or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iPhone Patent Wars: Apple's $1.1 billion ARM injection ignites a mobile patent race
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone Patent Wars: Apple's $1.1 billion ARM injection ignites a mobile patent race

post #1 of 70
Thread Starter 
The wholesale appropriation of Apple's Macintosh technology portfolio by Microsoft in the early 1990s had a profound effect upon how the industry began to think about intellectual property and protecting innovation through patent filings.

Patented


In particular, it influenced Apple's strategy for selling Macs and mobile devices as well as licensing the technology behind both, a new shift that would eventually play a key enabling role in Apple delivering the iPod and iPhone, sparking the iPhone Patent Wars.

The first segment focused on the patent attacks targeting iPod & iTunes, cases where Apple settled out of court as quickly as possible, although not before neutralizing as many incoming patents as it could. A second segment looked at the computing world before patents were in widespread use, particularly involving Xerox, Macintosh and Microsoft's Windows. This segment looks at Apple's subsequent efforts to sell and license its technology in direct competition with Microsoft's copies.

Bleak prospects for Apple's hardware business



By 1990, it was becoming apparent that Apple's entire business model for selling sophisticated new hardware technology--developed with upfront investments of tens of millions of dollars and involving years of effort--was at risk. Any new product Apple could develop was quickly matched by Microsoft's promise to release its own version in the near future.

Microsoft Windows simply scraped the uniquely valuable cream off the top of Apple's work and licensed it to "PC clone" hardware makers, leaving Apple forced to compete against a copy of its own work. Additionally, any new product Apple could develop was quickly matched by Microsoft's promise to release its own version in the near future, typically within two years.

This increasingly left Apple in an impossible predicament where every dollar of investment into innovation was instead working to profit and strengthen its competition.

Steve Jobs 1985-1997


Between the departure of Steve Jobs in 1985 and his return that began at the end of 1996, Apple's focus grew increasingly distracted and splintered into internal factions that prevented it from effectively competing in the market. Apple's efforts to collaborate in a series of partnerships and licensing programs largely just complicated its problems.

However, the company also demonstrated a prescient understanding of where technology was headed, resulting in investments that appeared to be failures until the legal protections of patents and copyright rewarded it with a second chance to return to a leadership position.

Apple's distractions led to duplication



Apple didn't immediately recognize the full severity of the threat posed by Microsoft because throughout the late 1980s Windows was not taken very seriously in the industry.

Until it lost in court in 1992, Apple also appeared confident that it could stop Microsoft's infringement the same way its other "look and feel" lawsuits had stopped HP and DRI from closely copying features unique to the Macintosh.

A more credible threat seemed to be IBM's PS/2 hardware running the emerging OS/2, a joint software development project between IBM and Microsoft that replaced DOS with an advanced new operating system foundation. Until 1990, Microsoft presented Windows as an interim product to make DOS easier to use until OS/2 arrived.

NeXT


Apple was also more concerned with NeXT (above), the advanced Unix-based workstation developed by Steve Jobs between 1986-1989 with the assistance of a number of former Apple employees. NeXT was essentially what Jobs had wanted Apple to develop internally in the BigMac and Macintosh Office programs.

Prior to Jobs' departure, Apple's executives didn't believe the projects were sound investments. After Jobs left, they regarded it as dangerous competition. In 1988, Apple launched A/UX (below), an implementation of the Mac desktop hosted on top of Unix, providing an limited subset of NeXT was offering.

AUX
Source: Toasty Tech


Three years later, Apple would embark on an even more ambitious project as part of the "AIM alliance" to greatly expand its efforts to copy the original work Jobs had created at NeXT, emulating Microsoft's role as a duplicator rather than innovator.

Apple's internal factions splinter its competitive focus



Apple also initiated other efforts to remain competitive with NeXT, including an incremental advancement of the Mac's existing System 6 codenamed Blue and plans for an advanced new system named Pink. Blue eventually launched in 1991 as Mac System 7, which introduced support for QuickTime video editing and playback at a time when DOS PCs had trouble reproducing audio.

Apple Pink


Pink evolved into broad, nebulous research project that began rethinking the entire user interface (above), investigating the componentization of software with OpenDoc and conceptualizing new ways of working with network services and devices such as fax machines.

As Blue and Pink factions (and successive projects named Copland and the even more nebulous Gershwin) fought for attention and resources within Apple, the company was also still earning significant revenues from its older Apple II line, which fueled additional internal conflicts.

Apple IIGS
Source: OldComputers.net


Through 1993, it actively updated GS/OS for the Apple IIGS, which served as a sort of affordable Macintosh, incorporating a similar mouse-based, windowing interface. An earlier effort, M?bius, intended to develop an advanced Apple II model capable of emulating Mac software using a RISC processor designed by Acorn.

At the same time, conceptual work started on a new mobile device platform that would become Newton, an entirely new object oriented development system intended to power "Personal Digital Assistants" with a new user interface oriented around handwritten recognition and navigated by a stylus.

At the same time, portable PenLite tablet prototypes based on the conventional Macintosh architecture were also in development. Another parallel internal project known as Paradigm was also working on mobile devices, but rather than focusing on handwritten recognition, it was oriented around wireless communications and networking features.

Stylus based tablets search for an audience in the 1990s


Apple decided to keep Newton, shutter PenLite and spin Paradigm off in 1990 as an independent company named General Magic, which gained partnership investment from AT&T, Motorola, Matsushita, Philips and Sony. It eventually turned into a patent portfolio that was acquired by Microsoft to improve Windows CE.

Apple's revenues grow as Microsoft passes in profits



In 1990, Microsoft abruptly left its OS/2 partnership with IBM and shifted its resources toward marketing Windows to PC cloners on its own. The majority of Microsoft's revenues had always come from pre-bundled DOS licensing.

Zenith, then a DOS PC maker eyeing Apple's strong Mac sales to education, became the first company to pre-install Microsoft Windows on its new PCs in 1991, allowing it to advertise its hardware as a Mac alternative to schools.

Apple's hardware business, boosted by the release of profitable and innovative new PowerBooks in 1991, enabled the company's revenues to climb until 1995, but Microsoft's profitability began to surpass Apple in 1991. Unlike Apple, Microsoft didn't have have any overhead involved in engineering new hardware.

Microsoft Apple Revenue 1990s
Microsoft Apple Profits 1990s
Source: Pingdom


Microsoft's Windows licensing earned astronomical gross margins above 90 percent, while Apple's hardware margins were closer to 30 percent. Even in 2012, Apple's iPhone-fueled gross margins were around 42 percent while Microsoft's remained above 80 percent.

Explore more MSFT Data at Wikinvest


Further complicating Apple's ability to compete was the fact that it had been giving away free Mac System Software updates to its customers. When Apple tried to start charging like Microsoft, Mac users balked at paying anything to upgrade.

Apple's ARM partnership builds a new chip



While Microsoft was parasitically feeding on Apple's Macintosh, Apple was working to deliver its entirely new Newton handheld platform. Unlike the Macintosh, which greatly improved upon existing PCs by leveraging the readily available Motorola 68000 CPU, Newton needed an entirely new class of mobile CPU that didn't yet exist.

To develop one, Apple formed a joint partnership in 1990 with Olvetti, which five years earlier had acquired British computer maker Acorn.

Apple had earlier evaluated the Acorn RISC Machine processor for use in its M?bius project, but now it was interested in working with Acorn to optimize its simple but powerful and efficient desktop-class ARM processor for use in mobile devices, specifically to power the Newton Message Pad.

ARM CPU generations


Apple wanted ARM to add an integrated MMU (memory management unit), but the struggling Acorn didn't have the funds to develop its desktop chip into the type of low power component Apple needed.

Acorn's existing, elegant ARM design formed the starting point for a new mobile architecture funded by Apple and built by Apple's California fab partner VLSI. Apple began using the first new generation of mobile ARM?chips, renamed the "Advanced RISC Machine," in the 1993 Newton Message Pad.

Apple initiates new technology licensing programs



Apple also embarked upon two new ways of selling its Newton technology: like Microsoft, it began licensing Newton hardware reference designs and the Newton Intelligence operating system to third parties, including Motorola, Sharp, Matsushita and Siemens, beginning in 1993.

A report by the Chicago Tribune cited Apple spokeswoman Tricia Chan as saying at the time, "Part of this new shift is because we are dealing with a whole new technology that will address multiple markets."

Chan added, "It does represent a paradigm shift of sorts for us. Only about 30 percent of Americans are computer literate, so by licensing this (stylus-based) technology, this will give us an opportunity to access the 70 percent who aren't."

Newton Marco


The Motorola Marco (above) fused Newton with mobile wireless communication features, concurrent with the company's investment in General Magic in the Motorola Envoy, which lacked the Newton's handwritten recognition and thus much of its general magic.

Apple's joint partnership in ARM, Ltd. immediately became profitable in 1993. In addition to supplying chips to Apple and Acorn, ARM began licensing the rights to manufacture its chip designs, as well as offering an "architectural license" to companies interested in incorporating and modifying its core technologies in custom chip designs.

ARM's technology rapidly became the "Windows" of embedded and mobile chip designs, and Apple owned 47 percent of the company.

Apple joins the AIM alliance



While Acorn continued to use ARM's chips in its own desktop-class PCs, Apple announced another partnership in 1991 to work with IBM and Motorola in the "AIM alliance" to develop open technologies to counter Microsoft and its close partnership with Intel with the firmly established DOS PC, rapidly evolving into the "WinTel" platform.

AIM alliance members conceptualized scaling down IBM's POWER workstation-class RISC architecture to replace both Intel's decade-old x86 PC and Motorola's 68000 chips used in the Macintosh. Intel had already attempted to replace x86 with its own RISC chip, the i860, but its lack of compatibility with DOS and Windows marginalized it.

AIM PowerPC


Apple began porting its Mac System 7 to new PowerPC hardware and developed a "Macintosh Application Services," or MAS layer to host new PowerPC Mac apps on IBM PowerPC AIX systems. Motorola planned to port Windows, while Jobs' NeXT, the BeBox and the Commodore Amiga also made plans to migrate to the new chip architecture.

While PowerPC was aimed at taking down Intel, the AIM partners also planned to deliver an advanced new operating system microkernel named Taligent, capable of hosting new object oriented frameworks, a product that sounded suspiciously identical to Jobs' NeXTSTEP operating system introduced three years earlier.

Microsoft's Bill Gates similarly announced plans to deliver exactly the same things in 1991 under the name "Cairo," a vaporware project that eventually delivered none of those things.

By 1996, Gates began describing the project as a vision rather than a real product, stating in an Computerworld interview, "Cairo is a futuristic system. It's something we're working on."

That vaporware vision helped derail the prospects for the much smaller NeXT, which had delivered a product ready to sell three years before Gates had even announced Cairo, and also distracted from the Taligent goals of the AIM alliance, which were also victimized by internal politics.

Macs on Intel, Unix, Clones



In 1992, Apple bizarrely launched a third (albeit secret) partnership with Novell, intended to port the Macintosh user environment to run on top of the DR-DOS Novell picked up when it acquired DRI, an effort intended to enable Novell to license a Mac-like product to sell on PCs as an alternative to Windows.

This "Star Trek" project necessitated porting the Mac user environment to Intel's x86 architecture, which was rapidly accomplished but then discarded by 1993 after the partners realized that all Mac apps would also need to be ported, a huge mistake Microsoft recently replicated with Windows RT.

In 1994 Apple recycled some of its efforts to launch the "Macintosh Application Environment," or MAE, which hosted the Mac desktop on top of Unix via X11, allowing Sun Solaris and HP workstations to run emulated 68000 Mac software. Apple portrayed MAE running the Mac environment on big iron Unix with a Sumo wrestler wearing a tutu.


Source: MAE.Apple.com via the Wayback Machine


In 1995, Apple launched a program to license the entire Mac OS to third party hardware makers. Apple offered reference designs in both 68000 and PowerPC versions, a strategy replicating its earlier 1993 program to license Newton hardware designs and software.

While chided for being initiated too late to compete with Windows, Apple's Mac Clones program was actually the result of a decade of attempts to port the Mac's user environment to other platforms, from its own Apple IIGS and A/UX to its partnership to deliver Taligent, MAS, StarTrek and MAE. Apple's Mac Clones program was actually the result of a decade of attempts to port the Mac's user environment to other platforms.

Apple's efforts to market the Mac and license its technology in various ways simply could not compete against the overwhelming market power Microsoft exercised with its own copy of Apple's Mac environment, a copy the courts sanctioned because of the 1985 licensing agreement Apple had signed with Microsoft in exchange for two years of Excel exclusivity on the Macintosh.

Following the loss of Apple's appeal in 1994 and the refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the case in 1995, Apple was largely portrayed as a washed up loser by the media, rather than as a hapless victim of an excessively broad interpretation of a poorly executed, vague intellectual property agreement from ten years prior.

Microsoft starts copying Newton, Palm



While the Macintosh had changed the world, Apple's Newton was so new that its price tag was simply too high to have a similar impact. It did, however, inspire similar products that advanced Apple's PDA concept toward today's smartphone.

Between 1992 and 1994, Microsoft launched its own "WinPad" vaporware to distract the market away from Newton, announcing partnerships with Compaq, Motorola, NEC and Sharp, but never releasing anything. Pulsar, Gates' pet project to create a wireless paging device, also never materialized.

Windows CE


In early 1995, Microsoft announced Pegasus. Two years later it released a new Handheld PC platform running Windows CE 1.0. The company avoided the term "PDA," which was by then associated with the functionality and sophistication of Apple's 1993 Newton, which Windows CE didn't even attempt to match.

The 1996 the Palm Pilot was introduced as a simpler, less ambitious personal organizer (below), but it also sold for about half the price of the Newton. It was powered by Motorola's Dragonball processor, a scaled down version of the Mac's 68000 chip.

Palm Pilot


Jobs canceled the Newton at Apple in 1998. That same year, Microsoft shifted its attention to Palm, renaming its HPC to Palm PC to cash in on Palm's branding and popularity. After getting sued by Palm, Microsoft changed the name to "Palm-sized PC."

Palm Pilots continued selling so well that despite bringing in just 10.4 percent of the revenue of Apple and less than 7 percent of Apple's profits in the second half of 1999, its early-2000 market valuation was an incredible $54 billion, 270 percent greater than Apple's $20 billion market cap.

Apple saved by Newton's ARM



Apple's Newton had only been moderately profitable. In 1997 the company spun it off as Newton, Inc., to independently manage and develop its licensing programs. However, as soon as Jobs took over as Apple's acting chief executive, he brought the company back inside.

After releasing another generation of products, Jobs terminated the product line and all licensing agreements the following year. Jobs also began harvesting the value of Apple's 42.3 percent ownership stake in ARM, Ltd., which floated an Initial Public Offering in 1998.

Jobs desperately needed to counter the media's incessantly negative portrayal of the "Beleaguered Apple Computer" and present the company as viable and profitable going forward. Jobs announced a $150 million investment by Microsoft, achieved as part of a cross licensing deal that dropped a pending $1.2 billion lawsuit against Microsoft and other patent claims potentially worth additional billions.



The media regurgitated a story of Microsoft's 1997 investment "saving" Apple, while ignoring Jobs' introduction of the deal, which clearly indicated the talks were motivated by a need to clear up "very serious" patent issues, not by an immediate financial crisis that could be prevented with $150 million.

By focusing on Apple's future prospects in working with Microsoft, Jobs directed attention away from millions of dollars in unsold inventory Apple subsequently wrote off as worthless for fiscal 1997, hidden within its losses of $1.045 billion despite Microsoft's supposed bailout 1/7 the size of that reported loss.

Apple then sold off that inventory at a discount starting in its 1998 holiday Q1, enabling the company to report a $309 million profit for fiscal 1998 despite revenues falling by more than $1.1 billion year over year. At the same time, Jobs also sold off 18.9 percent of Apple's ARM stock for $24 million, and Apple recognized another $16 million in stock appreciation from the IPO. Jobs' dumping of ARM shares was desperately needed to prop up Apple's performance at it struggled to regain its footing.

In fiscal 1999, Apple sold another $245 million of ARM stock, which made up about 40 percent of the $601 million in profit Apple reported.

In 2000 it sold another $372 million, accounting for 47 percent of its reported profits. In 2001, it sold another $176 million, which reduced its dotcom crash losses to just 25 million. In 2002 it sold another $21 million, making up 32 percent of its rebounding profits.

Finally, in 2003 it sold its remaining ARM holdings for $295 million, which erased what would otherwise have been $238 million in losses as Apple struggled in a weak economy. In total, ARM provided Jobs with a total cash infusion of more than $1.1 billion to pad Apple's profits and minimize its losses across five years as he rebuilt the company.

Jobs' dumping of ARM shares was desperately needed to prop up Apple's performance at it struggled to regain its footing, but in retrospect, it appears prescient when looking at ARM's historical stock price.

ARM
Source: Google Finance


The majority of Apple's ARM shares were unloaded just as ARM's shares temporarily exploded. Apple would otherwise have needed to hold them for the better part of the decade before they recovered to similar levels.

ARM provides Apple with the building blocks of iOS



Apple's 1990 ARM investment in the development of mobile technology paid off handsomely, not just in financing the company's late 1990s turnaround until it could recover on its own, but also in developing a rich vein of mobile components for Apple to begin mining in the 2000s.

Psion EPOC PDAs' early use of ARM chips contributed toward to the majority of mobile phones being ARM-based as EPOC gave birth to the Symbian partnership between Ericsson, Nokia, Panasonic, and Motorola in 1998. By 2002, overwhelming economies of scale favoring ARM motivated Palm to migrate its own Dragonball products to ARM.

These economies of scale made available a wide variety of ARM licensees to supply various components to Apple, from the CPU cores powering iPods and later iOS devices to WiFi chips and baseband processors incorporating specialized ARM microprocessors.

Apple's A-series chips


ARM, Ltd., licensed its technology to such Apple component suppliers as Broadcom, Cirrus Logic, Texas Instruments, Marvell, Qualcomm and Samsung, which supplied the primary ARM SoC components for iPod and later iPhone (above).

Historical ARM licensee Digital developed the StrongARM chips Apple used in later Newton devices. Digital's business briefly ended up under Intel's ownership, replacing the company's own ill fated i960 RISC with Intel's new XScale ARM brand. After investing around $5 billion to turn the unit into a viable mobile competitor to TI, Intel sold it off to Marvell in 2007 for just $600 million, just as Apple launched the iPhone.

That sale left Intel stuck with trying to shoehorn its own x86 architecture into the mobile market with Atom chips, which Apple passed over in 2010 in favor of its own A4 ARM design when it released iPad.

Apple's iPad immediately triggered the subsequent collapse of netbooks and contributed to the rapid erosion of WinTel PC sales that the AIM alliance failed to do twenty years earlier.

Apple's blockbuster success in selling iPhones and iPads not only decimated PC sales, but also destroyed the profits of less innovative smartphone makers, who responded by filing legal claims against Apple, triggering the iPhone Patent Wars, which the next segment will detail.
post #2 of 70

May I please know the person's name who had written this article?

  •  

    Quote:
    "Kasper's Automated Slave, AppleInsider"

     

post #3 of 70

Someone needs to edit this article. Repeated sentences and errors. 

post #4 of 70
Wow cool, we are being spoiled with features, it isn't even the weekend!
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #5 of 70
Good article. I lived through the whole period and witnessed almost all things described. In retrospect I believe the war will be won by the market forces. The clone manufacturers are there because there are masses of people that want the technology but unwilling to buy Apple.
post #6 of 70
This is, I'm sure, a nice long answer to rjc999's prevarications in the last thread in the series.

His panel of ghostwriters are now preparing an answer for "him."

I hope to read the whole series soon myself. Fascinating stuff.
post #7 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

May I please know the person's name who had written this article?

Chandra, to find out, you must always go to the AI main page and click in the title of the article. Then you get the by-line. I don't know why they can't preserve the by-line when they switch to Kasper's Automated Slave. I often have to switch back to the original to find out who wrote something. The joke has long ago worn thin.
post #8 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

May I please know the person's name who had written this article?

  •  

     

I could've sworn it was DED.

 

Brace yourselves. Trolls are coming!

post #9 of 70

I think today's Apple needs reminding of the past so it does not repeat the mistakes. 

 

It is my hope that Apple starts developing technologies that others just can't duplicate easily or quickly. Unfortunately we have seen that design elements are not easily protected. I hope for unique hardware innovations that utilizes unique software innovations, neither of which would be easily duplicated without the other. 

 

I don't ever see Apple winning any volume race for commodities such as phones, but I believe they have the talent to win the technology race. To do this, I hope Apple keeps a focused eye on emerging concepts outside of Apple that they can pull in to ignite creativity within Apple.  

 

That does beg the question, what does technology look like 10-15 years in the future? 

post #10 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

May I please know the person's name who had written this article?

  •  

     

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/12/iphone-patent-wars-apples-11-billion-arm-injection-ignites-a-mobile-patent-race

 

post #11 of 70
Forgive me Lord, For I have Sinned ....

Those years, I thought MS did not copy Apple. Please forgive me for being so dumb!!!

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #12 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

I think today's Apple needs reminding of the past so it does not repeat the mistakes. 

 

It is my hope that Apple starts developing technologies that others just can't duplicate easily or quickly. Unfortunately we have seen that design elements are not easily protected. I hope for unique hardware innovations that utilizes unique software innovations, neither of which would be easily duplicated without the other. 

 

I don't ever see Apple winning any volume race for commodities such as phones, but I believe they have the talent to win the technology race. To do this, I hope Apple keeps a focused eye on emerging concepts outside of Apple that they can pull in to ignite creativity within Apple.  

 

That does beg the question, what does technology look like 10-15 years in the future? 


I think you don't know engineering or even capitalism.  Just answer the question.  Why Apple can keep iPhone market share near 50% but its market share in China dropped to 5% recently? 

post #13 of 70

I swear there's a box in AI headquarters filled with DED essays that just spews out lengthy random combinations of passages on a vague subject any time a deadline for an "editorial" comes up.  It also appears to have some kind of crossover error, when you end up with careless mistakes like this:

 

 

Quote:
Motorola planned to port Windows

 

 

 

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #14 of 70
Apple was beleaguered and doomed back in the 90's and it's still doomed as of today despite having the highest market cap and largest cash hoard by far of all the companies on Wall Street. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Other companies get terrific valuations whether they deserve them or not while Apple continues to survive in a grey area of investor fears and doubts. As an Apple shareholder I hope Apple knocks it out of the park this September with both iPhones and iPads. All the analysts and news media pundits are already calling the iPad dead meat because of the Nexus 7 having such a high-def display and costing $100 cheaper than the iPad Mini. That's just how it is, all the time. Google and Android loved, Apple and iOS hated.
post #15 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

It is my hope that Apple starts developing technologies that others just can't duplicate easily or quickly.

 

How silly that they aren't doing something so easy and obvious!

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #16 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Apple was beleaguered and doomed back in the 90's and it's still doomed as of today despite having the highest market cap and largest cash hoard by far of all the companies on Wall Street. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Other companies get terrific valuations whether they deserve them or not while Apple continues to survive in a grey area of investor fears and doubts. As an Apple shareholder I hope Apple knocks it out of the park this September with both iPhones and iPads. All the analysts and news media pundits are already calling the iPad dead meat because of the Nexus 7 having such a high-def display and costing $100 cheaper than the iPad Mini. That's just how it is, all the time. Google and Android loved, Apple and iOS hated.


I don't think Nexus 7 is popular due to the reasons you cited.  It is due to iPad wifi versions lacking a gps chip.  Because when Nexus 7 GPS developed a problem I was surprised there are so many users responded.  This means gps usage is very important to Nexus 7 users.  They bought Nexus 7 instead of ipad mini probably because of it. 

post #17 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


I think you don't know engineering or even capitalism.  Just answer the question.  Why Apple can keep iPhone market share near 50% but its market share in China dropped to 5% recently? 

 

Since you asked:

 

a) China offers virtually no protection for intellectual property (apart from China's ProView trademark on iPad, which it got to sell Apple twice for $MM)

 

b) China, like Google, has a storied history and official policy of counterfeiting existing, patented Western technology and refusing to pay for it by making its own slightly tweaked version (aka DVD, WiFi, CDMA, LTE, German trains, Italian clothes, American iPhones, etc.)

 

c) Market research companies like to define markets as including things that are not in the same market ($199 netbooks vs $2000 MacBooks)

 

d) Market research companies like to define markets as excluding things that are in the same market if it would be flattering to Apple (iPad is not a PC) 

 

e) Apple has all of 8 stores in Red China, 6 of which are in Shanghai or Beijing 

 

f) The market share figure you cite only related to unit volumes shipping. Apple's dollar share is different, which is what engineering and capitalism are actually about. 

 

Also:

 

Comments from Apple execs on China last Q3 2013 from Notes of interest from Apple's Q3 2013 conference call

 

"Mainland China was up five percent year over year. That's a lower growth rate than we've been seeing, and I attribute that to many things. The economy there clearly doesn't help us and others" - Peter

 

"In greater China, our revenues were $4.9 billion for the quarter, about 14 percent of the company. A few years ago, that would have been hundreds of millions. In the last 12 months we've done $27 billion on a trailing basis. It's a huge business for us. iPad sell-through in greater China was up 8 percent, in mainland China up 37 percent. In the tablet market, latest figures indicate higher than 50 percent share in China.

 

"We now have about half a million developers in China working on iOS apps. That's up over 70 percent year over year. We're going to double the number of retail stores in China over the next two years. iPad and iPhone sales are currently lower than where we want and need them to be. I continue to believe in the arc of time that China is a huge opportunity for Apple. I don't get discouraged over a 90 day cycle that could have economic factors." - Tim
post #18 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Someone needs to edit this article. Repeated sentences and errors. 

He gets paid by the word.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #19 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I swear there's a box in AI headquarters filled with DED essays that just spews out lengthy random combinations of passages on a vague subject any time a deadline for an "editorial" comes up.  It also appears to have some kind of crossover error, when you end up with careless mistakes like this:

 

"Motorola planned to port Windows"

 

Perhaps the assumption was made that readers would recall events and therefore the line would not be controversial. See also:

 

MOTOROLA PORTS WINDOWS NT 3.5 TO POWERPC(TM) SYSTEMS - Free Online Library (Sept 1994)

post #20 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

If it is meant to answer the notion that one shouldn't be able to patent and own software, it doesn't. That's a moral question for some people. I've been an engineer for 30 years and live through those periods, and I strongly come down on the anti-litigation side. 

 

These editorials are a gospel of cherry picking for the faithful preaching the word that Apple was at the heart of everything. Contributions of others are minimized and Apple is posited to be the cause of the effect. I don't need team of ghost writers to write that. 

 

As mentioned by someone else, if Apple is to win, it should be by market forces, not by courts. 

 

Ask yourself this, why does it make you feel good to have someone write long treatises on why your revered corporation and ex-CEO are near perfection, and all of their critics are wrong and baseless? Doesn't it seem strange to have an addiction which needs a "fix" like this? Again, it's like Fox News or right-wing radio, where people need to tune in everyday to have their hardened beliefs coaxed and reinforced.

I guess it's to counter mindset like yours. While this article may paint Apple in a perfect light, it's refreshing to be reminded of history because many people don't realize or acknowledge how much Apple has influenced almost every CE product sold in the last 30+ years.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #21 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

If it is meant to answer the notion that one shouldn't be able to patent and own software, it doesn't. That's a moral question for some people. I've been an engineer for 30 years and live through those periods, and I strongly come down on the anti-litigation side. 

 

These editorials are a gospel of cherry picking for the faithful preaching the word that Apple was at the heart of everything. Contributions of others are minimized and Apple is posited to be the cause of the effect. I don't need team of ghost writers to write that. 

 

As mentioned by someone else, if Apple is to win, it should be by market forces, not by courts. 

 

Ask yourself this, why does it make you feel good to have someone write long treatises on why your revered corporation and ex-CEO are near perfection, and all of their critics are wrong and baseless? Doesn't it seem strange to have an addiction which needs a "fix" like this? Again, it's like Fox News or right-wing radio, where people need to tune in everyday to have their hardened beliefs coaxed and reinforced.


I think Apple should not try to win back market share by selling cheap iPhones.  Apple is the most innovative company in the world.  The reward to Apple is huge profits.  Because Apple is able to sell to people that are willing to pay a premium price.  Trying to deal with people that can not pay will give Apple all kinds of problems. 

 

But I fully agree with Apple pursuing patent litigations.  Because this is what an innovative company should do. 


Edited by tzeshan - 8/12/13 at 10:18am
post #22 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


I don't think Nexus 7 is popular due to the reasons you cited.  It is due to iPad wifi versions lacking a gps chip.  Because when Nexus 7 GPS developed a problem I was surprised there are so many users responded.  This means gps usage is very important to Nexus 7 users.  They bought Nexus 7 instead of ipad mini probably because of it. 

Nexus 7 is more popular than the iPad Mini because, on an overall HW/price evaluation, it is probably a better pad, hopefully setting a new price reference for iPads, including the ridiculous price Apple charges for memory. I am awaiting a Retina Mini, but my son who has to be more price conscious than me bought a Nexus, and I would have too if it had been running iOS.

post #23 of 70

The reason why Apple investors are nervous is simply because they are struggling to see where future growth comes from, Apple is facing stiff competition, and Apple breakthroughs are unpredictable events. At a certain point, the smartphone revolution will reach saturation, and practically everyone will have one, then growth slows severely and will look more like the PC market did, with competitors fighting over a slowly expanding pie.  Will the iWatch or iTV be a runaway hit rivaling the iPhone? There's no guarantee of that. How much higher can Apple revenues go? There are limits to exponential growth.

 

All companies eventually return to earth. It doesn't mean they fail, it means they go from spectacular growth to sustainable growth. A lot investors believe that's where Apple is headed.

post #24 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Since you asked:

 

a) China offers virtually no protection for intellectual property (apart from China's ProView trademark on iPad, which it got to sell Apple twice for $MM)

 

b) China, like Google, has a storied history and official policy of counterfeiting existing, patented Western technology and refusing to pay for it by making its own slightly tweaked version (aka DVD, WiFi, CDMA, LTE, German trains, Italian clothes, American iPhones, etc.)

 

c) Market research companies like to define markets as including things that are not in the same market ($199 netbooks vs $2000 MacBooks)

 

d) Market research companies like to define markets as excluding things that are in the same market if it would be flattering to Apple (iPad is not a PC) 

 

e) Apple has all of 8 stores in Red China, 6 of which are in Shanghai or Beijing 

 

f) The market share figure you cite only related to unit volumes shipping. Apple's dollar share is different, which is what engineering and capitalism are actually about. 

 

Also:

 

Comments from Apple execs on China last Q3 2013 from Notes of interest from Apple's Q3 2013 conference call

 

"Mainland China was up five percent year over year. That's a lower growth rate than we've been seeing, and I attribute that to many things. The economy there clearly doesn't help us and others" - Peter

 

"In greater China, our revenues were $4.9 billion for the quarter, about 14 percent of the company. A few years ago, that would have been hundreds of millions. In the last 12 months we've done $27 billion on a trailing basis. It's a huge business for us. iPad sell-through in greater China was up 8 percent, in mainland China up 37 percent. In the tablet market, latest figures indicate higher than 50 percent share in China.

 

"We now have about half a million developers in China working on iOS apps. That's up over 70 percent year over year. We're going to double the number of retail stores in China over the next two years. iPad and iPhone sales are currently lower than where we want and need them to be. I continue to believe in the arc of time that China is a huge opportunity for Apple. I don't get discouraged over a 90 day cycle that could have economic factors." - Tim

 

Are you saying that the simple fact that China is a developing country where the vast majority is nowhere near being able to afford Apple products is not a part of the explanation?

post #25 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

If it is meant to answer the notion that one shouldn't be able to patent and own software, it doesn't. That's a moral question for some people. I've been an engineer for 30 years and live through those periods, and I strongly come down on the anti-litigation side. 

 

These editorials are a gospel of cherry picking for the faithful preaching the word that Apple was at the heart of everything. Contributions of others are minimized and Apple is posited to be the cause of the effect. I don't need team of ghost writers to write that. 

 

As mentioned by someone else, if Apple is to win, it should be by market forces, not by courts. 

 

Ask yourself this, why does it make you feel good to have someone write long treatises on why your revered corporation and ex-CEO are near perfection, and all of their critics are wrong and baseless? Doesn't it seem strange to have an addiction which needs a "fix" like this? Again, it's like Fox News or right-wing radio, where people need to tune in everyday to have their hardened beliefs coaxed and reinforced.

 

Perhaps you haven't grasped it yet, but the reason why AppleInsider would publish "iPhone Patent Wars" looking a series of events where, as you astutely point out, "Apple was at the heart of everything," is sort of self explanatory. Do you also write angry letters to "Car & Driver" demanding to know why they write about automobiles and not the equally important subject of swimming pools?

 

While you can complain in general terms about "cherry picking" of events and Apple being "posited to be the cause of the effect," I can't help but notice that after reading that long article you can't actually present anything material that was left out, or describe any connections that are incorrect. 

 

The article itself points out who said "if Apple is to win...," and put it in the form a video so you couldn't even complain about having to read it, or attack it for being inaccurate. And you still choose instead to mangle the quote to say something else, and then turn around and tell me this article is an affront to true history? Shocking.

 

If you see a similarity between this outline the history of Apple (which while interesting is not always flattering to the company in general or to the individuals who were running it) or noting how Apple got its current ~75% share of the world's consumer technology related profits, VS. wingnuts who recite propaganda supporting the 30% (whether that's the Tea Party or Android, not sure which you meant), I have to wonder if you might be better served with a different daily medication than whatever you're currently on.

post #26 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


I don't think Nexus 7 is popular due to the reasons you cited.  It is due to iPad wifi versions lacking a gps chip.  Because when Nexus 7 GPS developed a problem I was surprised there are so many users responded.  This means gps usage is very important to Nexus 7 users.  They bought Nexus 7 instead of ipad mini probably because of it. 

 

I don't think Nexus 7 is as popular as you think. If it were, Asus would be reporting some sales and, hopefully, some profits. 

 

I don't think there's a casual nexus between "Nexus 7 GPS developing a problem for so many users" and "Nexus 7 is popular."

post #27 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPT View Post

Nexus 7 is more popular than the iPad Mini because, on an overall HW/price evaluation, it is probably a better pad, hopefully setting a new price reference for iPads, including the ridiculous price Apple charges for memory. I am awaiting a Retina Mini, but my son who has to be more price conscious than me bought a Nexus, and I would have too if it had been running iOS.


Nexus 7 battery life is still poorer than iPad.  How can yyou say it is better HW? 

post #28 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPT View Post

 

Are you saying that the simple fact that China is a developing country where the vast majority is nowhere near being able to afford Apple products is not a part of the explanation?

 

Could factor in, yes.

post #29 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


He gets paid by the word.

 

a) no

b) editing actually happens

c) lots of words never get printed

 

also

 

c) on a mission to force the Internet read and think more. 

post #30 of 70
Mr Dilger, this series is so important I hope it will find its way to your personal site where a few of your works also reside. This will help us find them for refreshing our memories.

You stand tall with a few other honest analysts (& some journalists) with scruples and drive to speak the honest truth; a few off hand are Dediu and Gruber. Compared to you honest analysts, cheap journalists like Dvorac (spit) are but Chimps unleashed upon the world from their canopy over swamps.

These articles are the benchmarks to honest historical facts that we need to know and understand if we are to stand tall against the lies perpetrated by FacsimleSam and Goolies both of whom are bent to undermine the success of Apple, a company that has changed the world of tech. F & G, the hurry companies trying to catch up to Apple spread lies and deceptions through their troops of paid Trolls.Their purpose is to undermine Apple in the public eye and to distort conversation and actual journalism on the sites that follow Apple rendering them useless for good information and discussion.

Heart, strength and honour, that is what I find when I read your articles, Mr Dilger.

off topic but . . .

The BLOCK feature on AI needs be used relentlessly by those who can overcome their anger & frustration for the troll. BLOCKing supports the hard efforts of the writers and posters. Feeding the trolls by answering them only encourages them and slows down true discussions.
Edited by mhikl - 8/12/13 at 10:32am

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #31 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

If it is meant to answer the notion that one shouldn't be able to patent and own software, it doesn't. That's a moral question for some people. I've been an engineer for 30 years and live through those periods, and I strongly come down on the anti-litigation side. 


These editorials are a gospel of cherry picking for the faithful preaching the word that Apple was at the heart of everything. Contributions of others are minimized and Apple is posited to be the cause of the effect. I don't need team of ghost writers to write that. 

As mentioned by someone else, if Apple is to win, it should be by market forces, not by courts. 

Ask yourself this, why does it make you feel good to have someone write long treatises on why your revered corporation and ex-CEO are near perfection, and all of their critics are wrong and baseless? Doesn't it seem strange to have an addiction which needs a "fix" like this? Again, it's like Fox News or right-wing radio, where people need to tune in everyday to have their hardened beliefs coaxed and reinforced.

Apple: revolutionary focus on user experience, good taste, ethical approach to biz.

Microsoft: same old American consumer-technology incompetence, focus on user torture, bad taste, bad ethics.

Samsung: bad taste, very bad ethics, focus on user distraction.
post #32 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

I guess it's to counter mindset like yours. While this article may paint Apple in a perfect light, it's refreshing to be reminded of history because many people don't realize or acknowledge how much Apple has influenced almost every CE product sold in the last 30+ years.

 

Lots of companies have had wide ranging influences major CE devices over the years.  This is what I mean by minimizing the contributions of others and viewing history through a narrow lens. I can construct similar "Microsoft was behind everything" narratives if I want. For example, the GPU that makes the iPhone even possible can be traced directly back to Microsoft's investment into DirectX and the PC gaming market. SGI plays the role of Xerox here, creating OpenGL, but failing to make it relevant for everyday consumers. Enter the savior, Microsoft, rescuing the HW industry from the ineffective ARB, pushing forward a baseline spec that got better every 18 months, and enabling a competitive GPU market for the desktop that allowed other vendors to sell compatible hardware into a ready made market. This lead to an advancement in GPU capabilities that surpassed Moore's Law on CPUs. PowerVR began as a desktop class GPU, but tile-based-deferred-renderers, designed for low memory bandwidth, could not compete on the desktop where immediate mode renderers were getting faster and faster GDDR coupled with ginormous 256, 384, and 512-bit memory busses. So PowerVR rescued their IP by pivoting to mobile, where tile-based-deferred-rendering shines, leading to the introduction of the series of GPUs that sit in mobile today.

 

No Microsoft investment in DirectX making the PC a competitive gaming market, and OpenGL would be stagnant, likely delaying the timeline of GPUs by years, and in 2007, the iPhone would have had a much less powerful graphics chip.

 

Anyway can play this game. Just watch James Burke's "Connections" series on PBS.

post #33 of 70
Sadly, Apple does not have have the foresight to see beyond the current state of tech and reach beyond.

It maybe difficult to do so especially with so many moles and spys watching the company take positions.
post #34 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

 That's just how it is, all the time. Google and Android loved, Apple and iOS hated.

 

Because of guys like you?

post #35 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

The reason why Apple investors are nervous is simply because they are struggling to see where future growth comes from, Apple is facing stiff competition, and Apple breakthroughs are unpredictable events. At a certain point, the smartphone revolution will reach saturation, and practically everyone will have one, then growth slows severely and will look more like the PC market did, with competitors fighting over a slowly expanding pie.  Will the iWatch or iTV be a runaway hit rivaling the iPhone? There's no guarantee of that. How much higher can Apple revenues go? There are limits to exponential growth.

 

All companies eventually return to earth. It doesn't mean they fail, it means they go from spectacular growth to sustainable growth. A lot investors believe that's where Apple is headed.

 

In hindsight, Apple's "breakthoughs" seems to be quite predictable: iOS & OS X come out every year, and new hardware cycles though on a regular clip.

 

Compare Google's "breakthroughs" for Android:

 

1.0 Illuminated trackball?

2.0 Works more like iPhone with virtual keyboard?

3.0 Tablets?

4.0 NFC/Wallet? Hey we have a Siri too?

 

You have such an articulate understanding of the troubles facing Apple. But imagine if those same risks were also faced by a company with much less cash, much less experience in managine platforms, much less profitability and a business model firmly rooted to the no-longer-growing PC market. 

 

What would Google do then? 

post #36 of 70
Essentially Apple was the R&D dept for Microsoft and the Cloners and now has expanded to include Google and the Smartphone manufactures. Samsung is the only one making money and only because it has the brass balls to almost complelety copy everything down to the dress and accessories of iPhone and now iPad, the rest can't match Apple's supply chain effiencies. IF Apple hadn't sued Samsung there would be other players making identical copies of the iPhone therefore Apple has limited the damage only to Samsung. So it not a complete repeat of PC clone wars.

For the last few years Apple has found a way of protecting its R&D costs and now makes money off it's inventions The PC cloners and now smartphone/tablet manufactures are annoyed they lost their R&D dept. and are using loopholes in the patent system to benefit their own parasitic ends.

Morally I don't think they have a leg to stand on , but this is business there are no moral values in place - only misguided business ethics.

Look up the definition of Ethics and Morals to comphrehend the difference.
Edited by Paul94544 - 8/12/13 at 10:56am
post #37 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


Nexus 7 battery life is still poorer than iPad.  How can yyou say it is better HW? 

Because for me the battery life is good enough, for the iPad Mini the price point, particularly for memory, and the screen is not.

 

I can even live with the battery life of my iPhone 5 which is pretty bad compared to what it could be if it wasn't considered more important by Apple to shave of a mm of thickness compared to the 4s, in my opinion a totally wrong decision.

post #38 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

Lots of companies have had wide ranging influences major CE devices over the years.  This is what I mean by minimizing the contributions of others and viewing history through a narrow lens. I can construct similar "Microsoft was behind everything" narratives if I want. For example, the GPU that makes the iPhone even possible can be traced directly back to Microsoft's investment into DirectX and the PC gaming market. SGI plays the role of Xerox here, creating OpenGL, but failing to make it relevant for everyday consumers. Enter the savior, Microsoft, rescuing the HW industry from the ineffective ARB, pushing forward a baseline spec that got better every 18 months, and enabling a competitive GPU market for the desktop that allowed other vendors to sell compatible hardware into a ready made market. This lead to an advancement in GPU capabilities that surpassed Moore's Law on CPUs. PowerVR began as a desktop class GPU, but tile-based-deferred-renderers, designed for low memory bandwidth, could not compete on the desktop where immediate mode renderers were getting faster and faster GDDR coupled with ginormous 256, 384, and 512-bit memory busses. So PowerVR rescued their IP by pivoting to mobile, where tile-based-deferred-rendering shines, leading to the introduction of the series of GPUs that sit in mobile today.

 

No Microsoft investment in DirectX making the PC a competitive gaming market, and OpenGL would be stagnant, likely delaying the timeline of GPUs by years, and in 2007, the iPhone would have had a much less powerful graphics chip.

 

Anyway can play this game. Just watch James Burke's "Connections" series on PBS.

 

So you're crediting Apple having beat Microsoft's DirectX by leveraging OpenGL in mobile because... Microsoft tried, back when it had a monopoly, but failed?

 

Interesting that your sole example (which I've now seen you repeat multiple times) is also an example of breathlessly cheerleading for a loser just because you like their team colors. Also, if Microsoft hadn't introduced DirectX, the industry would have invested in OpenGL rather than wasting half of its time duplicating efforts and pursuing Microsoft's dead end.

 

The reality is that Microsoft advanced DirectX because it wanted to crush open standards for GPU technology, forcing all tech to require Windows. 

 

Apple has backed open technologies (WebKit, OpenGL, Cal/CardDAV, HTML5, H.264) in iOS & OS X that allowed other platforms to compete on a level playing field. That has helped Android considerably, and enabled Palm/WP/BB and others to at least attempt to deliver brand new platforms that could at least access content and take advantage of interoperable technologies, even if they weren't successful. 

 

And Apple still won. 

 

Meanwhile, Google crows about being open but it backs technologies that are FOSS but non-standard and tied to proprietary stuff from Google (Adobe Flash, Google Contacts/Calendar APIs, VP8/WebM video, WebP images). It's nearly as bad as Microsoft was. 

post #39 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Apple: revolutionary focus on user experience, good taste, ethical approach to biz.

Microsoft: same old American consumer-technology incompetence, focus on user torture, bad taste, bad ethics.

Samsung: bad taste, very bad ethics, focus on user distraction.

 

May I give readers a correct description of what I think Ethics and morals are? Ethics applies to a group, like a business For example a business can have an ethic in place which states "it's not okay to solicite kickbacks from a contractor in exchange for company business" and employes are fired if they are caught doing so. In some countries taking bribes is normal behavoir and ethically okay. An ethic is an agreed upon correct behavoir by a group. Ethics can change and are dynamic. Ethos is a Greek word meaning "character" that is used to describe the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community whereas Morals are based on the notion of a virtue. Morals are not as dynamic, they are Universal and tend to be more static over time like "It is wrong to murder another Human Being" It may be business ethical to engage in certain practices, but it may be morally wrong! A "Moral" is something that is either right or wrong. An "Ethic" is more like a rule. Some rules can be incorrect.
post #40 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Why do you speak of trolls in the third person?

1biggrin.gif

But we lost rjc999. I keep losing my punching bags.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iPhone Patent Wars: Apple's $1.1 billion ARM injection ignites a mobile patent race