this might have been said elsewhere as I didn't read every post, but it seems that beyond a touch screen only device (the hardware) the key thing with the iphone and iOS are "features" like the apps & itunes store infrastructure as well. that was really an idea Apple developed way beyond anything else at the time.
Also all you have to do is take a look at the quote directly...
"a little bit of rewriting history."
A little bit? How do you re-write history a little bit? either you do or you don't. You did or you didn't. I know I sound like yoda, but it's the truth. Page is full of crap. Google stole all of the best features from iOS and Iphone hardware and integrated it into Android. They even tried to copy itunes. sad really.
Sure they were working on a Blackberry/ NOKIA clone before Iphone, but once Iphone was out that was the the new "it" device & OS to copy.
The only person that should be pissed is SJ. The rest of the world should benefit from the competition. Apple will always make the best device/ OS combo. Period. it's their ethos and they've got the power to leverage the development of the OS and hardware at the same time. No one can really copy that. Add itunes and the app store etc etc. It'll be hard for Google to kill the iphone and their track record to date is the proof IMO. Droid apps don't make money like Apple store apps, publishers aren't clamoring to be on droid devices. Maybe in a bunch of ears if Apple falls asleep at the wheel, but I don't think Job's sleeps personally. Just look at the guy.
And I remember the days when Apple and Google, together, were going to conquer the world.
"A fickle heart is the only constant in this world"
Sigh!!
Don't walk behind me, because I might not lead. Don't walk in front of me because I might not follow follow. Walk beside me so that we might be friends.
-camus
I now that's not exactly right, but it's still funny.
Kudos to Neil Hughes for such a well written article!!!!!! There has been an increasing prevalence of news articles on AI that have fact peppered with opinions which IMO which takes away from the journalistic integrity of the site. This article was spot on. Other AI writers should take note.
Back on topic. I'm not why we have so many arguments about who copied who. Jobs said he was pissed because Google entered the phone market. Page has responded by saying they had full intentions of entering the phone market before the iPhone, which appears to be 100% true.
We could assume that Jobs wasn't actually upset because Google entered the phone market, but because they copied so much of the iPhone... but that's irrelevant because Page isn't trying to refute that.
The next line out of Page's mouth should have been "I can see why Steve is pissed at all the stuff we copied though" and then everyone wouldn't be arguing so much!
No one has said that iPhone was making a 'profit' yet.
In any event, this is the kind of nonsense that pervades forums (in all fairness, it's not just you) when people don't understand the difference between free cash flow and profit.
The latter is an often meaningless term. The former is all that really matters.
That's right, and neither did I. But if you want to criticize, then do so to Bloomberg who reported the Xbox results. I merely quoted them in response to another poster's misinformation.
If you want to know my view of this, you could look at my post on the previous page. Post number 111 if you need help finding it. Or you could continue to assume that my views are more convenient for your snarky rants. Your choice.
Snarky? Looked in the mirror lately?
You've shown yourself devoid of anything worth my continued engagement with you on this since you refuse to acknowledge any of the points I made. So I'll just assume you have nothing and move on.
Complete and utter bullshit. Sorry, but I actually am a geek who kept up with what was the latest and greatest before the iphone was ever out. A simple google search for what microsoft was doing in 1999 found this for cryin out loud: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...ricssonpr.mspx Everyone can crap on windows mobile all they want (even when they've never even worked with it for a second) but it's true: Apple pretty much copied MS in a LOT of ways, and if they hadn't come out with the iphone, phones would have still gone in the direction they're going today. Full screen PDA's with multimedia support, internet browsing, the list goes on. And if you think I'm full of shit, please tell me what Windows Mobile copied from Apple. You can't, because it was first.
I've been in this debate plenty of times. People who never paid any attention to PDA's until the iphone came out are absolutely confident in arguing with me over this.
The bottom line is, I'm not completely irrational in thinking Google would have made Android into what it is without the iphones existence. Someone hurry up and invent a way to look into alternate realities for f's sakes
While you're Googling, why don't you Google the Newton?
And simply employing the idea of a full-screen GUI does not a useable and innovative product make. Neither does it make you the leader, the innovator or the *first* (gee we can't credit Motorola, or whomever with first cell phone -- after all Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone over 100 years before, so there!). No, while you are talking about who copied what, see the Newton, years ahead of its time (but not so commercially viable -- for instance, no iTunes store then). For cryin' out loud, Apple was working on GUIs 30 years ago; 15 years before MS went graphical at all with Windows 3.1 thanks to deep access to the Classic Mac OS.
And you want to talk about Multimedia support? Who are the pioneers of multimedia support? MS can't even get typography and font-rendering correct. Give me a break. So, you'll say it is a big deal that some unreleased MS product touts higher specs, like full HD output... but then everyone who tries to use it will still spend 15 minutes trouble-shooting it each and every time, trying to get it show up on the TV or projector screen (restarting, changing screen settings in a control panel that you can't find, etc.) -- it's inevitable. Powerpoint is like the first Flashcard app that ever shipped with Macs in the 80's. Now Keynote is on the iPad, and iMovie is on the iPhone. Are PDFs considered multimedia? Let's have some system level support for that. Multimedia support, pffft! I don't know what you're smoking.
Clearly, MS still hasn't gotten it right -- who buys Windows Mobile smartphones? Why did HP ditch Windows for Palm OS? Now you want to reference Pocket PCs? Lol: I don't like the way Windows works with all the power you can throw at it on the desktop, why would I want Windows crammed into my pocket? Puke.
Clearly, competitors of Apple are indeed several years behind Apple, and trying to copy them like heck. Apple is the only one to successfully port a scaled version of their desktop to other platforms and processors, and Apple has completely adapted that OS to a touch-based interface. Touch is not a hacked add-on to a desktop-type OS, like MS Windows Mobile / Phone 7, which still depends too much on the desktop metaphor and tries to cram that onto a mobile device. Apple is the only one with a viable, scalable OS that takes us into the next wave of computing evolution; everyone else is waiting to see which way Apple leads, as usual.
When Windows Phone 7 finally comes out, let's take note of all the dropped features and listen to all the excuses, per usual. Sounds like they have already said that copy and paste is not a biggie -- after all the flack Apple got, how rich is that? The iPhone: launched 2007, now on iOS 4; still waiting for the competition. Who cares what MS was "working on", or what concept videos MS can creatively spin out of the imaginations of their design committees -- where's the Courier? Where's the Kin? Where's the phone that sells 3 million in its opening weekend?
Wow... You must have really been in the front line a decade ago when people actually cared about the Apple/Microsoft rivalry
Microsoft don't seem to stand on Apple's toes at all these days. In fact, a lot of features in Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7 are clearly a homage to OSX an iOS.
I'd suggest toning it back a notch and waiting until WP7 is actually released before pilling on the hate! IMO it looks to have some interesting features (or at least, as you point out, the mock-ups do!)
In the very least... if Apple like to stay ahead of the curve, it can only be a win for us if the curve keeps moving forward!
In the early days, it was almost scary how Google seemed like it could read your mind and return perfect info given only vaguely-worded search terms. Now, it seems that big companies have gamed the PageRank system and searches have devolved into requests for obliquely related ads.
Instead of maintaining the quality of searches, they've haphazardly bolted on small companies and irrelevant services. Do YouTube, Picasa and SketchUp have anything to do with search? Google Docs and GMail has nothing to do with helping us search, it just lets Google know more about us. I'm apprehensive about what they are doing with the info they are collecting about me -- I think targeted advertising is the least nefarious thing they could be doing with it.
Being Profitable (barely) is not the same as making a profit on something.
Lets make this VERY VERY simple for you :
Say you start a business and for the first 5 years you make 1m Loss per year. Now you are down 5m. In year six, you start to see a profit of 100,000. Now you are profitable in what you are doing. ( PLEASE note the "ABLE" part on the end )
But you are still at an over all loss of 4,900,000.
profitABLE does NOT equal profit.
Ask the Underpants Gnomes. At least they understand more than you. I think there is a question mark over steps 1, 2, and 3 with you.
I really wish people would stop commenting on topics they don't understand.
Being profitable most certainly DOES mean the same thing as making a profit - by definition.
You're confused because you're comparing different time periods. You are correct that being profitable this year doesn't mean that you were profitable over the last 5 year period, but that's not what you are saying.
Saying something is profitable requires a time period. If it was profitable in a given time period then it made a profit in that time period. End of discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
No one has said that iPhone was making a 'profit' yet.
In any event, this is the kind of nonsense that pervades forums (in all fairness, it's not just you) when people don't understand the difference between free cash flow and profit.
The latter is an often meaningless term. The former is all that really matters.
You're glossing over some very important financial information and giving people a very wrong impression. Both profit and free cash flow have a meaning when used appropriately. For that matter, there are times when EBITDA is more important than either (although EBITDA is fairly close to free cash flow).
Your last statement is 100% wrong, though. To say that free cash flow is the only thing that matters is not accurate. For example, try filing our taxes on the basis of free cash flow rather than net income - and you'll find yourself facing an audit (not to mention paying far more taxes than you should).
Each financial metric has its place. If someone doesn't understand the difference, they shouldn't be commenting on financial topics, so don't encourage them with very superficial simplification like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Paying for something doesn't always mean you didn't steal it.
Well, since you're referring to Apple's access to Xerox, why not be specific as to what Apple stole and how they stole it rather than making silly generalizations?
Apple had an agreement with Xerox. Both Apple and Xerox upheld their side of the agreement, so the trade was completed.
I don't remember if Xerox ever sued over the matter, but I do know that Apple never lost a law suit over the matter. So one of two things is true:
1. Xerox was content that the agreement had been followed and didn't sue.
or
2. Xerox sued and lost.
Either way, it is clear that Apple didn't steal anything - no matter how many times you uneducated, Apple-bashing haters make your silly accusations.
Consumers? Who are they? Microsoft has no history of being able to sell any consumer products. And they make so much money from Windows + Office that they don't dare try.
Really? I guess Xbox and all the Microsoft web cams, keyboards, mice, and other accessories don't count? FAIL...
Are you aware of where the term "PDA" came from and what it was being used to describe?
Here's a hint, think renowned, 17th century physicist, think apple falling on head, think different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
I've been in this debate plenty of times. People who never paid any attention to PDA's until the iphone came out are absolutely confident in arguing with me over this.
It's interesting to see how loaded this site is with fanboys. Any mention of anything negative at all about Apple or his Steve-ness gets trounced upon. So much for honest, frank, and thoughtful discussion...
Like the one's that first appeared on Nokia phone's or prior to that on bluetooth headsets among other things, you mean that noise cancelling, dual microphone technology?
What did Google have to do with HTC's implementation on some models?
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
No, that's not being fair at all.
One example? Dual-microphone phone design for noise cancellation, something that was directly copied by Apple for the iPhone 4.
It's interesting to see how loaded this site is with fanboys. Any mention of anything negative at all about Apple or his Steve-ness gets trounced upon. So much for honest, frank, and thoughtful discussion...
Excuse me? Hmmm, what's the thoughtful and honest response to blatant lies and the attempt to rewrite history...
Actually I think the "fanboys" responses have been incredibly measured, thoughtful and honest:
the responses are full of dates, names, facts and figures, point by point to counter each hyperbolic, crazy, unsubstantiated lie. If there was a little good-natured "negative bantering" and good points of argument from the Apple critics, please point them out; we seem to have missed them. As soon as fact and figures and names and dates come back at them, the critics start yelling "fanboy", never fails. If you want to defend both
Like the Xerox Park thing that gets trotted out every five minutes by MS Fanboys. Or, "Apple products aren't suitable for the workplace" (meanwhile, the businesses that do their homework and switch are moving ahead). Same old groundless talking points. As soon as there is the least suggestion that MS (or Google) is unoriginal and lacks taste, someone's gotta try to tar Apple with all the same brushes. That's honest, frank and thoughtful, let me tell you. Trouble is, it's not always a simple preference for one company's tools over another company's tools: no-one thinks Apple is perfect, but it is on record that MS is unethical, ruthless and cares little for making great products for their customers. It's a fact, sorry; deal with it. I would imagine that defending both the products and the conduct of MS, in addition to getting any work done on a PC, would be a full time job, especially since all the talking points have been debunked for years -- sorry if we get a little testy about replying to these same tired old talking points year after year while MS has seemingly moved backwards.
Can we not refer to documented history, rebuttal with facts and move on? We would be happy to see some actual discussion for once; "discussion" usually comes to grinding halt right after the first rebuttal from Apple "fanboys". Come on, then...
• Xerox Park
• Newton
• Direction Google was going in before they saw the iPhone
• any relevance whatsoever that MS may have in the Mobile space going forward...
One example? Dual-microphone phone design for noise cancellation, something that was directly copied by Apple for the iPhone 4.
This seems like a stretch to me.
The concept of using dual microphones to cancel noise has been around almost as long as microphones have been in existence. With a two second Google search I can find instances of the tech being used for mobile phones from 2007. I'm sure if I really searched I could find a phone using it years before that.
When people talk about Google copying Apple's iPhone, they mean copying the whole style and the basic setup of the thing, which Apple did in fact invent/originate. It's just a plain fact that when the iPhone came out there were no phones anything like it. Period.
It's also a fact that a few years later, practically every smartphone on the market has switched to a capacitive touchscreen approach with few or no buttons, and multi-touch. It's patently obvious that Apple came up with a completely new approach to phones and that Android (as well as every other manufacturer on the market practically), is frantically copying that design and that approach.
I'm not sure why this thread even goes past the first page where someone else made a very similar remark. Anyone who thinks this is even up for discussion just hasn't been paying attention these last few years.
You've shown yourself devoid of anything worth my continued engagement with you on this since you refuse to acknowledge any of the points I made. So I'll just assume you have nothing and move on.
Ha ha, nice dodge. So much easier than acknowledging that you don't want to know what I actually said if it gets in the way of your rant.
Well, since you're referring to Apple's access to Xerox, why not be specific as to what Apple stole and how they stole it rather than making silly generalizations?
Apple had an agreement with Xerox. Both Apple and Xerox upheld their side of the agreement, so the trade was completed.
I don't remember if Xerox ever sued over the matter, but I do know that Apple never lost a law suit over the matter. So one of two things is true:
1. Xerox was content that the agreement had been followed and didn't sue.
or
2. Xerox sued and lost.
Either way, it is clear that Apple didn't steal anything - no matter how many times you uneducated, Apple-bashing haters make your silly accusations.
We don't know what if any agreement Apple had with Xerox. In some versions of the story, Xerox is given an opportunity to buy pre-IPO shares of Apple, which apparently did happen, but it's far from clear if this had any connection to the Xerox PARC visit. All we really know is that Apple requested a visit to Xerox PARC in 1979, when the Mac project development was beginning. Jef Raskin (then head of the Mac team) always contended that he arranged the show-and-tell for the purpose of convincing Steve that a GUI was worth pursuing. Others disputed Raskin later, but this always sounded like office politics to me. The facts were, shortly afterwards, Raskin was squeezed out and Steve took over the Mac project personally.
The other fact we know is that no single person or company "invented" the GUI. The idea had been floating around in academia for years. Many of the people working at Xerox PARC were academics and at Xerox they got the money and freedom to chase that idea. They gets credit for figuring out how to implement the GUI on an actual, working computer. Apple gets credit for figuring out how to implement the GUI on an actual working computer that a person could purchase. Both were major accomplishments.
Now as for Xerox suing Apple. Yes, they did, in the midst of Apple suing Microsoft over their use of Mac-like graphics in an early version of Windows. This is the infamous "look and feel" suit. The Xerox case was dismissed, and Apple lost their case against Microsoft. End of story, more or less. The real lesson is that we should not get so worked up about who invented what. Unless those ideas are patentable, then they are just ideas that anyone can use, or build upon, which is how science is supposed to work. It's pretty much the definition of progress.
My big problem with Microsoft isn't that they "copied" the Mac, but that with ten years to work on a GUI for DOS, what they came up with wasn't much more than a lukewarm clone of the Mac. That just showed a lack of vision, and arguably, even competence. What it also illustrated, for all who had any interest in seeing it, was Microsoft's corporate strategy -- which then and for a long time afterwards -- was making "just good enough" products. They didn't have to break any new ground to remain dominant, so they perfected mediocrity. With all of their money and talent and opportunity to do so much more, this always seemed almost criminal to me. Unfortunately for them (and us) this formula worked too well and too long. The legacy is, today Microsoft continues to struggle to find an approach to the market that doesn't assume entitlement.
Comments
Also all you have to do is take a look at the quote directly...
"a little bit of rewriting history."
A little bit? How do you re-write history a little bit? either you do or you don't. You did or you didn't. I know I sound like yoda, but it's the truth. Page is full of crap. Google stole all of the best features from iOS and Iphone hardware and integrated it into Android. They even tried to copy itunes. sad really.
Sure they were working on a Blackberry/ NOKIA clone before Iphone, but once Iphone was out that was the the new "it" device & OS to copy.
The only person that should be pissed is SJ. The rest of the world should benefit from the competition. Apple will always make the best device/ OS combo. Period. it's their ethos and they've got the power to leverage the development of the OS and hardware at the same time. No one can really copy that. Add itunes and the app store etc etc. It'll be hard for Google to kill the iphone and their track record to date is the proof IMO. Droid apps don't make money like Apple store apps, publishers aren't clamoring to be on droid devices. Maybe in a bunch of ears if Apple falls asleep at the wheel, but I don't think Job's sleeps personally. Just look at the guy.
And I remember the days when Apple and Google, together, were going to conquer the world.
"A fickle heart is the only constant in this world"
Sigh!!
Don't walk behind me, because I might not lead. Don't walk in front of me because I might not follow follow. Walk beside me so that we might be friends.
-camus
I now that's not exactly right, but it's still funny.
Back on topic. I'm not why we have so many arguments about who copied who. Jobs said he was pissed because Google entered the phone market. Page has responded by saying they had full intentions of entering the phone market before the iPhone, which appears to be 100% true.
We could assume that Jobs wasn't actually upset because Google entered the phone market, but because they copied so much of the iPhone... but that's irrelevant because Page isn't trying to refute that.
The next line out of Page's mouth should have been "I can see why Steve is pissed at all the stuff we copied though" and then everyone wouldn't be arguing so much!
No one has said that iPhone was making a 'profit' yet.
In any event, this is the kind of nonsense that pervades forums (in all fairness, it's not just you) when people don't understand the difference between free cash flow and profit.
The latter is an often meaningless term. The former is all that really matters.
That's right, and neither did I. But if you want to criticize, then do so to Bloomberg who reported the Xbox results. I merely quoted them in response to another poster's misinformation.
You, of course, can interpret them as you wish.
If you want to know my view of this, you could look at my post on the previous page. Post number 111 if you need help finding it. Or you could continue to assume that my views are more convenient for your snarky rants. Your choice.
Snarky? Looked in the mirror lately?
You've shown yourself devoid of anything worth my continued engagement with you on this since you refuse to acknowledge any of the points I made. So I'll just assume you have nothing and move on.
Google's R&D must suck really bad because the first time they got a chance to show their take on smartphone, they showed the world a blackberry clone.
Maybe you were responding to somebody else, as I haven't mentioned anything about Google or Blackberry.
Complete and utter bullshit. Sorry, but I actually am a geek who kept up with what was the latest and greatest before the iphone was ever out. A simple google search for what microsoft was doing in 1999 found this for cryin out loud: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...ricssonpr.mspx Everyone can crap on windows mobile all they want (even when they've never even worked with it for a second) but it's true: Apple pretty much copied MS in a LOT of ways, and if they hadn't come out with the iphone, phones would have still gone in the direction they're going today. Full screen PDA's with multimedia support, internet browsing, the list goes on. And if you think I'm full of shit, please tell me what Windows Mobile copied from Apple. You can't, because it was first.
I've been in this debate plenty of times. People who never paid any attention to PDA's until the iphone came out are absolutely confident in arguing with me over this.
The bottom line is, I'm not completely irrational in thinking Google would have made Android into what it is without the iphones existence. Someone hurry up and invent a way to look into alternate realities for f's sakes
While you're Googling, why don't you Google the Newton?
And simply employing the idea of a full-screen GUI does not a useable and innovative product make. Neither does it make you the leader, the innovator or the *first* (gee we can't credit Motorola, or whomever with first cell phone -- after all Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone over 100 years before, so there!). No, while you are talking about who copied what, see the Newton, years ahead of its time (but not so commercially viable -- for instance, no iTunes store then). For cryin' out loud, Apple was working on GUIs 30 years ago; 15 years before MS went graphical at all with Windows 3.1 thanks to deep access to the Classic Mac OS.
And you want to talk about Multimedia support? Who are the pioneers of multimedia support? MS can't even get typography and font-rendering correct. Give me a break. So, you'll say it is a big deal that some unreleased MS product touts higher specs, like full HD output... but then everyone who tries to use it will still spend 15 minutes trouble-shooting it each and every time, trying to get it show up on the TV or projector screen (restarting, changing screen settings in a control panel that you can't find, etc.) -- it's inevitable. Powerpoint is like the first Flashcard app that ever shipped with Macs in the 80's. Now Keynote is on the iPad, and iMovie is on the iPhone. Are PDFs considered multimedia? Let's have some system level support for that. Multimedia support, pffft! I don't know what you're smoking.
Clearly, MS still hasn't gotten it right -- who buys Windows Mobile smartphones? Why did HP ditch Windows for Palm OS? Now you want to reference Pocket PCs? Lol: I don't like the way Windows works with all the power you can throw at it on the desktop, why would I want Windows crammed into my pocket? Puke.
Clearly, competitors of Apple are indeed several years behind Apple, and trying to copy them like heck. Apple is the only one to successfully port a scaled version of their desktop to other platforms and processors, and Apple has completely adapted that OS to a touch-based interface. Touch is not a hacked add-on to a desktop-type OS, like MS Windows Mobile / Phone 7, which still depends too much on the desktop metaphor and tries to cram that onto a mobile device. Apple is the only one with a viable, scalable OS that takes us into the next wave of computing evolution; everyone else is waiting to see which way Apple leads, as usual.
When Windows Phone 7 finally comes out, let's take note of all the dropped features and listen to all the excuses, per usual. Sounds like they have already said that copy and paste is not a biggie -- after all the flack Apple got, how rich is that? The iPhone: launched 2007, now on iOS 4; still waiting for the competition. Who cares what MS was "working on", or what concept videos MS can creatively spin out of the imaginations of their design committees -- where's the Courier? Where's the Kin? Where's the phone that sells 3 million in its opening weekend?
rant...
Wow... You must have really been in the front line a decade ago when people actually cared about the Apple/Microsoft rivalry
Microsoft don't seem to stand on Apple's toes at all these days. In fact, a lot of features in Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7 are clearly a homage to OSX an iOS.
I'd suggest toning it back a notch and waiting until WP7 is actually released before pilling on the hate! IMO it looks to have some interesting features (or at least, as you point out, the mock-ups do!)
In the very least... if Apple like to stay ahead of the curve, it can only be a win for us if the curve keeps moving forward!
... I guess now Steve must know how Xerox PARC felt
Doesn't Steve Jobs like to quote Pablo Picasso: "Good artists copy, but great artists steal"?
It's too bad that some people can only read poetry as prose.
In the early days, it was almost scary how Google seemed like it could read your mind and return perfect info given only vaguely-worded search terms. Now, it seems that big companies have gamed the PageRank system and searches have devolved into requests for obliquely related ads.
Instead of maintaining the quality of searches, they've haphazardly bolted on small companies and irrelevant services. Do YouTube, Picasa and SketchUp have anything to do with search? Google Docs and GMail has nothing to do with helping us search, it just lets Google know more about us. I'm apprehensive about what they are doing with the info they are collecting about me -- I think targeted advertising is the least nefarious thing they could be doing with it.
You absolute IDIOT !!
Being Profitable (barely) is not the same as making a profit on something.
Lets make this VERY VERY simple for you :
Say you start a business and for the first 5 years you make 1m Loss per year. Now you are down 5m. In year six, you start to see a profit of 100,000. Now you are profitable in what you are doing. ( PLEASE note the "ABLE" part on the end )
But you are still at an over all loss of 4,900,000.
profitABLE does NOT equal profit.
Ask the Underpants Gnomes. At least they understand more than you. I think there is a question mark over steps 1, 2, and 3 with you.
I really wish people would stop commenting on topics they don't understand.
Being profitable most certainly DOES mean the same thing as making a profit - by definition.
You're confused because you're comparing different time periods. You are correct that being profitable this year doesn't mean that you were profitable over the last 5 year period, but that's not what you are saying.
Saying something is profitable requires a time period. If it was profitable in a given time period then it made a profit in that time period. End of discussion.
No one has said that iPhone was making a 'profit' yet.
In any event, this is the kind of nonsense that pervades forums (in all fairness, it's not just you) when people don't understand the difference between free cash flow and profit.
The latter is an often meaningless term. The former is all that really matters.
You're glossing over some very important financial information and giving people a very wrong impression. Both profit and free cash flow have a meaning when used appropriately. For that matter, there are times when EBITDA is more important than either (although EBITDA is fairly close to free cash flow).
Your last statement is 100% wrong, though. To say that free cash flow is the only thing that matters is not accurate. For example, try filing our taxes on the basis of free cash flow rather than net income - and you'll find yourself facing an audit (not to mention paying far more taxes than you should).
Each financial metric has its place. If someone doesn't understand the difference, they shouldn't be commenting on financial topics, so don't encourage them with very superficial simplification like that.
Paying for something doesn't always mean you didn't steal it.
Well, since you're referring to Apple's access to Xerox, why not be specific as to what Apple stole and how they stole it rather than making silly generalizations?
Apple had an agreement with Xerox. Both Apple and Xerox upheld their side of the agreement, so the trade was completed.
I don't remember if Xerox ever sued over the matter, but I do know that Apple never lost a law suit over the matter. So one of two things is true:
1. Xerox was content that the agreement had been followed and didn't sue.
or
2. Xerox sued and lost.
Either way, it is clear that Apple didn't steal anything - no matter how many times you uneducated, Apple-bashing haters make your silly accusations.
Consumers? Who are they? Microsoft has no history of being able to sell any consumer products. And they make so much money from Windows + Office that they don't dare try.
Really? I guess Xbox and all the Microsoft web cams, keyboards, mice, and other accessories don't count? FAIL...
Here's a hint, think renowned, 17th century physicist, think apple falling on head, think different.
I've been in this debate plenty of times. People who never paid any attention to PDA's until the iphone came out are absolutely confident in arguing with me over this.
What did Google have to do with HTC's implementation on some models?
No, that's not being fair at all.
One example? Dual-microphone phone design for noise cancellation, something that was directly copied by Apple for the iPhone 4.
It's interesting to see how loaded this site is with fanboys. Any mention of anything negative at all about Apple or his Steve-ness gets trounced upon. So much for honest, frank, and thoughtful discussion...
Excuse me? Hmmm, what's the thoughtful and honest response to blatant lies and the attempt to rewrite history...
Actually I think the "fanboys" responses have been incredibly measured, thoughtful and honest:
the responses are full of dates, names, facts and figures, point by point to counter each hyperbolic, crazy, unsubstantiated lie. If there was a little good-natured "negative bantering" and good points of argument from the Apple critics, please point them out; we seem to have missed them. As soon as fact and figures and names and dates come back at them, the critics start yelling "fanboy", never fails. If you want to defend both
Like the Xerox Park thing that gets trotted out every five minutes by MS Fanboys. Or, "Apple products aren't suitable for the workplace" (meanwhile, the businesses that do their homework and switch are moving ahead). Same old groundless talking points. As soon as there is the least suggestion that MS (or Google) is unoriginal and lacks taste, someone's gotta try to tar Apple with all the same brushes. That's honest, frank and thoughtful, let me tell you. Trouble is, it's not always a simple preference for one company's tools over another company's tools: no-one thinks Apple is perfect, but it is on record that MS is unethical, ruthless and cares little for making great products for their customers. It's a fact, sorry; deal with it. I would imagine that defending both the products and the conduct of MS, in addition to getting any work done on a PC, would be a full time job, especially since all the talking points have been debunked for years -- sorry if we get a little testy about replying to these same tired old talking points year after year while MS has seemingly moved backwards.
Can we not refer to documented history, rebuttal with facts and move on? We would be happy to see some actual discussion for once; "discussion" usually comes to grinding halt right after the first rebuttal from Apple "fanboys". Come on, then...
• Xerox Park
• Newton
• Direction Google was going in before they saw the iPhone
• any relevance whatsoever that MS may have in the Mobile space going forward...
...we're waiting.
No, that's not being fair at all.
One example? Dual-microphone phone design for noise cancellation, something that was directly copied by Apple for the iPhone 4.
This seems like a stretch to me.
The concept of using dual microphones to cancel noise has been around almost as long as microphones have been in existence. With a two second Google search I can find instances of the tech being used for mobile phones from 2007. I'm sure if I really searched I could find a phone using it years before that.
When people talk about Google copying Apple's iPhone, they mean copying the whole style and the basic setup of the thing, which Apple did in fact invent/originate. It's just a plain fact that when the iPhone came out there were no phones anything like it. Period.
It's also a fact that a few years later, practically every smartphone on the market has switched to a capacitive touchscreen approach with few or no buttons, and multi-touch. It's patently obvious that Apple came up with a completely new approach to phones and that Android (as well as every other manufacturer on the market practically), is frantically copying that design and that approach.
I'm not sure why this thread even goes past the first page where someone else made a very similar remark. Anyone who thinks this is even up for discussion just hasn't been paying attention these last few years.
Snarky? Looked in the mirror lately?
You've shown yourself devoid of anything worth my continued engagement with you on this since you refuse to acknowledge any of the points I made. So I'll just assume you have nothing and move on.
Ha ha, nice dodge. So much easier than acknowledging that you don't want to know what I actually said if it gets in the way of your rant.
... So I'll just assume ... you have nothing ... and move on.
Denial, projection, and avoidance in one fell swoop.
Well, since you're referring to Apple's access to Xerox, why not be specific as to what Apple stole and how they stole it rather than making silly generalizations?
Apple had an agreement with Xerox. Both Apple and Xerox upheld their side of the agreement, so the trade was completed.
I don't remember if Xerox ever sued over the matter, but I do know that Apple never lost a law suit over the matter. So one of two things is true:
1. Xerox was content that the agreement had been followed and didn't sue.
or
2. Xerox sued and lost.
Either way, it is clear that Apple didn't steal anything - no matter how many times you uneducated, Apple-bashing haters make your silly accusations.
We don't know what if any agreement Apple had with Xerox. In some versions of the story, Xerox is given an opportunity to buy pre-IPO shares of Apple, which apparently did happen, but it's far from clear if this had any connection to the Xerox PARC visit. All we really know is that Apple requested a visit to Xerox PARC in 1979, when the Mac project development was beginning. Jef Raskin (then head of the Mac team) always contended that he arranged the show-and-tell for the purpose of convincing Steve that a GUI was worth pursuing. Others disputed Raskin later, but this always sounded like office politics to me. The facts were, shortly afterwards, Raskin was squeezed out and Steve took over the Mac project personally.
The other fact we know is that no single person or company "invented" the GUI. The idea had been floating around in academia for years. Many of the people working at Xerox PARC were academics and at Xerox they got the money and freedom to chase that idea. They gets credit for figuring out how to implement the GUI on an actual, working computer. Apple gets credit for figuring out how to implement the GUI on an actual working computer that a person could purchase. Both were major accomplishments.
Now as for Xerox suing Apple. Yes, they did, in the midst of Apple suing Microsoft over their use of Mac-like graphics in an early version of Windows. This is the infamous "look and feel" suit. The Xerox case was dismissed, and Apple lost their case against Microsoft. End of story, more or less. The real lesson is that we should not get so worked up about who invented what. Unless those ideas are patentable, then they are just ideas that anyone can use, or build upon, which is how science is supposed to work. It's pretty much the definition of progress.
My big problem with Microsoft isn't that they "copied" the Mac, but that with ten years to work on a GUI for DOS, what they came up with wasn't much more than a lukewarm clone of the Mac. That just showed a lack of vision, and arguably, even competence. What it also illustrated, for all who had any interest in seeing it, was Microsoft's corporate strategy -- which then and for a long time afterwards -- was making "just good enough" products. They didn't have to break any new ground to remain dominant, so they perfected mediocrity. With all of their money and talent and opportunity to do so much more, this always seemed almost criminal to me. Unfortunately for them (and us) this formula worked too well and too long. The legacy is, today Microsoft continues to struggle to find an approach to the market that doesn't assume entitlement.