[psionic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by far2cool

yes, but It's greedy for apple to expect to have no competition, saying that he wants to "Destroy android" is a bit far

The head of tesco isn't going to say "I will destroy asda"
They should have just realised that they have strong competition, like any business

It's been mentioned a few times already, but he might if he considered the head of Asda to be his friend and retained his position is on the board of Tesco and then both companies launch a new range with similarities. Schmidt finally gave up his position on Apple's board 18 months later.

Both companies were going to do what they did regardless of course, but this strange relationship between them does kind of put the comment into context.

[swordman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionic

It's been mentioned a few times already, but he might if he considered the head of Asda to be his friend and retained his position is on the board of Tesco and then both companies launch a new range with similarities. Schmidt finally gave up his position on Apple's board 18 months later.

Both companies were going to do what they did regardless of course, but this strange relationship between them does kind of put the comment into context.

Why does it, you're assuming something untoward happened there is no reason to think that. Jobs might have thought it but that dont make it so. In any event certainly not a reasoned balanced response to a market competitor is it?

[IvanIV]

He liked a bit of a theatre, didn't he, magic everywhere, destroy, thermonuclear.

[psionic]

And it's this one liner that's probably sparking most interest and boosting sales of the book. Kerching (even posthumously)!

[psionic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Why does it, you're assuming something untoward happened there is no reason to think that. Jobs might have thought it but that dont make it so. In any event certainly not a reasoned balanced response to a market competitor is it?

The fact that a competitor is on your board is hardly common practice - at least not while they still are actively the CEO of that competitor. Schmidt remained on Apple's board until August 2009. It had to end as the conflicts of interests had become untenable. Officially however, it ended amicably. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009...Directors.html

They even still kept in touch occasionally. http://gizmodo.com/5503004/steve-job...r-again-photos

Jobs dropped this clanger to his biographer. Who kept it to himself until the time was right to promote the book.

Quote:

One thing that mustn't be overlooked is that Jobs didn't make the same kind of public statements about Google while he was alive. He offered them to Isaacson knowing he didn't have long to live. With Isaacson, Jobs also criticized others, including Bill Gates. Some of the passages from the book suggest Jobs could be an angry, maybe even spiteful, man.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...all-bio-shows/

[BinaryDad]

Samsung overtake Apple in Smartphone sales

I think this is one of the things that probably Jobs saw coming, much like the PC dominance over Mac in the 80's. It wasn't just that PC's ousted the Macintosh; it was being outsold by single brands of PC's and Jobs didn't want a repeat of that as its partially what brought Apple to the edge of folding.

It might explain the particularly aggressive campaign against Samsung;


Apple isn't just a minor player compared to RIM and Android; it's becoming a minor player to a single Android handset manufacturer. In a way, this is nothing new. Apple has ALWAYS been a minor player in the Smartphone market, but it must rub a bit raw to make those first steps, only to watch a new competitor rise to the top so fast.

I'll bet the Apple shareholders must be wondering why they can't reach the same sort of market dominance.

[Everything Goes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BinaryDad

Samsung overtake Apple in Smartphone sales

I think this is one of the things that probably Jobs saw coming, much like the PC dominance over Mac in the 80's. It wasn't just that PC's ousted the Macintosh; it was being outsold by single brands of PC's and Jobs didn't want a repeat of that as its partially what brought Apple to the edge of folding.

It might explain the particularly aggressive campaign against Samsung;


Apple isn't just a minor player compared to RIM and Android; it's becoming a minor player to a single Android handset manufacturer. In a way, this is nothing new. Apple has ALWAYS been a minor player in the Smartphone market, but it must rub a bit raw to make those first steps, only to watch a new competitor rise to the top so fast.

I'll bet the Apple shareholders must be wondering why they can't reach the same sort of market dominance.

Apple's growth was hindered by customers waiting for the launch of the new iPhone 4S.

Apple's number four slot in total handset sales was taken by China's ZTE.

Samsung
27.8 Shipments (millions)
23.8% Market share

Apple
17.1 Shipments (millions)
14.6% Market share

Nokia
16.8 Shipments (millions)
14.4% Market share

Others
55.3 Shipments (millions)
47.3% Market share


Android must be exterminated! Bring in the Daleks

[david.boobis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BinaryDad

I'll bet the Apple shareholders must be wondering why they can't reach the same sort of market dominance.

I don't think Apple shareholders care as long as their stock price remains ridiculously inflated. Thanks to the insane margins Apple achieves, they can afford to sell 10% of the amount a competitor does and still get more profit from it.

[BinaryDad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by david.boobis

I don't think Apple shareholders care as long as their stock price remains ridiculously inflated. Thanks to the insane margins Apple achieves, they can afford to sell 10% of the amount a competitor does and still get more profit from it.

This is a good point, but the problem is that Apple may end up dealing with a shrinking market share.

How can you make the same profit as last year, if your market is getting smaller and smaller? If you raise prices, you make your product less affordable. If you cut costs, you might not be able to afford all of the newsest tech to entice people to buy your new version of the phone.

And even if you do somehow manage to make a profit, if you're not making significantly more profit than last year, your share price will drop and then share holders will be very unhappy.

All Apple have got going for it right now to reduce costs, is that it has at least some vertical integration in terms of iOS. The problem is, and I know this because I work as a programmer, software has the highest long term cost when it comes to development.

Samsung and others, don't have this issue. In fact if we look at Samsung, we can see that it actually has almost full vertical integration which helps it stay ahead of the technology curve while keeping costs down.

Samsung has its own semicondudctor fab. It makes its own displays. It doesn't have to worry about most of the costs of developing software.

Apple would be better off in investing in semiconductor fabrication in order to keep its costs down, instead investing in legal actions. The Apple wouldn't have to pay Samsung, to manufacture the SOC's used in iOS devices

[ACU]

Its hypocritical of Jobs saying he will destroy Android because it stole from him. When he says that apple have stolen ideas from others. Here is a video of him saying he shamelessly stole ideas from others.

[alanwarwic]

Methinks I'd be infuriated if the options of selling a phone at any price I liked were suddenly eroded.

It is still selling well and there is still no budget phone released.

[jonmorris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by david.boobis

I don't think Apple shareholders care as long as their stock price remains ridiculously inflated. Thanks to the insane margins Apple achieves, they can afford to sell 10% of the amount a competitor does and still get more profit from it.

Yes, that is the plain honest truth that a lot of people don't realise.

Yes, Apple could open up and cut its prices - or even license out the OSes to other manufacturers...but why? To end up with tiny margins?

Or keep things premium and enjoy absolutely crazy margins, especially when most people trade up from the entry level models - and whether you're adding 64GB on to your MacBook Air, or 16GB on your iPhone - Apple sure has hell isn't paying what you're adding ot the price.

Next year you'll see smartphones with microSDXC support, with sizes from 64GB to 2TB. Apple would much rather see you paying extra to add 2TB at the point of sale!

You can't fault them for doing that, or even say they're sneaky or evil, as every rival would kill to be in their position.

So Apple loses some market share and profits fall.. they're hardly going to be struggling anytime soon. If they can successfully launch a range of televisions, I am sure they can and will be able to bring up the margins there - and no doubt save some of the ailing high street electrical retailers.

Like them or not, we all need Apple for various different reasons. I am just conscious of the fact that they haven't got their leader to lead the people, and the spell might have been broken.

[fijifire]

ive had both droid and ios phones. personally i dont think it matters that much.. what do most of us do on our phones, talk text and surf the web. nowadays almost all smartphones can do that.
SUre some of us spend a lot of our time playing certain games or apps but they are starting to come out on both systems.. so in the end does it matter THAT much?

[alanwarwic]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...pique-for-show

A google CEO interview with stuff on the rivalry,

[Steve™]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984

Very telling insight into the world of apple and those who dare challenge them, demonstrates how worried they are.

I think its pretty normal for companies to want to protect their IP.

[call100]

This sort of thing has been going on ever, since the second company ever formed. The first didn't like it etc etc etc.
The only difference today is that it's all done in the public eye. As usual it's always the customers that lose out. I dislike all large corporations, It is impossible, IMO, that you could have billions of dollars in the bank and not be corrupt in some way.
As far as Jobs is concerned, I think he fell for the hype built up around him. I fail to see why he is so revered in some circles.....
I don't dislike IOS or apple products, however I do dislike the company more than I dislike the opposition. If Apple were a person, I doubt they would have any friends!!

[lala]

Quote:

Originally Posted by floopy123

I guess Jobs should have spent the 40 billion finding a cure for his cancer! Karma, ain't it a bitch, Steve!

Wow, that's a bit below the belt isn't it? He might have been deluded, but he was a human being. Christ Almighty

[BrianWescombe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firmy1

Apple user? Android users? Why don't you all just call yourselves mobile users and stop being pillocks?

Hear, hear. I have a Samsung Galaxy S2 myself, but I have friends who prefer iPhones, that's their choice. Each has a place in the market.

Samsung/Google are increasing sales at the expense of Apple though, Android now accounting for 50% of the US smartphone market (I didn't make this up, I read it on a tech site). Apple seem to want to sue/destroy anyone who is a threat to their (possibly) dwindling market position, when they should look at WHY Android is becoming more popular, and then trying to improve on it.

[BrianWescombe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

I'm in no way defending Samsung. Imo they are the WORST Android OEM by far, and they are actually damaging the OS's reputation.

Just look at this...

So a voice recorder app showing a microphone? ooh why didn't I take out a patent on that!

It's stupid really, what other suitable image could be used to avoid claims of 'copying' ? IT'S A VOICE RECORDER APP!

[alanwarwic]

From the above "So for us, the general trend of the industry toward being a lot more litigious somehow has just been—it has been a sad thing. There is a lot of money going to lawyers and things, instead of building great products for users. I think that companies usually get into that when they’re toward the end of their life cycle or they don’t have confidence in their abilities to compete naturally."

It was slightly different for Microsoft who managed to stifle Linux by making it beneficial to be a non strayer.

[Steve™]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

I'm in no way defending Samsung. Imo they are the WORST Android OEM by far, and they are actually damaging the OS's reputation.

Just look at this...

My point was that, ok Samsung may have used that image, but Apple deliberately resized the image for their own benefit and that is what I do not like.

I dont think they look that similar anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roush

Get your facts straight. This image is from the Galaxy S launch event. The image on screen is clearly the same one that gets compared to the iPhone. It is an official Samsung marketing image and can be found, along with other variants also showing that screen, by doing a simple image search on Google.

Samsung were blatantly attempting to imitate the iPhone in some of the marketing materials for the Galaxy S and, unsurprisingly, Apple took exception to that.

You seem to have been sucked in by the anti-Apple brigade. It's good idea to look at facts yourself rather than to just jump on a bandwagon.

edit: Here is a photo of the box the Galaxy S came in, in some markets. Does the picture on the box look familiar?

Very similar to the iPhone indeed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by floopy123

You could argue he stole the design/idea of the original IPod from the British inventor who patented the idea/design!

I guess Jobs should have spent the 40 billion finding a cure for his cancer! Karma, ain't it a bitch, Steve!

Utterly disgusting. I'm not having that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianWescombe

Hear, hear. I have a Samsung Galaxy S2 myself, but I have friends who prefer iPhones, that's their choice. Each has a place in the market.

Samsung/Google are increasing sales at the expense of Apple though, Android now accounting for 50% of the US smartphone market (I didn't make this up, I read it on a tech site). Apple seem to want to sue/destroy anyone who is a threat to their (possibly) dwindling market position, when they should look at WHY Android is becoming more popular, and then trying to improve on it.

I dont think their market is dwindling at all.

What I think is happening is that Android pricepoint is making them attractive to those who would normally buy a feature phone and I think Apple, as well as many other companies, are protecting their IP with legal action.

Actually Samsung and Apple are talking...

[alanwarwic]

They are really all just marketing words, as is the litigation thing with Samsung.

The marketing litigation translates to 'buy the real thing, buy Apple'
Samsung's could well be 'Bypass our main customer, buy a real Samsung'.

Apple's phones are moving onto cheaper screens which is important for them to find better deals elsewhere.
What is interesting is that Nokia's upmarket items use OLED with its cheap phones a more standard LCD.

Thus Nokia are also shifting perception.

[The Lord Lucan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACU

Its hypocritical of Jobs saying he will destroy Android because it stole from him. When he says that apple have stolen ideas from others. Here is a video of him saying he shamelessly stole ideas from others.

It's not that it was stolen, it was taken from the R&D of Apple to the R&D table of Google. It's more than copying an idea and making it work better etc.. like he has stated. It's proper industrial espionage.. Information theft and sabotage!

[linkinpark875]

Instead Apple has joined the club and copied this OS.

If you can't beat them join them I guess? Jobs would defo have kept the textures and colours though.

[Fried Kickin]

iOS7 ... you have been assimilated