's for many years). I don't like the direction Apple is headed these days, and everytime I read another one of these stories or discussion board about people milling over iPhone importance, it is like fingernails on a blackboard. Simply sick of this stuff. I'm ready for Apple to be Apple Computer, Inc. once again, not a consumer toy company.


Indeed. Apple should tailor their business plan to your needs, and not to what they want to. It's all about your vision, your needs, not those of Jobs, Cook, Schiller or Ive.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple tells court it would pay no more than $1 per iPhone to license Motorola patents
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple tells court it would pay no more than $1 per iPhone to license Motorola patents