When they are not being sued by Bosch, Dyson, Whirlpool for stealing their IP / Designs too...
Hmm.. isn't Apple the most named defendant in IP lawsuits -- over 90 patent lawsuits over the past few years alone according to an old AI article? You forgot to mention Ericsson. Oh, and nVidia is not too far behind and will drop a bomb on Apple once they settle with Samsung.
Being a defendant in IP lawsuits is simply the cost of success. The vast majority of those suits are patent trolls hoping to get an easy payday - or better yet, a quick settlement out of court. A fraction of the rest are situations where the IP was standards essential and the IP owner wanted more than what was fair. In both cases, people are trying to milk the biggest teat on the block.
In other words, the number of lawsuits you are the defendant on is more a measure of your pocket depth than a measure of your guilt.
Err, if something is over-priced, then you don't get what you've paid for.
Something can still be expensive (as in costly) but still be value for money.
Good response to the other poster's poor choice of words. But a better answer to the claim that iPhones are "overpriced" (which the other poster didn't give, but should have) is this: the definition of what an item is "worth" has nothing to do with how much it costs to make. Nor does it have anything to do with the price relative to that of a competitor. Rather, the definition of what a product is "worth" is whatever price a customer is willing to pay. Looking at the results of iPhone sales recently - Apple is selling every unit they can make - I would say we have our answer: the iPhone is, by definition, worth at least the price that it is given now. The worth may even be higher, as we have seen the kinds of prices folks have been willing to pay in places where iPhones have been unavailable. We simply don't know what the upper limit is on worth here.
Again, by definition, the iPhone is not overpriced.
Hmmm, I bought my GF the Note 4 for her birthday, upgrading from the GS-5. Here in the States the connection is Sammies proprietary pecker, works a lot better than the mini USB POS you "foreigners" are saddled with.
Anyway, even though I have the iP6 and am heavily invested in Apple, I find the Note 4 to be a nice device, solidly built, well mannered, and with a lovely display. I turned off all the Touchwiz crap right away of course, and locked down what the apps are allowed to do. Way more choices on Android to customize your device. I spend way more time fiddling around on Danuta's phone than on mine because with those choices comes a lot of complexity. It's for sure not as easy to use as mine.
Overall she loves it. It lives in her purse (oh sorry, handbag) so size isn't an issue. And she doesn't worry about the complexity, just hands it to me and says "I want it to do XXX, fix it please" and of course I always say "Yes Dear, Love you too"
Good response to the other poster's poor choice of words. But a better answer to the claim that iPhones are "overpriced" (which the other poster didn't give, but should have) is this: the definition of what an item is "worth" has nothing to do with how much it costs to make. Nor does it have anything to do with the price relative to that of a competitor. Rather, the definition of what a product is "worth" is whatever price a customer is willing to pay. Looking at the results of iPhone sales recently - Apple is selling every unit they can make - I would say we have our answer: the iPhone is, by definition, worth at least the price that it is given now. The worth may even be higher, as we have seen the kinds of prices folks have been willing to pay in places where iPhones have been unavailable. We simply don't know what the upper limit is on worth here.
Again, by definition, the iPhone is not overpriced.
Thompson
Value is not price. However I agree with your analysis in general.
It's really misleading and inaccurate to use the term "thermonuclear assault" to describe Apple's competitive position against Samsung. That is such a loaded term, especially since it's how Steve Jobs characterized his revenge strategy against Android. Obviously you're trying to conjure that up, and apply it to the current situation with Samsung, as if it proves that Steve Jobs finally won his thermonuclear war... or something... but that's such a stretch, and it really makes you look ridiculous.
Apple isn't doing anything to specifically attack Samsung, beyond just making really good phones that people want to buy. That isn't an attack on Samsung, it's Apple's way of doing business against the entire mobile industry. Samsung was the biggest player, so they have suffered the most, but their problems have as much to do with themselves as they do with Apple. They've been making crappy phones for a long time, and people got tired of buying them. It's not just Apple that has benefitted from Samsung's demise. LG, for example, is also surging, albeit at a smaller scale.
In your mind you want this to be some vendetta strike against Samsung, to avenge Steve Jobs... but it just isn't. You're so invested in Apple scoring points that you've fabricated this silly "thermonuclear attack" fantasy in your head. It's laughable.
This article could have been so much more effective if you had just stuck with the facts, which are compelling, and left the petulant nonsense out.
What do you mean by "misleading and inaccurate"? That the opinion expressed in the article is not yours?
Is your opinion automatically right? Is everyone else ridiculous? If so, explain why. What's wrong with expressing how the company Steve Jobs built is commercially destroying the supplier who knifed it in the back by building better products that Samsung can't copy, using the terminology Jobs used to describe how he would destroy Android, given that the techniques Apple is using to destroy Samsung closely follow the strategies Jobs sought to teach every manager at Apple?
Why don't you express and articulate your opinion, rather than just reviewing that the opinion expressed is "silly" "laughable" and "nonsense" all without offering anything other than your anonymous identity as an expert in "things that are bad"?
I explained exactly why I thought his statements are misleading and inaccurate. In fact, there are two paragraphs of explanation of my point of view. I'm not sure how you could have missed it. You're free to disagree with me, just like I'm free to disagree with the writer, but I don't see how you can say I didn't "articulate my opinion." I articulated it very clearly. Maybe you just can't understand it? Sorry...
apple don't need to bully they have demand and innovation on there side..
Exactly. And that was the point of my earlier comment. It's just silly and wrong to call this a "thermonuclear attack," as if the point of it was to destroy Samsung. It wasn't Apple's point is to make great products that people love. To characterize this as a revenge strike against Samsung makes Apple look like petty bullies, and it simply isn't accurate.
I've always said that Apple's IP litigation strategy, far from being ill-advised and fruitless, was strategically aimed at an ultimate outcome which is now manifesting itself slowly.
Precedents set by successive judgements that were achieved by Apple's cataloguing the clear evidence of progressive copying of its look, feel and design philosophy will, going forward, act as "Legal Trenches" behind which Apple can protect its future iterations of design and innovation without having to look over its shoulder all the time at the parasitic "fast follower" vendors who have succeeded massively at Apple's expense in earlier iterations.
Favourable judgements have been hard to come by for Apple and have resulted in some apparent disappointment, but the Law Courts now have a sizeable body of prior decisions and precedents to inform future tech judgements with. This is already having a clear effect on those vendors, who now are compelled to establish their own differentiating features, while Apple is now racing ahead to put clear daylight between itself and them by stacking innovation upon innovation with unanswerable regularity: for example, high-performance 64-bit CPU tech introduced next-generation encryption, which in turn enabled TouchID technology that has recently empowered the successful rollout of ApplePay.
Whatever next for Apple in this current full-steam-ahead mode?
I've always said that Apple's IP litigation strategy, far from being ill-advised and fruitless, was strategically aimed at an ultimate outcome which is now manifesting itself slowly.
Precedents set by successive judgements that were achieved by Apple's cataloguing the clear evidence of progressive copying of its look, feel and design philosophy will, going forward, act as "Legal Trenches" behind which Apple can protect its future iterations of design and innovation without having to look over its shoulder all the time at the parasitic "fast follower" vendors who have succeeded massively at Apple's expense in earlier iterations.
Favourable judgements have been hard to come by for Apple and have resulted in some apparent disappointment, but the Law Courts now have a sizeable body of prior decisions and precedents to inform future tech judgements with. This is already having a clear effect on those vendors, who now are compelled to establish their own differentiating features, while Apple is now racing ahead to put clear daylight between itself and them by stacking innovation upon innovation with unanswerable regularity: for example, high-performance 64-bit CPU tech introduced next-generation encryption, which in turn enabled TouchID technology that has recently empowered the successful rollout of ApplePay.
Whatever next for Apple in this current full-steam-ahead mode?
I think your analysis of their litigation strategy is spot on. For as long as Apple are in full-steam mode there will be no catching them.
Awesome! I've always been a proponant of Apple conducting thermonuclear war against Android. This is what Steve Jobs wanted.
Android manufacturers are certainly feeling the hurt nowadays! Now it's time to go biological and chemical also! Wipe them out! Don't spare anything! I want to see them hurting even more.
It's hilarious how Fandroids always talk about the billion+ activations, but who really gives a crap? Most Android manufacturers aren't making much money. They can have their billion+ activations. It's worthless.
Maybe Samsung can make some more commercials insulting Apple users. That ought to do the trick.
My sentiments, too!
It's good to see Mr. Dilger lashing Samsung's back mercilessly. At some point, the time may come to forgive their theft; that time has not yet arrived. They haven't even paid their $1 billion to Apple, not that Apple need the money, heh.
Thermonuclear, indeed. Cook may not have outwardly expressed the same fervour as Jobs with regards to obliterating Google and Samsung, but his deeds have been highly effective.
Keep rubbing their noses in it, Mr. Dilger. If I had a nickel for every time an iHater fAndroid called me (us) stupid for our loyalty to Apple I’d be a rich man. They need this tattooed on their foreheads, hung around their necks, and stuffed down their throats. Any of the myriad of trolls who slither and lurk around AppleInsider need to be called out and pilloried for their bullshit.
What a great read. I was literally eating popcorn (and drinking a good port) while reading it.
I can't wait for the next DED article parsing google's failing numbers (and trying to make sense of wall street's bizarre blindness to google's falling star).
NB: I try not to put too much stock into, um, stock, but the market cap numbers today are very interesting: Apple's market cap (692.8) is twice that of google's (346.4). How do you like them AAPLs, schmidt?
Edit: Has Lord Amhran actually gone 44+ posts without some sort of passive aggressive or derisive statement about the article!?
I have an idea that Steve will be looking down, smiling, in the knowledge that an organisation with a defined purpose (beyond making money), a clear vision, and that treads its own path will almost always win out against those that don't.
Comments
When they are not being sued by Bosch, Dyson, Whirlpool for stealing their IP / Designs too...
Hmm.. isn't Apple the most named defendant in IP lawsuits -- over 90 patent lawsuits over the past few years alone according to an old AI article? You forgot to mention Ericsson. Oh, and nVidia is not too far behind and will drop a bomb on Apple once they settle with Samsung.
Being a defendant in IP lawsuits is simply the cost of success. The vast majority of those suits are patent trolls hoping to get an easy payday - or better yet, a quick settlement out of court. A fraction of the rest are situations where the IP was standards essential and the IP owner wanted more than what was fair. In both cases, people are trying to milk the biggest teat on the block.
In other words, the number of lawsuits you are the defendant on is more a measure of your pocket depth than a measure of your guilt.
Thompson
Err, if something is over-priced, then you don't get what you've paid for.
Something can still be expensive (as in costly) but still be value for money.
Good response to the other poster's poor choice of words. But a better answer to the claim that iPhones are "overpriced" (which the other poster didn't give, but should have) is this: the definition of what an item is "worth" has nothing to do with how much it costs to make. Nor does it have anything to do with the price relative to that of a competitor. Rather, the definition of what a product is "worth" is whatever price a customer is willing to pay. Looking at the results of iPhone sales recently - Apple is selling every unit they can make - I would say we have our answer: the iPhone is, by definition, worth at least the price that it is given now. The worth may even be higher, as we have seen the kinds of prices folks have been willing to pay in places where iPhones have been unavailable. We simply don't know what the upper limit is on worth here.
Again, by definition, the iPhone is not overpriced.
Thompson
Hmmm, I bought my GF the Note 4 for her birthday, upgrading from the GS-5. Here in the States the connection is Sammies proprietary pecker, works a lot better than the mini USB POS you "foreigners" are saddled with.
Anyway, even though I have the iP6 and am heavily invested in Apple, I find the Note 4 to be a nice device, solidly built, well mannered, and with a lovely display. I turned off all the Touchwiz crap right away of course, and locked down what the apps are allowed to do. Way more choices on Android to customize your device. I spend way more time fiddling around on Danuta's phone than on mine because with those choices comes a lot of complexity. It's for sure not as easy to use as mine.
Overall she loves it. It lives in her purse (oh sorry, handbag) so size isn't an issue. And she doesn't worry about the complexity, just hands it to me and says "I want it to do XXX, fix it please" and of course I always say "Yes Dear, Love you too"
Value is not price. However I agree with your analysis in general.
It's really misleading and inaccurate to use the term "thermonuclear assault" to describe Apple's competitive position against Samsung. That is such a loaded term, especially since it's how Steve Jobs characterized his revenge strategy against Android. Obviously you're trying to conjure that up, and apply it to the current situation with Samsung, as if it proves that Steve Jobs finally won his thermonuclear war... or something... but that's such a stretch, and it really makes you look ridiculous.
Apple isn't doing anything to specifically attack Samsung, beyond just making really good phones that people want to buy. That isn't an attack on Samsung, it's Apple's way of doing business against the entire mobile industry. Samsung was the biggest player, so they have suffered the most, but their problems have as much to do with themselves as they do with Apple. They've been making crappy phones for a long time, and people got tired of buying them. It's not just Apple that has benefitted from Samsung's demise. LG, for example, is also surging, albeit at a smaller scale.
In your mind you want this to be some vendetta strike against Samsung, to avenge Steve Jobs... but it just isn't. You're so invested in Apple scoring points that you've fabricated this silly "thermonuclear attack" fantasy in your head. It's laughable.
This article could have been so much more effective if you had just stuck with the facts, which are compelling, and left the petulant nonsense out.
What do you mean by "misleading and inaccurate"? That the opinion expressed in the article is not yours?
Is your opinion automatically right? Is everyone else ridiculous? If so, explain why. What's wrong with expressing how the company Steve Jobs built is commercially destroying the supplier who knifed it in the back by building better products that Samsung can't copy, using the terminology Jobs used to describe how he would destroy Android, given that the techniques Apple is using to destroy Samsung closely follow the strategies Jobs sought to teach every manager at Apple?
Why don't you express and articulate your opinion, rather than just reviewing that the opinion expressed is "silly" "laughable" and "nonsense" all without offering anything other than your anonymous identity as an expert in "things that are bad"?
I explained exactly why I thought his statements are misleading and inaccurate. In fact, there are two paragraphs of explanation of my point of view. I'm not sure how you could have missed it. You're free to disagree with me, just like I'm free to disagree with the writer, but I don't see how you can say I didn't "articulate my opinion." I articulated it very clearly. Maybe you just can't understand it? Sorry...
apple don't need to bully they have demand and innovation on there side..
Exactly. And that was the point of my earlier comment. It's just silly and wrong to call this a "thermonuclear attack," as if the point of it was to destroy Samsung. It wasn't Apple's point is to make great products that people love. To characterize this as a revenge strike against Samsung makes Apple look like petty bullies, and it simply isn't accurate.
Precedents set by successive judgements that were achieved by Apple's cataloguing the clear evidence of progressive copying of its look, feel and design philosophy will, going forward, act as "Legal Trenches" behind which Apple can protect its future iterations of design and innovation without having to look over its shoulder all the time at the parasitic "fast follower" vendors who have succeeded massively at Apple's expense in earlier iterations.
Favourable judgements have been hard to come by for Apple and have resulted in some apparent disappointment, but the Law Courts now have a sizeable body of prior decisions and precedents to inform future tech judgements with. This is already having a clear effect on those vendors, who now are compelled to establish their own differentiating features, while Apple is now racing ahead to put clear daylight between itself and them by stacking innovation upon innovation with unanswerable regularity: for example, high-performance 64-bit CPU tech introduced next-generation encryption, which in turn enabled TouchID technology that has recently empowered the successful rollout of ApplePay.
Whatever next for Apple in this current full-steam-ahead mode?
I've always said that Apple's IP litigation strategy, far from being ill-advised and fruitless, was strategically aimed at an ultimate outcome which is now manifesting itself slowly.
Precedents set by successive judgements that were achieved by Apple's cataloguing the clear evidence of progressive copying of its look, feel and design philosophy will, going forward, act as "Legal Trenches" behind which Apple can protect its future iterations of design and innovation without having to look over its shoulder all the time at the parasitic "fast follower" vendors who have succeeded massively at Apple's expense in earlier iterations.
Favourable judgements have been hard to come by for Apple and have resulted in some apparent disappointment, but the Law Courts now have a sizeable body of prior decisions and precedents to inform future tech judgements with. This is already having a clear effect on those vendors, who now are compelled to establish their own differentiating features, while Apple is now racing ahead to put clear daylight between itself and them by stacking innovation upon innovation with unanswerable regularity: for example, high-performance 64-bit CPU tech introduced next-generation encryption, which in turn enabled TouchID technology that has recently empowered the successful rollout of ApplePay.
Whatever next for Apple in this current full-steam-ahead mode?
I think your analysis of their litigation strategy is spot on. For as long as Apple are in full-steam mode there will be no catching them.
My sentiments, too!
It's good to see Mr. Dilger lashing Samsung's back mercilessly. At some point, the time may come to forgive their theft; that time has not yet arrived. They haven't even paid their $1 billion to Apple, not that Apple need the money, heh.
Thermonuclear, indeed. Cook may not have outwardly expressed the same fervour as Jobs with regards to obliterating Google and Samsung, but his deeds have been highly effective.
Softly, softly but deadly.
Said with aplomb!
GTR, thy name is pithy.
You are the yin to Daniel's yang.
I love popcorn. I love port.
Popcorn and port?
Plllth.
??