I am actually hoping to see this relationship (Apple-Samsung) to go irreversibly sour. That would mean either the price of iPhone/iPad might go up considerably or the quality of iPhone/iPad might go down embarassingly. Of course, the latter case would be a quite disaster for Apple. This is what Steve is facing right now. I am just saying what I'm observing.
If Apple flatly denies the existence of a iPhone 5 or an iPad 3, and then later release them, they will be accused of perjury.
Using your flawed logic any future iPhone or iPad Apple would mean Apple committed perjury.
Apple sued Samsung for trade dress infringement on CURRENT products but also requesting to see potential trade dress infringement on its future products that have yet to be released in the US market.
The key here is that Apple requested to get copies of products Samsung has already officially "ANNOUNCED".
Samsung counter sued Apple for violating its technology patents in 10 countries for the CURRENT iPhone and iPad products but is also requesting to see potential technology patents in its future products that have yet to be released in the US market.
Samsung is requesting that Apple provide copies of products that are "UNANNOUNCED" which means they may not even exist yet.
Both are same types of suits.
All above bold print are my comments. Big difference in requesting to see a product that has been officially announced versus asking to see an unannounced product. One definitely exists and one may or may not today.
You are tedious yourself. Can you understand that there are two things going on ? One is Apple suing Samsung, in which Apple asks Samsung to show their prototypes and the other suit is where Samsung is the plaintiff and ask Apple to do the same.
Samsung has filed a motion within the existing suit. That doesn't create a new piece of litigation and it doesn't make Samsung the plaintiff. For god's sake.
Apple would no doubt like to use the Samsung Amoled Plus but it still seems that Samsung production capacity is low.
Looking at the bigger picture it almost seems likely that the iPhone 5 and/or iPhone Nano will be using a Rockchip, Qualcomm or whatever chipset. The screen, at least on the 5 will have to be LG again, this time being the new Nova.
I really do wonder if the court case is all to do with a 100% move away from Samsung.
It's certainly mostly practical reasons why phones have converged in looks ever since the first original Palm.
I am actually hoping to see this relationship (Apple-Samsung) to go irreversibly sour. That would mean either the price of iPhone/iPad might go up considerably or the quality of iPhone/iPad might go down embarassingly. Of course, the latter case would be a quite disaster for Apple. This is what Steve is facing right now. I am just saying what I'm observing.
You've contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. You can't say you're hoping for a bad outcome and then say you're just making observations. I'd say you're just a hater.
And I'm not really seeing your desired outcome from this case. Apple buys flash chips and fabbed chips from Samsung, I think a at least half a dozen other companies can provide those chips. There are other companies that make display panels, LG seems to be Apple's preferred supplier right now. I think Samsung's semiconductor unit would hurt more due to extra volatility, whereas Apple's business gives them stability with up-front payment and a guaranteed minimum purchase quantity.
Citation? He looks about the same as he did last year.
Yes, Apple's stock price down explains why Apple is the third largest company in the world, by market capitalization.
Apple did fine when Steve was out getting treatment.
I work in the medical field. Steve is taking immosuppressant drugs to keep his immune system from killing off his new liver. His immune system will becoming weaker and weaker as his body becomes accustomed to the new drugs.
What does market capitalization have to do with Steve's health and his control over Apple?
Apple's stock will take a permanent hit when Steve eventually relegates his duty as CEO and chief innovator to someone else. Stock price is based partially on future performance expectations from the company by investors, demand and supply of number of shares and then tabulated by investment bankers. With Steve having so much control of everything from the product design down to the packing details, it may be a pro when he is in charge, however it could be a detrimental blow to Apple when Steve eventually leaves. Its a double edged sword. He should start delegating responsibilities and decision making to others if he (eventually) intends to pass on the torch to someone else. Better yet, he should have Wozniak take over.
Apple did horrible when Steve was ousted as CEO by the board. When he came back, Apple had a resurgency. Apple did "fine" during his recovery because investors and others knew he was still keeping in contact with the company even while he was in recovery and that he was going to come back to the CEO post after it was over. Remember, he is still getting treatment. In fact, every day he is.
All above bold print are my comments. Big difference in requesting to see a product that has been officially announced versus asking to see an unannounced product. One definitely exists and one may or may not today.
Re-read my post again.
Samsung requested any future iPad and iPhone products to be seen by their legal team. If (again, hypothetically speaking) Apple's legal team claims that they can not provide any future products because none have been announced or that none are in existance ( and later Apple releases the next iPhone or the iPad), they can be tried for perjury in court.
How is my logic flawed?
The motion to request future Samsung products by Apple was filed in the US. Samsung has not announced anything in the US market. Lawsuits have jurisdictions ONLY in the place where they are filed. If it wasnt, companies would'nt file multiple patent applications in different countries for the same technology.
I work in the medical field. Steve is taking immosuppressant drugs to keep his immune system from killing off his new liver. His immune system will becoming weaker and weaker as his body becomes accustomed to the new drugs.
OK, in the previous post, you made it sound worse than it probably is.
Quote:
What does market capitalization have to do with Steve's health and his control over Apple?
You said, and I quote:
Quote:
With Steve's health deteriorating all the time, its reflected in the stock price.
And my response was to say that it was just not true. Apple's stock isn't hurting in anyway I can see, I'd like to see why you believe such. Much of Apple's fluctuations follow the market's fluctuations.
Quote:
Apple's stock will take a permanent hit when Steve eventually relegates his duty as CEO and chief innovator to someone else. Stock price is based partially on future performance expectations from the company by investors, demand and supply of number of shares and then tabulated by investment bankers. With Steve having so much control of everything from the product design down to the packing details, it may be a pro when he is in charge, however it could be a detrimental blow to Apple when Steve eventually leaves. Its a double edged sword. He should start delegating responsibilities and decision making to others if he (eventually) intends to pass on the torch to someone else. Better yet, he should have Wozniak take over.
Speculation. Wozniak hasn't shown the kind of business savvy to do the job. That's not his skill, great engineer, tinkerer, maybe great educator but not anywhere near the business success outside of Apple. But meanwhile, Jobs has a lot of people trained in his process, such that it really doesn't need much input. Keep in mind that a lot of these people have been working around Steve for a decade now, so they should know the "Steve" way very well.
Quote:
Apple did horrible when Steve was ousted as CEO by the board.
Long ago and under very different circumstances, it doesn't really apply anymore. I think he's learned a lot in the three decades since then, and applied that knowledge for the better this time around.
Comments
Announced or not, I don't see that too important. Why should it be easier for secretive company than for one that openly announces new products?
Exactly. This was my point. "Announcing" makes a little difference.
I am actually hoping to see this relationship (Apple-Samsung) to go irreversibly sour.
Given your two (incomplete) options, why in heaven's name do you want this to happen?
That would mean either the price of iPhone/iPad might go up considerably or the quality of iPhone/iPad might go down embarassingly.
Or, you know, Apple could just get the same parts from someone else.
If Apple flatly denies the existence of a iPhone 5 or an iPad 3, and then later release them, they will be accused of perjury.
Using your flawed logic any future iPhone or iPad Apple would mean Apple committed perjury.
Apple sued Samsung for trade dress infringement on CURRENT products but also requesting to see potential trade dress infringement on its future products that have yet to be released in the US market.
The key here is that Apple requested to get copies of products Samsung has already officially "ANNOUNCED".
Samsung counter sued Apple for violating its technology patents in 10 countries for the CURRENT iPhone and iPad products but is also requesting to see potential technology patents in its future products that have yet to be released in the US market.
Samsung is requesting that Apple provide copies of products that are "UNANNOUNCED" which means they may not even exist yet.
Both are same types of suits.
All above bold print are my comments. Big difference in requesting to see a product that has been officially announced versus asking to see an unannounced product. One definitely exists and one may or may not today.
You are tedious yourself. Can you understand that there are two things going on ? One is Apple suing Samsung, in which Apple asks Samsung to show their prototypes and the other suit is where Samsung is the plaintiff and ask Apple to do the same.
Samsung has filed a motion within the existing suit. That doesn't create a new piece of litigation and it doesn't make Samsung the plaintiff. For god's sake.
Looking at the bigger picture it almost seems likely that the iPhone 5 and/or iPhone Nano will be using a Rockchip, Qualcomm or whatever chipset. The screen, at least on the 5 will have to be LG again, this time being the new Nova.
I really do wonder if the court case is all to do with a 100% move away from Samsung.
It's certainly mostly practical reasons why phones have converged in looks ever since the first original Palm.
I am actually hoping to see this relationship (Apple-Samsung) to go irreversibly sour. That would mean either the price of iPhone/iPad might go up considerably or the quality of iPhone/iPad might go down embarassingly. Of course, the latter case would be a quite disaster for Apple. This is what Steve is facing right now. I am just saying what I'm observing.
You've contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. You can't say you're hoping for a bad outcome and then say you're just making observations. I'd say you're just a hater.
And I'm not really seeing your desired outcome from this case. Apple buys flash chips and fabbed chips from Samsung, I think a at least half a dozen other companies can provide those chips. There are other companies that make display panels, LG seems to be Apple's preferred supplier right now. I think Samsung's semiconductor unit would hurt more due to extra volatility, whereas Apple's business gives them stability with up-front payment and a guaranteed minimum purchase quantity.
That Samsung has announced. Apple hasn't announced either. They don't exist.
Wrong. Samsung hasnt announced anything in the US market.
Citation? He looks about the same as he did last year.
Yes, Apple's stock price down explains why Apple is the third largest company in the world, by market capitalization.
Apple did fine when Steve was out getting treatment.
I work in the medical field. Steve is taking immosuppressant drugs to keep his immune system from killing off his new liver. His immune system will becoming weaker and weaker as his body becomes accustomed to the new drugs.
What does market capitalization have to do with Steve's health and his control over Apple?
Apple's stock will take a permanent hit when Steve eventually relegates his duty as CEO and chief innovator to someone else. Stock price is based partially on future performance expectations from the company by investors, demand and supply of number of shares and then tabulated by investment bankers. With Steve having so much control of everything from the product design down to the packing details, it may be a pro when he is in charge, however it could be a detrimental blow to Apple when Steve eventually leaves. Its a double edged sword. He should start delegating responsibilities and decision making to others if he (eventually) intends to pass on the torch to someone else. Better yet, he should have Wozniak take over.
Apple did horrible when Steve was ousted as CEO by the board. When he came back, Apple had a resurgency. Apple did "fine" during his recovery because investors and others knew he was still keeping in contact with the company even while he was in recovery and that he was going to come back to the CEO post after it was over. Remember, he is still getting treatment. In fact, every day he is.
Wrong. Samsung hasnt announced anything in the US market.
Funny, because Apple only asked for announced products, so they're obviously announced.
All above bold print are my comments. Big difference in requesting to see a product that has been officially announced versus asking to see an unannounced product. One definitely exists and one may or may not today.
Re-read my post again.
Samsung requested any future iPad and iPhone products to be seen by their legal team. If (again, hypothetically speaking) Apple's legal team claims that they can not provide any future products because none have been announced or that none are in existance ( and later Apple releases the next iPhone or the iPad), they can be tried for perjury in court.
How is my logic flawed?
The motion to request future Samsung products by Apple was filed in the US. Samsung has not announced anything in the US market. Lawsuits have jurisdictions ONLY in the place where they are filed. If it wasnt, companies would'nt file multiple patent applications in different countries for the same technology.
I work in the medical field. Steve is taking immosuppressant drugs to keep his immune system from killing off his new liver. His immune system will becoming weaker and weaker as his body becomes accustomed to the new drugs.
OK, in the previous post, you made it sound worse than it probably is.
What does market capitalization have to do with Steve's health and his control over Apple?
You said, and I quote:
With Steve's health deteriorating all the time, its reflected in the stock price.
And my response was to say that it was just not true. Apple's stock isn't hurting in anyway I can see, I'd like to see why you believe such. Much of Apple's fluctuations follow the market's fluctuations.
Apple's stock will take a permanent hit when Steve eventually relegates his duty as CEO and chief innovator to someone else. Stock price is based partially on future performance expectations from the company by investors, demand and supply of number of shares and then tabulated by investment bankers. With Steve having so much control of everything from the product design down to the packing details, it may be a pro when he is in charge, however it could be a detrimental blow to Apple when Steve eventually leaves. Its a double edged sword. He should start delegating responsibilities and decision making to others if he (eventually) intends to pass on the torch to someone else. Better yet, he should have Wozniak take over.
Speculation. Wozniak hasn't shown the kind of business savvy to do the job. That's not his skill, great engineer, tinkerer, maybe great educator but not anywhere near the business success outside of Apple. But meanwhile, Jobs has a lot of people trained in his process, such that it really doesn't need much input. Keep in mind that a lot of these people have been working around Steve for a decade now, so they should know the "Steve" way very well.
Apple did horrible when Steve was ousted as CEO by the board.
Long ago and under very different circumstances, it doesn't really apply anymore. I think he's learned a lot in the three decades since then, and applied that knowledge for the better this time around.