Monster general counsel David Tognotti told the Journal that his firm's business would be substantially impacted by the revocation of its Apple license, saying that nearly 25 percent of its products were manufactured under the MFi program]
Okay, but were they purchased because they were MFI?
Or were they purchased and they happened to also be MFI?
Likely some of these were purchased because they were MFI but likely a percentage were not.
Quote:
trigger to more than $12 million in license payments to Apple since 2008.
If they were not purchased because they were MFI, then Monster will save $1.5M per year.
Personally, I don't see the problem. I mean, the MFi program has no value anyways because Apple has been on a steady deathwatch since Android took over like 80% of the worldwide phone market, and Apple Music is dead on arrival because everyone loves their Rdio or Pandora or Spotify or Tidal. Ever since Steve died, Apple is a dead man walking. Time to end this farce and shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders. Monster is better off with Team Android.
And the really sad thing is we’ve read those exact words right here on AI by actual members.
Hey Monster, here is a suggestion for you. Cry foul to the US DOJ and FTC and to the European Commission. Tell them that you sued Beats soon after Apple purchased the company instead of before Apple purchased the company. Then tell them Apple revoked your MFi license in retaliation of that lawsuit. Then tell them Apple is attempting to stifle competition by excluding you from the MFi program because you sued them after they purchased Beats. Monster, you will get your $100M plus a few extra hundred million for emotional distress, loss of revenue, etc. from a company that has ~$720B very thankfully in banks outside the US and you will get Apple slapped for collusion with Beats to prevent you from getting that $100M payout after Apple purchased Beats. No need to worry that any of the agencies will look at your past abrasive behavior against any company using the "Monster" name even if they had used the name before you ever existed. Apple will have 100% focus of their attention. Better yet, express your grievances to the AGs in NY and CT. They are already "preemptively" look for Apple wrong doing in the music with Apple Music. Go for it!! Amazon did it and won. Spotify is now trying to do it. Monster, you should most definitely try it, too. Hell, you even invoked Samsung in your publicity stunt to get people to be on your side (for those who have not read this story on other sites, Samsung was mentioned. AI has a tendency to edit out Samsung references when Apple is on the winning side of lawsuits.)
What a joke... A bully would have forced Monster to drop the suite or loose the MFi! Apple simply evaluated it's partnership with Monster (including the legal action) and said it's not worth it! buh-bye!
Good for Apple, don't be associated with the likes of Monster.
Or a $19 Lightning Cable is better than a $1 one. Oh, wait...
I get it... because Monster was secretly the original designer of such connectors as RCA and HDMI rather than just a company which gold plated existing designs, invented marketing terms such as "oxygen free", and artificially inflated the value. So that's why they're comparable to Apple.
Thanks, but I'll support companies which pay trained hardware designers what they're worth rather than state-sponsored companies who wait for the next tech trend to rip off.
I don't know. I don't like Monster, but while I can understand why "mutually beneficial" doesn't work anymore when A sues B, I do find a bit weird that "Made for iPhone" depends on Apple thinking your product benefits their end goals, not their product itself.
Is it "Made for iPhone"? Yes. They said so earlier. They should not be able to change their mind, else what does it mean? Nothing.
I don't know. I don't like Monster, but while I can understand why "mutually beneficial" doesn't work anymore when A sues B, I do find a bit weird that "Made for iPhone" depends on Apple thinking your product benefits their end goals, not their product itself.
Is it "Made for iPhone"? Yes. They said so earlier. They should not be able to change their mind, else what does it mean? Nothing.
Well it's a liscensing agreement to use the Lightning port. So if Monster can't use the port, it can't be made for iOS devices.
Well it's a liscensing agreement to use the Lightning port. So if Monster can't use the port, it can't be made for iOS devices.
I guess indeed, but that's precisely the kind of things that scare me with Apple.
I'm all for Apple enforcing that licensing agreement, but only in the sake of quality (adhering to the standard). When it crosses the line is when "business practices" get involved in what should only be a technical matter. Trains that follow regulations can ride on the tracks, whether or not the train maker is involved in a legal fight with the track maker.
Actually it is, that is what all companies do for sales, convince people their product is better than someone else's.
I think that's the entire basis behind Apple' MFi program.
A $29 Apple dongle is not necessarily any better than a $10 one, sold by a company who wants to make a quality product so customers continue to buy from them. The $10 one just doesn't pay a substantial license fee to Apple for the privilege of associating their brand with Apple, which is designed to suggest to the customer the product is superior to any other on the market.
Comments
Actually it is, that is what all companies do for sales, convince people their product is better than someone else's.
Monster general counsel David Tognotti told the Journal that his firm's business would be substantially impacted by the revocation of its Apple license, saying that nearly 25 percent of its products were manufactured under the MFi program]
Okay, but were they purchased because they were MFI?
Or were they purchased and they happened to also be MFI?
Likely some of these were purchased because they were MFI but likely a percentage were not.
If they were not purchased because they were MFI, then Monster will save $1.5M per year.
Actually it is, that is what all companies do for sales, convince people their product is better than someone else's.
You can't spell "convince" without "con"
Personally, I don't see the problem. I mean, the MFi program has no value anyways because Apple has been on a steady deathwatch since Android took over like 80% of the worldwide phone market, and Apple Music is dead on arrival because everyone loves their Rdio or Pandora or Spotify or Tidal. Ever since Steve died, Apple is a dead man walking. Time to end this farce and shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders. Monster is better off with Team Android.
And the really sad thing is we’ve read those exact words right here on AI by actual members.
I have always thought of Monster as a tech parasite. A lamprey springs to mind. I hope Apple's actions inflict some damage.
Well, that’s what the iHaters and trolls will say. I’m surprised we haven’t read it yet.
It's pretty late in the UK. They usually post overnight.
Hey Monster, here is a suggestion for you. Cry foul to the US DOJ and FTC and to the European Commission. Tell them that you sued Beats soon after Apple purchased the company instead of before Apple purchased the company. Then tell them Apple revoked your MFi license in retaliation of that lawsuit. Then tell them Apple is attempting to stifle competition by excluding you from the MFi program because you sued them after they purchased Beats. Monster, you will get your $100M plus a few extra hundred million for emotional distress, loss of revenue, etc. from a company that has ~$720B very thankfully in banks outside the US and you will get Apple slapped for collusion with Beats to prevent you from getting that $100M payout after Apple purchased Beats. No need to worry that any of the agencies will look at your past abrasive behavior against any company using the "Monster" name even if they had used the name before you ever existed. Apple will have 100% focus of their attention. Better yet, express your grievances to the AGs in NY and CT. They are already "preemptively" look for Apple wrong doing in the music with Apple Music. Go for it!! Amazon did it and won. Spotify is now trying to do it. Monster, you should most definitely try it, too. Hell, you even invoked Samsung in your publicity stunt to get people to be on your side (for those who have not read this story on other sites, Samsung was mentioned. AI has a tendency to edit out Samsung references when Apple is on the winning side of lawsuits.)
Do I really need to add /s?
Or a $19 Lightning Cable is better than a $1 one. Oh, wait...
Or "vince".
Apple simply evaluated it's partnership with Monster (including the legal action) and said it's not worth it! buh-bye!
Good for Apple, don't be associated with the likes of Monster.
Or a $19 Lightning Cable is better than a $1 one. Oh, wait...
I get it... because Monster was secretly the original designer of such connectors as RCA and HDMI rather than just a company which gold plated existing designs, invented marketing terms such as "oxygen free", and artificially inflated the value. So that's why they're comparable to Apple.
Thanks, but I'll support companies which pay trained hardware designers what they're worth rather than state-sponsored companies who wait for the next tech trend to rip off.
Is it "Made for iPhone"? Yes. They said so earlier. They should not be able to change their mind, else what does it mean? Nothing.
Or a $19 Lightning Cable is better than a $1 one. Oh, wait...
Actually it might be.
I had a 5 EUR cable (2m), and it didn't work every time. I bought Apple's for 29 EUR - everything is fine.
Well it's a liscensing agreement to use the Lightning port. So if Monster can't use the port, it can't be made for iOS devices.
Well it's a liscensing agreement to use the Lightning port. So if Monster can't use the port, it can't be made for iOS devices.
I guess indeed, but that's precisely the kind of things that scare me with Apple.
I'm all for Apple enforcing that licensing agreement, but only in the sake of quality (adhering to the standard). When it crosses the line is when "business practices" get involved in what should only be a technical matter. Trains that follow regulations can ride on the tracks, whether or not the train maker is involved in a legal fight with the track maker.
Actually it might be.
I had a 5 EUR cable (2m), and it didn't work every time. I bought Apple's for 29 EUR - everything is fine.
Note how 19$ seems to be 29 EUR
Actually it might be.
I had a 5 EUR cable (2m), and it didn't work every time. I bought Apple's for 29 EUR - everything is fine.
Note how 19$ seems to be 29 EUR
The 1m (and 0.5m) cables are $19/€19. The 2m cables are $29/€29.
A $29 Apple dongle is not necessarily any better than a $10 one, sold by a company who wants to make a quality product so customers continue to buy from them. The $10 one just doesn't pay a substantial license fee to Apple for the privilege of associating their brand with Apple, which is designed to suggest to the customer the product is superior to any other on the market.