First of all, Melgross... what the heck is so quoteworthy about a needle in a haystack?????
Sorry about that. I just came off AR's. Sometimes going from one site to the other, I forget that this is the only site that doesn't include the ENTIRE post quoted.
It was meant as a furtherence of your response to SpamSandwitch.
Quote:
Anyway, lets not forget that Creative still has the audio card business. They are the only company that I know of who makes high quality audio cards for pcs. Ignoring super high end stuff of course. They make afordable cards for people who need more than integrated audio, but less than a $3000 pro audio card. Live drive is a great thing for people who frequently plug and unplug audio cables from their computer, eg the guy with the midi keyboard who also records from his guitar, mic, and then pumps it all back out to a dat. Nice little home studio. Oh, and 7.1 surround sound. :P
Their audio card business is dying off quickly though.
I thought the lawsuit was over the interface file browser? If it was, what is the difference between Next's column view and the iPods view?
Maybe all of Apple's good lawyers are working on the stock issue?
- Mark
This has been gone over many times here. The patent is for a portable music player interface. Apparently, that, and other differences are enough to give them a patent.
So, Dell's out of the MP3 business, Creative looks like it's on the way out (really, iPod accessories and Zens? I just don't see it).
Who's next? Is Zune going to be that last little push for Sony and Samsung to exit the player only market and concentrate on music phones? I think Samsung might be next-- Sony is too invested in the Walkman legacy to every really give up, no matter how tiny their market share.
So do we end up with Apple, MS and SanDisk as the only A list manufacturers of stand alone MP3 players left (with any appreciable market share)? SanDisk keeps on because they're smart about incentives for their retail partners and their flash business lets them control costs. MS keeps on, no matter what the reception for Zune, because MS can throw money at a market till the sun implodes.
It sounds like Apple kindly reminded them that Creative is screwed in the mp3 player market, but because they own a very important patent that Apple wanted to make nice on, Apple was willing to pay $100 mil. Apple probably also helped Creative understand that by allowing them into the third party accessory market, Creative could actually end up making some money now. It's the patent licensing profit sharing that confuses me....
It sounds like Apple kindly reminded them that Creative is screwed in the mp3 player market, but because they own a very important patent that Apple wanted to make nice on, Apple was willing to pay $100 mil. Apple probably also helped Creative understand that by allowing them into the third party accessory market, Creative could actually end up making some money now. It's the patent licensing profit sharing that confuses me....
This has been gone over many times here. The patent is for a portable music player interface. Apparently, that, and other differences are enough to give them a patent.
Wow. So, they copied (or accidently developed) the column view, put it on their player and they win. Doesn't seem right to me.
Very weird. I figured the counter suits would have stopped everything.
Apple still stood to lose a lot more than Creative. And between the two of them (with the old NeXT browser and all) it's hard to argue the interface isn't theirs. And it sounded like the deal involved some possible future revenue for Apple if Creative licenses the patents to others.
All in all, probably the best settlement possible for both Apple (remove the uncertainty) and Creative (influx of cash) shareholders.
This is actually a very good deal for Apple. They look to have come out the winner here.
Think of this. The costs of a prolonged lawsuit could hace been tens of millions of dollars. Apple had no way to know if they would have won. If they lost, it would have cost far more.
But now, they get out quickly. They get the rights without question. They legitimise the patent for Creative. They also get some of the money back if Creative can get license fees from others, such as Sandisk, Sony, Samsung, — and MS from Zune.
Who knows what that will do to the botton line of other manufacturers? Enough to heave them out of business? Low sales mean low profits, or losses. Maybe now, just a bit too much.
Also, Creative will be making "Made For iPod" accessories. Will they be paying Apple the fees for that? Interesting question.
But even more interesting is the fact that stores will be selling Creative players, Ipods, AND iPod accessories by Creative.
What will a buyer think, seeing all of those products? What will they think about creative making iPod accessories, when they are competing with their own players? Creative has never made many accessories for their own players. Will they do so now? Can they make the same accessories for both? Will the license allow that? Do the Creative players have a sophisticated enough socket to allow some of them to work?
All interesting questions.
Apple may have forseen this. I think that Creative has screwed themselves into the ground. They may be reduced to just another iPod accessory maker.
But... as part of this deal, does Creative get iTunes compatibility for their players?
Additionally, this is a one time licensing deal. Very smart, Jobs. Creative gets their quick cash infusion, then continues to bleed money into irrelevance in the near future.
When you really think about it, this was the most reasonable settlement the attorneys could come up with, considering what is at stake. Justice is all about what is the most economical solution as opposed to that quaint notion of right and wrong.
Apple makes nice with the patent holders and this just might delay the arrival of Zune, forcing MS to rework key user interface parts of their inevitable MP3 player.
Oh, what am I thinking? This is MicroSoft, delay is a given.
When you really think about it, this was the most reasonable settlement the attorneys could come up with, considering what is at stake. Justice is all about what is the most economical solution as opposed to that quaint notion of right and wrong.
Attorneys do what you want them to do. I think this deal has Jobs' fingerprints all over it.
Comments
First of all, Melgross... what the heck is so quoteworthy about a needle in a haystack?????
Sorry about that. I just came off AR's. Sometimes going from one site to the other, I forget that this is the only site that doesn't include the ENTIRE post quoted.
It was meant as a furtherence of your response to SpamSandwitch.
Anyway, lets not forget that Creative still has the audio card business. They are the only company that I know of who makes high quality audio cards for pcs. Ignoring super high end stuff of course. They make afordable cards for people who need more than integrated audio, but less than a $3000 pro audio card. Live drive is a great thing for people who frequently plug and unplug audio cables from their computer, eg the guy with the midi keyboard who also records from his guitar, mic, and then pumps it all back out to a dat. Nice little home studio. Oh, and 7.1 surround sound. :P
Their audio card business is dying off quickly though.
Um, M-Audio?
Dude, thanks for pointing them out. Never heard of them before. They got some good stuff.
It was meant as a furtherence of your response to SpamSandwitch.
Damn. You had me feelin like I was special or somethin there for a minut.
I thought the lawsuit was over the interface file browser? If it was, what is the difference between Next's column view and the iPods view?
Maybe all of Apple's good lawyers are working on the stock issue?
- Mark
This has been gone over many times here. The patent is for a portable music player interface. Apparently, that, and other differences are enough to give them a patent.
Damn. You had me feelin like I was special or somethin there for a minut.
You are. I was supporting you.
You are. I was supporting you.
Aw, shucks!
/blush
Who's next? Is Zune going to be that last little push for Sony and Samsung to exit the player only market and concentrate on music phones? I think Samsung might be next-- Sony is too invested in the Walkman legacy to every really give up, no matter how tiny their market share.
So do we end up with Apple, MS and SanDisk as the only A list manufacturers of stand alone MP3 players left (with any appreciable market share)? SanDisk keeps on because they're smart about incentives for their retail partners and their flash business lets them control costs. MS keeps on, no matter what the reception for Zune, because MS can throw money at a market till the sun implodes.
Am I missing anyone?
Sony is too invested in the Walkman legacy to every really give up, no matter how tiny their market share.
<nod> that sounds about right.
It sounds like Apple kindly reminded them that Creative is screwed in the mp3 player market, but because they own a very important patent that Apple wanted to make nice on, Apple was willing to pay $100 mil. Apple probably also helped Creative understand that by allowing them into the third party accessory market, Creative could actually end up making some money now. It's the patent licensing profit sharing that confuses me....
Steve pulled a Bill.
This has been gone over many times here. The patent is for a portable music player interface. Apparently, that, and other differences are enough to give them a patent.
Wow. So, they copied (or accidently developed) the column view, put it on their player and they win. Doesn't seem right to me.
- Mark
But them, I guess they do have a revenue stream from it now as their craptacular MP3 products did not do it.
If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.
Very weird. I figured the counter suits would have stopped everything.
Apple still stood to lose a lot more than Creative. And between the two of them (with the old NeXT browser and all) it's hard to argue the interface isn't theirs. And it sounded like the deal involved some possible future revenue for Apple if Creative licenses the patents to others.
All in all, probably the best settlement possible for both Apple (remove the uncertainty) and Creative (influx of cash) shareholders.
Originally Posted by melgross
This is actually a very good deal for Apple. They look to have come out the winner here.
Think of this. The costs of a prolonged lawsuit could hace been tens of millions of dollars. Apple had no way to know if they would have won. If they lost, it would have cost far more.
But now, they get out quickly. They get the rights without question. They legitimise the patent for Creative. They also get some of the money back if Creative can get license fees from others, such as Sandisk, Sony, Samsung, — and MS from Zune.
Who knows what that will do to the botton line of other manufacturers? Enough to heave them out of business? Low sales mean low profits, or losses. Maybe now, just a bit too much.
Also, Creative will be making "Made For iPod" accessories. Will they be paying Apple the fees for that? Interesting question.
But even more interesting is the fact that stores will be selling Creative players, Ipods, AND iPod accessories by Creative.
What will a buyer think, seeing all of those products? What will they think about creative making iPod accessories, when they are competing with their own players? Creative has never made many accessories for their own players. Will they do so now? Can they make the same accessories for both? Will the license allow that? Do the Creative players have a sophisticated enough socket to allow some of them to work?
All interesting questions.
Apple may have forseen this. I think that Creative has screwed themselves into the ground. They may be reduced to just another iPod accessory maker.
But... as part of this deal, does Creative get iTunes compatibility for their players?
Additionally, this is a one time licensing deal. Very smart, Jobs. Creative gets their quick cash infusion, then continues to bleed money into irrelevance in the near future.
Apple makes nice with the patent holders and this just might delay the arrival of Zune, forcing MS to rework key user interface parts of their inevitable MP3 player.
Oh, what am I thinking? This is MicroSoft, delay is a given.
When you really think about it, this was the most reasonable settlement the attorneys could come up with, considering what is at stake. Justice is all about what is the most economical solution as opposed to that quaint notion of right and wrong.
Attorneys do what you want them to do. I think this deal has Jobs' fingerprints all over it.
Attorneys do what you want them to do. I think this deal has Jobs' fingerprints all over it.
Seconded.
<Grabs a Basketball pump, jabs the needle into SpamSandwich's waffle, and starts pumping like a mad man!! SpamSandwich now has an inflated eggo.>
Seconded.
<Grabs a Basketball pump, jabs the needle into SpamSandwich's waffle, and starts pumping like a mad man!! SpamSandwich now has an inflated eggo.>
Now, that's sticking it to the Spam!
Now, that's sticking it to the Spam!
/me does the wheedling needler dance!
Justice is all about what is the most economical solution as opposed to that quaint notion of right and wrong.
Yes that's why here in the UK we allow dangerous criminals out after six weeks jail time.