Cook's 'values' memo shows Apple has lost its soul On the one year anniversary of his appointment as Apple CEO, Tim Cook must be partying especially hard in light of Friday's verdict against Samsung. But if his memo to staff about the verdict is anything to go by, in winning the case Apple has lost its soul. The memo, leaked to 9to5Mac, shows Cook is in no mood to play nice …
Errm not quite. iPod was not a risk. Many many MP3 players existed before, just that those companies didn't have huge marketing budgets. Ipod copied, and then used a huge marketing budget. Just like iPhone copies, and iPad too. Such phones existed before, as did tablets. Without the huge marketing budget. Copy copy copy. There's a pattern there.
OK...
Sony made MP3 players before Apple. Sony Ericsson and Nokia made smartphones before Apple. Compaq, HP and various other manufacturers made tablets before Apple.
Are you seriously suggesting that none of those firms have large marketing budgets? Are you suggesting that Microsoft (who would arguably have profited from the first gen tablets had they not failed) don't have a large marketing budget.
I think the main reason a lot of consumers go for Apple gear is that in general, it works.
No, people buy these Apple products because they are fashion accessories, and its cool to have a little apple logo on things. Not because they´re better. Is an Ipod really better than a generic MP3 player is the sound any better (hint they almost all use the same chips inside)?
It´s exactly the same with Nike sports wear, Rayban sunglasses, D&G handbags etc. etc. etc.
The sheep will always buy something that other sheep deem to be cool.
'People buy these apple products because they are fashion accessories' - that's a rather sweeping gereralisation. I bought a MacBook pro last year, I'd spent a few months beforehand running a dual boot Hackintosh / Windows setup and found that I was hardly using the Windows side at all, because I found the OS quicker, more responsive and usable than Windows on the same hardware. Seeing the developer preview of Windows 8 also swung it for me. I assure you that fashion was the last thing on my mind when I bought it.
Why the down votes? I made an informed decision and switched OS based on a practical evaluation. Surely as this is a tech site, nobody here chose an OS because it was fashionable? Maybe the down-voters just didn't like my choice. Any down-voters care to comment?
"Why the down votes? I made an informed decision and switched OS based on a practical evaluation. Surely as this is a tech site, nobody here chose an OS because it was fashionable? Maybe the down-voters just didn't like my choice. Any down-voters care to comment?"
I'm not a downvoter of your post, I don't like Apple, loathe Steve Jobs, and I am and will remain an XP user. I personally don't care what OS you use. In this thread I've gotten about 50 downvotes so far and that is nowhere near my "record" for a single post, let alone multiple posts in a single thread. In a thread like this, in which Google, Android, and FOSS supporters are bashing Apple, you have to expect downvotes from those people if you support Apple in any way. These people seem to want to be able to buy products with Apple features at a fraction of Apple prices - and they have a very well-developed sense of entitlement.
Let me put it this way: If you point to a weather report that predicts rain for tomorrow, you will get downvotes from people who think that the weather report is wrong, and from people who had planned to go for a picnic tomorrow and think that "shooting the messenger" will somehow change the weather report.
Ignore the downvotes. There's nothing else to say about it.
@Turtle I'm not bothered at all by the down votes but am curious about the opinions of those that made them, but you're probably right that its the anti-apple brigade down voting anything than appears to show Apple in a positive light. They've probably missed the point entirely that whenever sweeping generalisations are made they're invariably untrue.
I've just up voted your post for taking the time to contribute to the debate.
Yes, that was a sweeping generalisation. Like any generalisation, there are always exceptions. Including that one.
But that's it, really. I can recall when people bought Nokia mobile phones above all others, with Motorola as a second best and many other brands hardly ever, yet they all did roughly the same thing. The only reason why the Nokia was bought above any other was because they could be customised with fancy covers and goodness knows what else. The fad came, the fad went. Look at Nokia now!
Yes, there will always be those that buy a particular brand because it does what they want it to do. Unfortunately this is often overlooked by the large flocks of sheep that buy a particular brand because it is the "in thing" and they don't want to be left out. These flocks tend to be big enough that the individuals often get overlooked, so a sweeping generalisation often gets made.
So I don't think that ewe were being specifically referred to by that statement, but anyone wool'd make a baaad mistake like that, given the situation.
"No, people buy these Apple products because they are fashion accessories, and its cool to have a little apple logo on things. Not because they´re better. Is an Ipod really better than a generic MP3 player is the sound any better (hint they almost all use the same chips inside)? The sheep will always buy something that other sheep deem to be cool."
1) There is no company on earth that would refuse to take the money of those "sheep". In fact that is what every company pretty much strives for.
2) A significant part of the iPod's success is the ecosystem, as embodied by iTunes, that Apple has built around it. *That* was a risk that required a great deal of planning and investment., and was the result of successful negotiations with the rights-holders of the content that is sold on iTunes. Be aware that that was no small achievement on Apple's part. (I consider iTunes to be a horrible piece of software, but other people seem able to tolerate it. Maybe they even like it. Dunno.)
3) It is not the case that Apple can succeed with anything. Consider Apple TV.
4) You are right about iPods not sounding better than other mp3 players. (That's not strictly true, but true enough as far as the average or typical consumer is concerned.) But you are wrong if you think that the average or typical consumer buys an mp3 player based on sound quality. If you don't believe me, look at the headphones or earbuds that most people use. And see point 2 again.
The iPod might have been the most riskiest of those products... Apple didn't yet have that highly religious cult following back then. The iPhone and the iPad came out at a time where Apple could have as well released sheets of cardboard and nobody would have minded.
Exactly right. 2001 was a whole different era to the late 2000s. If you wanted a MK1 iPod you had to buy a Mac too since it wouldn't sync with Windows. It was Firewire based with Windows software.
It was their first consumer electronic product since the Apple Newton in 1993.
Apple had a religious cult following that denied they were a religious cult following way back in 1992 (and probably before). That was about the time I moved to take my second real job and a coworker was constantly going on about how they didn't understand why people bought PCs because Apple gave more bang for the buck than PCs did.
You are kidding, right?
I think you'll find releasing any product onto any market is a risk, a calculated risk probably, but a risk nonetheless.
The ipod didn't copy anything, it did the same basic function (play music) but as a whole package did it in a better way than the competition.
The iPhone included many features that smartphones already did, but did them better in most cases and wrapped it up in a sexy shell. Did you use a Windows phone pre-iphone? I sure did, I had quite a few, my favourite being the HTC Universal, great for typing on the move. But they were clunky and not very user friendly for anyone who wasn't a techie. What Apple did was make the user experience so much better and easier that even my nan could use it.
How many tablet computers were around before the iPad? Loads
Were they any good? No
They were laptops without the keyboard, with the some OS as laptops so they were clunky too and the user experience was awful.
If these Apple devices are just copies why did the industry suddenly decide to start releasing tablets for the masses and phones with capacitive screens and no physical keyboard until AFTER apple did? Because Apple led the way in user experience.
It was since it was a device that was Mac only until the second generation which limited its possible market share, didn't have USB mass storage, was at a fairly early stage of the MP3 market. Ripping CDs to MP3 was not legal in many countries.
The reliability of the hard disks in the players was unproven. Apple products weren't in many homes in the EU, they had no shops.
It was a very stripped down simple MP3 player compared to many others around. There was even lawsuits against other MP3 players by the RIAA a few years earlier.
I think it is as erroneous to say Apple just copies as it is to say they took a risk with iPhone and iPad. They do improve, and patents do and should be issued for actual technical advancements. But they also have a fanatical base. So, as long as you don't over-extend your manufacturing, you are guaranteed to make a profit. Likewise if a product turns out to be more popular than they expect, they can quickly ramp up manufacturing production.
What bothers me about this whole affair is how broad and ridiculous the claims are. I never really compared an iPhone and the Samsung until I saw an article yesterday with the two side by side. Honestly, I like the Samsung appearance better. It is more open and pleasing to my eye than the crowded iPhone. But regardless of which one you prefer, the two are obviously different while using an obvious layout.
You got an inadvertent + from me when I intended to hit the reply key.
Okay, consider these:
1. Nobody copied Ford
2. Nobody copied German rocketry
3. Nobody copied submarines
4. Nobody tried to surpass Sputnik
5. Nobody copied the first skyscraper
6. Nobody copied toothbrushes
7. Washing machines remained roller/hand-crank affairs
8. On and on and on.
Apple created the iPhone. So what? They should know that nothing lasts forever, not even a mimiced phone.
What risk did Apple take? Looking at the R&D expenditure of both companies tell a totally different story. Samsung R&D + Capex exceeds $40 Billion annually whereas apple does not even top $10 Billion. If you think that Samsung annual $40 billion expenditure isn't a risk at all, how do you explain OLED, A5 Chips and many other technologies in the market. Their research in technology can and should never be discounted.
well thats what you get for being a pioneer, you have to spend all the money and develop something which doesn't exist only to find once people know your idea works they'll make copies.
this has happened since the dawn of time WITH EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF ANYTHING THAT HUMANS CAN BUILD.
why all of a sudden should the rules change just because it's apple?
if apple are unhappy, stop being the pioneer and let somebody else go forward...but don't blame people for wanting a piece of the pie and use tactics aimed at stopping what has happened since the dawn of our species just because you don't appreciate it.
steve jobs is on the record as saying that apple uses the "good artists copy, great artists steal" mantra. Well, thats great, it's what people have always done, so it's good they have that value so close to heart.
but that works both ways....not just in favour of apple, sometimes it works in favour of the other guy too.
Yes, the put all their effort into R&D for chips and the grizzy shit that drives phones. But you don't see all of that crap when you're using a phone.
Software is where the real innovation takes place. All those apps and the interface for your phone. It's rather telling that all of Apple's complaints against Samsung where about software, external casing and GUI elements, but Samsung's complaints were about dull shit inside chips that nobody cares about.
"But are Samsung or Google really any better?"
Google is in a class of its own.
I have no particular animus against Samsung, and in spite of having supported Apple's actions in defending their products I do not like Apple at all and don't use their products. In fact, I resent having to defend Apple.
But Google is much, much worse than any other major tech company. Witness the money they made by financing the sale of controlled and counterfeit medicines by means of their AdWords program. They financed the sites conducting these drug sales for years, in spite of any number of warnings, including a letter from Joseph Califono, Secretary for Health And Human Services for President Jimmy Carter. Eventually they agreed to disgorge $500,000,000 in return for a federal non-prosecution agreement. They finance mail-order brides and other human-trafficking sites. Need I even add that they make money by financing pirate sites enabling the theft of content and software? Don't forget the "Google Books Affair" by which they hoped to be able to strip copyright protection from whatever books they wanted. Google has suborned institutions such as Harvard and Stanford by managing to enlist academics there to lobby for Google's legislative agendas in return for large donations of Google money. And their legislative agenda, which favors expropriating content creators for the benefit of people who are *already* billionaires, can only be described as "fascist". Their invasions of the privacy of the users of Google services, and constant surveillance of anyone who uses the internet, should be well-known to everyone who frequents this site.
And yet how many people here ignore all this, yet foam at the mouth because Apple is enforcing their rights against Samsung and Android - because Android is another of Google's ploys to increase its advertising revenue. And since Google gives these people free content - by stealing it or enabling others to steal it from the people who create that content - they think Google is good, and will not see that Google is simply the image, writ large, of the avaricious, sociopathic kleptomaniacs who run it.
Google is in a class of its own.
Sony is not an angel either, they however never thought of suing Apple for the same thing Apple sued Samsung. So even Sony is a white furry lamb compared to the today's "hero". Google might not be an angel either, it appears to be an angel in comparison to Apple, it has never used its patents as an assault weapon. Now it is also engaged and hopefully would hurt the Cooked crooks dearly. I tell ya, Microsoft even looks greyish and more naive in contrast.
The very though that Apple, Microsoft or Oracle are constantly busy inventing new stuff is insane. Cook and his comrades belong in some mental institution.
Actually, I would say that Samsung is less evil because they don't do much lobbying in America. Yes, the rules of the business game as encoded into American law require companies to become evil just to survive, but you aren't seriously evil until you join in the bribery.
Did you know that Google has now become the leading lobbyist among high tech companies? That's what all the recent reports have said. I'm not sure how evil Apple is now, though Microsoft used to be a leader in spending on lobbyists--but I think Google is making the play to become the most evil of now.
Let me clarify that most businesspeople are fine, upstanding folks. They just want to compete on a fair basis. Unfortunately, the rules of the competition are written by the most cheaply bribed professional politicians working for the LEAST ethical businessmen. It's legal bribery, but the result is such travesties as this anti-freedom ruling.
Patent law was intended to encourage innovation and more choices and more freedom. You want meaningful and unconstrained choice? You want real freedom? NOT if Apple has anything to say about it.
They are a business which makes money by selling various products.
The only people they should care about are paying customers - they have no obligation to care about anything else and why should they?
Where the problem lies here, has little to do with morals but everything to do with patents.
Cook claims Samsung are stifling innovation, but the reality is *all* tech companies are stifling it by taking out patents on the most tenuous of grounds.
It means nobody but the wealthiest of companies can afford to enter the market with electronic devices, due to the royalties on numerous patents.
Given the fact that Apple started in a garage, do you think it's now possible this could happen again?
Highly doubtful, because every conceivable aspect of building high tech devices - lets just call them computers - has been patented or is being patented.
samsung have only themselves and google to blame. Apple rightly lost their idiotic look and feel suit, but won on patent infringement for clearly defined (bounceback and pinch to zoom are not vague) non essential patents. They are nice to have but not essential to making a phone so there is no legal requirement to allow access to them.
Apple and MS cross license patents because they both have valuable non essential patents each other wants. The way forward is simple, google and its android partners need to invest more in developing features people want that will drive Apple back to the table. I'm really shocked that google didn't have more patents to whack Apple with tbh.
The judgement was far more sensible than I expected it to be. I thought Apple would finally win a ridiculous look and feel (that we copied from elsewhere) suit. The judgement was high, but sometimes when you hold onto bad cards too long it costs you dearly.
I hope this leads to more innovation and development. I'm slowly beginning to like Android, playing with 4.0 is much nicer than 2.3! Google has the potential to out develop Apple, but it needs to sit down with htc, lg, samsung etc and say liten, just because their isn't a license fee doesn't mean it's a free lunch.
"bounceback and pinch to zoom are not vague"
No, but they are both pretty obvious/trivial. Pinch to zoom is a no-brainer once you have multi-touch. Bounce back isn't an idea worthy of being defended by the US military and in any case is just an imitation of a real-world thing so it fails pretty well every test that's supposed to be in place for patentability.
Apple are scumbags trying to grab control of progress and nothing could be worse for the sort of real innovation that the world needs.
Bullshit. Apple have a long history in mobile devices that started in 1987 with the development of the Apple Newton. It finally appeared in 1993, about two years before Windows CE appeared. PSION also have a long history, eventually becoming Symbian.
So I don't see how you can accuse Apple of being just another Johnny-come-lately.
Microsoft, Apple and Symbian/Nokia have been around for decades and have spent a lot of time developing technology. It is Google that has appeared from nowhere and stole or purchased technology from others.
Actually in 1993 you could already get "Windows for Pen Computing" which was a huge hype back then.
Plus, Alan Kay, who worked for Apple during the 1980s already conceptualized tablet PCs in the 1970s when he worked for Xerox.
Well actually there is not to much to a portable device. The difficult stuff is in the baseband, and nobody talks about that. On the service processor you just run an operating system kernel (today usually the same running on PCs) and some crappy UI nobody wants but has to endure anyhow. There are 1970s experimental systems with better UIs than what we have now.
"Apple bought their touch screen technolgy from FingerWorks"
Exactly - they went out, found the best technology and they bought it. Whereas Samsung (or more accurately Google) just copied it.
Apple are innovators, but they innovate at the level of the product not the underlying technology. No, they didn't invent the GUI, but they recognised its value, headhunted the engineers who did invent it, and created an affordable product to bring it out of the lab and onto people's desks. No they didn't invent the smartphone but they created the first one that really worked (and I say that as as N95 owner at that time). And no they didn't invent the tablet, but they created the first one people actually wanted to use (and it wasn't like lots of others hadn't tried and failed)
I get the impression that much of the bile directed at Apple comes from engineers who cannot accept that anything other than technology should determine a product's success. They find Apple's success bewildering and threatening to their world view. They blame the users, who clearly must be stupid to want products with fewer features, just because they are easier to use. I suspect it was exactly this world view that brought us the N95. Packed with features but clumsy, sluggish and ugly. The iPhone made it look like a dinosaur. Yet even now, as Nokia implodes, these people still can't accept that their could possibly have been anything innovative about the iPhone because it had no features that didn't already exist in some other product. It's true. It didn't. But a really good engineer would recognise that there is more to it than cramming features into a box.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
