Tim Cook Never Wanted To Sue Samsung 197
colinneagle writes "While Steve Jobs' ire in regards to Android is well known, a recent report from Reuters relays that current Apple CEO Tim Cook never wanted to sue Samsung in the first place. 'Tim Cook, Jobs' successor as Apple chief executive, was opposed to suing Samsung in the first place, according to people with knowledge of the matter, largely because of that company's critical role as a supplier of components for the iPhone and the iPad. Apple bought some $8 billion worth of parts from Samsung last year, analysts estimate.' In various earnings conference calls, Tim Cook has repeated that he hates litigation, but has still toed the party line by exclaiming that Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property."
Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Even if the lawsuit went ahead due to momentum, as leader in charge of the company, wouldn't you be willing to work to end the lawsuit through settlements and get back to business? Why would you continue to press ahead, or even allow it to continue?
This is just a BS blurb for public relations.
Re: (Score:3)
To quote Stephen Donaldson: "It's easy to say things like that. If you have the voice for it, it's easy to say them with conviction."
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. Judge people by their actions not their words.
Sometimes that happens. Sometimes it doesn't. As a result, Samsung is supposed to pay $1bn for violating Apple's patents, but a huge leak of hydrofluoric acid at Samsung's plant that killed one worker, injured four and according to police reports may have affected thousands, got them a one thousand dollar fine.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2244389/police-contradict-samsungs-acid-discharge-claims [theinquirer.net]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That story says the investigation is ongoing. The $1000 fine was for a delay in reporting.
This is far from over.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Even if the lawsuit went ahead due to momentum, as leader in charge of the company, wouldn't you be willing to work to end the lawsuit through settlements and get back to business?
Yeah, if only Samsung didn't refuse to settle. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57549512-37/samsung-we-dont-intend-to-negotiate-with-apple/ [cnet.com]
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Informative)
These lawsuits were started before Cook was CEO -- the point is that he basically inherited lawsuits that Jobs started.
And while it's tempting to follow up with "he should just drop all the lawsuits," it's not that easy -- aside from spooking the public and investors, an exit from legal action wouldn't guarantee that others would do the same. Samsung has at least made some grandstanding that it will never, ever settle. That could just be talk, but Samsung isn't exactly known for its humility or compassion toward competitors.
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Samsung is well known for cross-licensing intellectual property, and it's pragmatic attitude towards litigation. Apple not so much. Apple is, has been, and always will be the problem.
So basically what you are saying is... (Score:2, Troll)
These lawsuits were started before Cook was CEO -- the point is that he basically inherited lawsuits that Jobs started.
And while it's tempting to follow up with "he should just drop all the lawsuits," it's not that easy -- aside from spooking the public and investors, an exit from legal action wouldn't guarantee that others would do the same. Samsung has at least made some grandstanding that it will never, ever settle. That could just be talk, but Samsung isn't exactly known for its humility or compassion toward competitors.
So basically what you are saying is that they are in the same position SCO was in, and so they have no choice but to keep up at it until someone sets up another Groklaw.com and they spend all their money and go out of business?
Re:So basically what you are saying is... (Score:4, Insightful)
How were they in the same position SCO was in? SCO was suing IBM for copyright infringement, and then later breach of contract for stuff that IBM had nothing to do with and where there was possible infringement they themselves (i.e. Caldera) was mostly responsible. SCO got rid of their entire technology team and made themselves a copyright troll.
Apple was suing Samsung for Samsung products that Apple played no part in. Apple continues to be a major technology provider and innovator.
One can agree or disagree with Apple's infringement claims, but the analogy with SCO is unfounded.
Re: (Score:2)
How were they in the same position SCO was in? SCO was suing IBM for copyright infringement, and then later breach of contract for stuff that IBM had nothing to do with and where there was possible infringement they themselves (i.e. Caldera) was mostly responsible. SCO got rid of their entire technology team and made themselves a copyright troll.
Apple was suing Samsung for Samsung products that Apple played no part in. Apple continues to be a major technology provider and innovator.
One can agree or disagree with Apple's infringement claims, but the analogy with SCO is unfounded.
They are both cases of intellectual property law out of control. They are both using the courts and intellectual property law to try to compete in their respective markets, rather than reaching an agreement and then going back and competing by building better product.
Re: (Score:2)
SCO wasn't trying to compete when they launched the lawsuit. Their entire basis for the suit was that Linux had effectively rendered the IP of SCO worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with "legal trickery", "flimsy excuse" or "extort"... But the definition of troll is someone who didn't invent the technology but just buys the rights to sue. So neither was really a troll.
Samsung is raising prices on Apple considerably. As for the iPhone 5 screens they are made by Sharp and Panasonic is bidding on that work, Samsung isn't in contention.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone 5 contracts all came before Samsung's move to start raising prices on Apple in retaliation for the suits. At the time those contracts were signed Samsung's parts division was pissed at the handset division because selling parts to Apple was far more profitable than making Galaxy phones. These contracts already being in place is why for example Samsung is doing the fabrication on the iPhone 5 CPU. There clearly was some migration away but it is the iPhone 5S, iPhone 6... where we are really g
Re: (Score:2)
This is the REAL problem... Apple does something like $6 billion in parts business with Samsung. Apple should have stopped accepting shipments overnight. But unfortunately the parts market is so tight there is no room for an Apple-sized customer to "talk with its feet" and Samsung's CEO Is counting on that not to get sued. Apple's mistake was being too generous with Samsung... You have to Make sure YOU OWE suppliers money... So they do when you say jump.
Once Apple has all the parts business moved, they hav
Re: (Score:2)
I think we disagree:
Create technology X and sue = not a troll (Apple, IBM, Microsoft)
Buy technology X, make technology X and sue = not a troll (example CA or HP)
Buy patents for technology X don't make it and still sue = troll
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
And while it's tempting to follow up with "he should just drop all the lawsuits," it's not that easy -- aside from spooking the public and investors, an exit from legal action wouldn't guarantee that others would do the same.
Oh, I don't personally believe that it is ever too late to end an armed conflict by peaceful measures. Cook could take the lead and arrange a closed doors settlement that would be acceptable to both parties. Apple could come out still with a "don't even think about messing with us" look. Samsung could partially maintain their innocence, although with an extremely contrite demur and admission they won't get into such a mess again.
When the conflict gets to litigation, everyone except the lawyers lose.
It doesn't take much courage to enter a conflict. It takes much character and leadership to end one peacefully.
Except that is not even remotely true (Score:2)
When the conflict gets to litigation, everyone except the lawyers lose.
No! No! No! there is often a winner, sometimes a very lucrative winner, the lawyers only get a small portion of the spoils, I'm don't care if lawyers are good or bad people, but pretending mega-corperation are victims to this occupation is a not credible. The truth is Apple won big against Samsung to the tune of 1 Billion Dollars [that goes to Apple], unfortunately *money* even if its a Billion Dollars is useless to Apple ...it doesn't know what to do with its $140Billion in cash it has doesn't know what to
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:4, Insightful)
In a rare moment of defending lawyers, I have known lawyers that seek to settle disputes outside of court. One a family law lawyer who I would speak to, and who said, "I focus on the other side's attorneys, because most drag-out these disputes to rake-in fees at their client's expense, but all that does is impoverish both sides, work more animosity, and harm any children involved."
Another is an insurance lawyer I know, who always seeks to avoid court, because people just get boned there. Otherwise though...yes, lawyers tend to equal self-serving, cynical scum.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, for the most part, they didn't.
I recall very clearly at the time pointing out that since Cook took over day to day running of Apple from Jobs it's strategy changed from innovation and competition to litigation and stagnation.
It's not mere coincidence that it all changed when Cook got greater influence, and escalated after Jobs passed away altogether. I've never liked Steve Jobs, I thought he was a sociopathic, selfish twat in all honesty, but this sounds to be very much a case of Tim Cook trying t
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you people ever get out of the basement? In internal discussions, Steve Jobs said sue. Tim Cook said no. Steve Jobs overruled, and Apple sued.
Why didn't Tim Cook want to sue? For fear of damaging supplier relationship with Samsung. Not because he thought Samsung didn't copy them.
Keep that in mind. *THE LAWSUIT ALREADY HAPPENED.*
Steve Jobs died. Tim Cook is now CEO.
He has to decide - continue to sue, or kill the lawsuit. *THE LAWSUIT IS ALREADY ONGOING*.
To kill the lawsuit means:
1) Admit Apple was wrong.
2) Gives more power to Samsung and others to copy Apple's look and feel.
3) Supplier relationship with Samsung is still screwed
4) Future negotiations with Samsung will be with a weaker hand.
Which part of that equates to him not knowing Apple is suing Samsung?
I cannot even comprehend how the hell you came by the idea that Tim Cook is not aware of any lawsuits (if nothing else, it's headlines all over the place).
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Insightful)
The usual solution is to agree an "out of court settlement" where neither party admits fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond that if Apple settles with Samsung, HTC will want to know the details for their defense against Apple and/or Samsung. Maybe Apple wants to play nice with Samsung because they are a supplier, but can't because it will hurt them in their case against another competitor.
It's the corporat
Re: (Score:2)
Also, isn't it true that in order to hold your claim on copyright, you are required to sue people who infringe on it
No, that's not true at all. Not that these cases have anything to do with copyright.
You're thinking of trademark law, something which also has nothing to do with a patent lawsuit ... although one might argue that a design patent (vs a utility patent, that which most people think of as a patent for an invention) is not too far from a trademark. The whole rectangle-with-rounded-corners thing
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly with me. If the company he's supposed to be in charge of is doing things like suing competitors without his permission or knowledge, then he's a failure as a CEO.
Jobs was still alive when the litigation started. . . if you had even read the first paragraph of the article you would know that (or if you had better reading comprehension skills, as your UID indicates you had a /. account when the lawsuit started and it was covered almost daily here for months).
Cook may not have agreed with initiating the lawsuit, but once it was started it's likely he saw going through with it as the best strategic option. The damage had already been done, the best he could hope for was to win. Kind of like the Iraq war. It was a stupid idea, but once we toppled their government there was no turning back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the claim is that the lawsuits were started by Steve Jobs, and now Cook is stuck running with it. It would be bad for him to abort a lawsuit that's in flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly with me. If the company he's supposed to be in charge of is doing things like suing competitors without his permission or knowledge, then he's a failure as a CEO.
Crap like this being modded "Insightful" highlights just how far /. has fallen over the years as a source for actually insightful discussion of geek topics...
Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The ball was rolling years before Cook was CEO. At the point he became CEO, the trial was mostly through, the money spent... You just lose face with the Court to back out now.
For the most part, court proved Steve was right. There were written Samsung developer logs where they reviewed iPhone features and clearly choose to use the "iPhone way" versus the method in their previous devices... Samsung INTENDED to copy, as close as they could, while leaving room for lawyers. Toss in that they were using Androi
I'm pro Anonymous comments but... (Score:2)
are you LITERALLY retarded?
...I think anyone you uses the words *retarded* [or adds tard to the end of a real world like Gonadtard] should be instantly blocked.
Anyone who used the literally in fucking capitals no less, should be traced and their computer smashed into little tiny pieces and then fed to them.
Someone who combines these atrocities...I can only assume they are going to build another ring of hell.
Re: (Score:2)
...I think anyone you uses the words *retarded* [or adds tard to the end of a real world like Gonadtard] should be instantly blocked.
Oh yeah? You're just being a unitard.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in an engineering sense. It is actually funny but I ran into someone that was offended about things like retard valves or retardant devices. They thought that all of those devices should be renamed to be more culturally sensitive.
Re: (Score:2)
That person must get really incensed by Airbus, then, whose planes love to say "retard!" at the pilots several times moments before they land...
I'm not the bad guy here (Score:2, Funny)
That's what they all say.
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple didn't patent rounded corners. Apple has a _design patent_ for a design consisting of many items, one of them rounded corners. To infringe on this _design patent_, you have to copy the complete design, every single item listed in the design patent. You can have as many rounded corners as you like. As long as your design is in some way different from Apple's design patent.
Here's for your enjoyment an example of Samsung patenting rounded corners:
http://www.patentbolt.com/2012/12/samsung-wins-a-design-patent-for-one-of-their-galaxy-phones.html [patentbolt.com]
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that one of the many Samsung phones Apple sought an injunction for claiming that it infringed on their iPhone design patent because among other ambiguous design concepts it had rounded corners and was therefor indistinguishable from an iPhone? (yes)
No I didn't get that from the Android talking points, if such a thing exists, I closely followed the court cases on Groklaw as they happened.
theRunicBard was correct, and you're just parsing words like an Apple lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HTC has been sued. The suit was about patents and it was settled out of court in 2012. Nokia has sued Apple and that also was settled out of court, and I believe Apple won't bother again because currently Nokia is irrelevant and they have an agreement on much more fundamental pieces than design patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that one of the many Samsung phones Apple sought an injunction for claiming that it infringed on their iPhone design patent because among other ambiguous design concepts it had rounded corners and was therefor indistinguishable from an iPhone? (yes)
Well, you had a 50% chance and blew it. The answer is no.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple looking to add Samsung's Galaxy S3 to their injunction [ubergizmo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple looking to add Samsung's Galaxy S3 to their injunction [ubergizmo.com]
Added back the part of the quote not supported by your link. So, let's sum up: you ask a question, answer it yourself - wrong of course, and then try to pretend you were right by pretending you were asking something else. Did I miss something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:4, Insightful)
See, when people say silly things like "patenting shit like rounded corners", we know you never actually looked into what was patented, nor understood it, but instead, just like repeating talking points you were given.
Luckily, in the court of law, people actually examine evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a rather biased view.
Lets just take this list of NeXT's GUI innovations: 3D "chiseled" widgets, large full-color icons, system-wide drag and drop of a wide range of objects beyond file icons, system-wide piped services, real-time scrolling and window dragging, properties dialog boxes ("inspectors"), window modification notices (such as the saved status of a file), etc. The system was among the first general-purpose user interfaces to handle publishing color standards, transparency, sophisticated soun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really. Show me a web browser prior to Safari that bounced on overscroll. That was one of the patents that Samsung lost on. So show me the 2006 browser.
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/76470.html [macnewsworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article. That's more of a technical rejection.
In any case your claim was you could find me a 2006 browser that had it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's Samsung's claim. No such product existed, which is what we were talking about. But even if we were just talking about this weird patent I'd still say Samsung has the much tougher argument:
a) The scrolling mechanism is equivalent to a finger
b) The inner document scrolling (frame) is the same as the entire thing
c) This patent means what Samsung claims it means.
For example AOL's people will get called and if they dispute Samsung's interpretation game over. Samsung can't claim it is AOL's patent if A
Re: (Score:2)
There may not be a real example, but if you would read on the subject you would know that AOL patented the idea first. For a web browser, even.
And which idea would that be? Do tell us what AOL has patented, and how it relates to Apple's patent.
Re:I'm not the bad guy here (Score:4, Informative)
You mean the one that got invalidated as a patent?
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/76470.html [macnewsworld.com]
Well, not only is that decision not final - look at why it was "invalidated: because they counted a previous patent as prior art - a patent by Apple. IOW even if the "new" patent gets invalidated, the old one still remains valid.
Money where your mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
"Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property"
Okay, put your money where your mouth is. Remove the notification shade from iOS. You ripped it off wholesale from Android.
Re:Money where your mouth is (Score:5, Funny)
"Apple welcomes innovators but doesn't like when other companies rip off their intellectual property"
Okay, put your money where your mouth is. Remove the notification shade from iOS. You ripped it off wholesale from Android.
No, no, you don't iUnderstand it. They innovated that from Android.
Re:Money where your mouth is (Score:4, Interesting)
Modded troll already huh? I am making a serious point. In computing everyone copies everyone else. In the world nothing is created in isolation. Apple has been shameless (the actual word Jobs used) when copying other people in the past. It's a good thing, progress is faster, we get better products.
Can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Troll (-1) = Insightful (+1) * CounterIntuitive (0).
Clearly moderation is broken.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't understand. They don't like it when people rip them off . It's perfectly fine if they rip other people off. Their entire existence is based on ripping off other people's ideas and improving upon them, then trying to convince an ignorant public that they invented the concept in the first place.
Take the smart phone for example. The educated people here on slashdot know that smart phones were around for more than a decade before the first iPhone, but if you ask the average man-on-the-street you
Re:Money where your mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
The educated people here on slashdot know that smart phones were around for more than a decade before the first iPhone, but if you ask the average man-on-the-street you'll find they think the first smart phone was an iPhone.
The 2007 rollout for the iPhone includes a rather lengthy comparison to other smartphones. So if this is true, it certainly isn't the result of Steve Jobs. Job's claimed that Apple invented the first multitouch smartphone using an animated interface. He never claimed to have invented the smartphone.
there can be no greater irony than having the words "OS" in "OSX" when it's just a modified version of FreeBSD and unrelated to the previous versions of their OS line. If Apple had any intellectual honesty they would have called is MacBSD or something similar.
FreeBSD started in 1993. The first version of NeXTStep shipped in 1988. I think both projects developed independently from Berkley. But if you want to assert copying at the core NeXTStep came first. As for the regents of California, boot an OSX machine in verbose mode.
Re: (Score:2)
FreeBSD started in 1993. The first version of NeXTStep shipped in 1988. I think both projects developed independently from Berkley.
Both FreeBSD and NeXTStep are BSD 4.3-lite-based. NeXTStep got some code from BSD 4.3-lite and 4.4-lite at minimum, I'd have to look up to see all the times they got code from BSD. FreeBSD is part of the legacy of 4.4-lite. OSX is BSD atop Mach, using it as a HAL. Today, FreeBSD and OSX contain code from one another.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with summation. That's very different from GP's claim about OSX ripping off FreeBSD.
Looking at the Family Tree
BDS 4.3 begot NeXTStep, Tahoe and System VR4
Tahoe begot Reno
Reno befot BSD Net
BSD Net begot 386BSD
386BSD begot FreeBSD 1.0
NeXTStep and FreeBSD 2.2 begot OSX Server
OSX Server begot and FreeBSD 3.0 OSX Desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The Macs have had a dock for like, a damned long time...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Project Looking Glass was started in the mid-late 90s (before OS-X dock was around)
The fact is any 'look' to anything has been ripped off/borrowed by/from every tech company in existence (including apple)
Design patent are worthless and and should be treated as such, Compete on your 'product' not how it looks. If someone can create a different product that looks the same to the point where you claim people are confused just by the outside looks than you either need to stop complaining and change the look or emphasize the parts that aren't (if you can't then you are not innovative.)
NeXT computers started development on their desktop environment in the late 1980s, the debut was in 1988. NeXT was OS Xs daddy and yes, it's desktop had a dock. Risc OS beat NeXT to it by about a year but their implementation wasn't as close to the OS X dock as the one by NeXT which Looking Glass then remade in 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
pfft (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Allow me to join in here (Score:5, Insightful)
Just gonna repeat what everyone else is saying. This is ridiculous.
Apple is getting a lot of negative press on their current legal activities. Their pattents are being eroded. Details of their cases are being foiled in courts around the globe. That billion-dollar judgement will not stand and it is simply unimaginable that the jury verdict will stand in light of the jury misconduct which definitely happened. The numerous cases brought and initially won using doctored/edited visuals for evidence is simply dirty.
And the idea that the CEO didn't want to do this? Explain to me what a CEO does again?
Apple is losing a lot more than cases and patent claims. They are losing their customers. I know, people will cite last years figures and reports to claim they are a reflection of today's and tomorrow's popularity figures. I just don't see it. Everywhere I look, the use of iPhone is decreasing. That's not to say people using Android are excited fans or anything. They're not. The excitement over touchscreen smartphones and fart-apps is over. Now it's about practical matters which matter to people; Cost, Apps, Usability, Restrictions and other considerations.
Brand recognition is important to consumers for some reason. Apple's brand is being diminished. It is having an affect.
Re:Allow me to join in here (Score:4, Insightful)
Oct 2011 - Dec 2011, sold 37 mil iphones.
Oct 2012 - Dec 2012, sold 48 mil iphones.
Help me understand how is that "losing their customers"?
Wait wait, are you one of those, "sure, we lose money on each sale, but we'll make it up on volume" kinda guy?
Re:Allow me to join in here (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he means, losing market share. And they're bleeding market share like a stuck pig.
No, Android is gaining market share faster than iOS which is not surprising when every mobile vendor from high end device makers to the lowest shitphone peddlers are pushing Android devices onto the market and Android has pretty much exterminated every competitor except Apple. This was kind of inevitable when Apple refused to compromise, release budget iPhone versions and compete with the lower end Android device makers in a race to the bottom. Considering the fact that Apple makes decidedly high end device
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's another way of saying that Apple is losing market share. Those are customers that could have been Apple customers but for whatever reason they chose Android.
I don't like OS monoculture, but when the goal of one of the players is to make an OS monoculture I would like to see them fail or at the very least become marginalized out of significance.
Re: (Score:3)
So complain about Google giving away Android. THAT is creating monoculture of old, buggy, unpatched devices. The Android story mirrors the rise of MS Windows far more than iPhone does.
There is plenty of room for Apple at 25%-35% of the market. That's probably the way for them to remain at their high profit point as well. That is still a STAGGERINGLY HUGE amount of sales.
If you want to complain about monoculture, complain about the piss poor offerings from Microsoft/Nokia and RIM/Blackberry... One of them
Re: (Score:3)
We are heading into a Mobile OS monoculture dominated by Google/Android to thundering applause from half the people on this forum.
That's far better than a mobile OS monoculture dominated by the likes of Apple or Microsoft. Not because of anything about Google, but because Android is open. Should Google become too controlling, others can simply fork the OS, like Amazon has done.. For that matter the Ubuntu phone OS is arguably a fork of Android, since it's using the Android kernel.
I argue that the world would be much better off if some flavor of Linux were the dominant desktop/laptop OS as well. An open monoculture is easy to diversi
Re: (Score:3)
We are heading into a Mobile OS monoculture dominated by Google/Android to thundering applause from half the people on this forum.
That's far better than a mobile OS monoculture dominated by the likes of Apple or Microsoft.
Nice try, but Android is a Samsung monoculture.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, my phone was made by Motorola.
Yeah, that really is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Equating market share to success is short-sighted and ultimately foolish. The Android segment of the market is dominated by low power phones and tablets that have out of date OS versions and no upgrade path. The people buying them don't buy much in the way of third party apps. To the Android platform these buyers are a black hole.
The iPhone may have a smaller share of the quarter-over-quarter market but the platform is far healthier. People that buy iPhones and iPads buy apps and actually use their devices
Would you like me to explain :) (Score:5, Informative)
Oct 2011 - Dec 2011, sold 37 mil iphones.
Oct 2012 - Dec 2012, sold 48 mil iphones.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130214005415/en/Android-iOS-Combinid [businesswire.com]
Compared to Androids
Oct 2011 - Dec 2011, sold 85 mil smartphones.
Oct 2012 - Dec 2012, sold 160 mil smartphones.
Thats ignoring Apple are now selling more lower marking 4* Phones Apples market share.
From the statement "iOS posted yet another quarter and year of double-digit growth with strong demand for the iPhone. But what also stands out is how iOS's year-over-year growth has slowed compared to the overall market." your right its better than losing all there customers...not good though.
Percentages (Score:2)
For those unwilling/too lazy to do the math:
Not counting alternate smartphone OS's like blackberry, windows, symbian, etc...
The last quarter of 2011 Apple had 30% of the market
last quarter of 2012 it had slipped to 23%.
This is despite selling 30% more phones. Androids jumped 88%.
That sort of growth in a year is insane. I don't think even the computer revolution ever matched those numbers.
No No No. (Score:3)
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23946013#.UR7MG5G3PGg [idc.com]
You figures are not even close to being right. The link is the same as the other one I provided only its direct from IDC, but it includes a nice graph showing the various OS and how big their market share. Apple is a little confusing as its market share is feast/fast as their product launches have a huge effect on their sales. Next quarter Apple are not going to sell anything close to 48Million Phones, and their market share in that quarter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and what would you replace your macs with?
Re: (Score:2)
They are losing their customers due to the continual conversion from Apple to Android. With every new iPhone device and tablet, customers are asked to buy something new. Increasingly, customers are choosing not to buy a new thing. This is true especially as Apple switched to a new interface for peripheral devices. The adapter isn't quite enough of an adaptation to keep their accessories viable. Also (http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/03/top-selling-iphone-5-flanked-by-strong-sales-of-legacy-iphone-
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, how does your brain work?
They are losing their customers due to the continual conversion from Apple to Android. With every new iPhone device and tablet, customers are asked to buy something new. Increasingly, customers are choosing not to buy a new thing.
You say the customers are asked to buy something new, but they are not buying the new thing. And this is conversion from Apple to Android? This doesn't even make sense, especially in face of the fact that 80% to 90% of iPhone owners say when they upgrade, they will upgrade to the next iPhone, but only 60% of Android owners say the same.
This is true especially as Apple switched to a new interface for peripheral devices. The adapter isn't quite enough of an adaptation to keep their accessories viable.
Evidence? Anyone who can pay $650 for a phone or $500 for an iPad can pay $20 for an additional cable or $10 for an adapter. Also, you
Shrinking Margins (Score:2)
Their margins remain the highest in the industry.
The smartphone industry has been growing 16% per year globally and Apple has been growing faster.
In the United States Apple has crushed Android and now is approaching the point of establishing a monopoly.
How exactly is their brand being diminished?
No Apple has been growing slower than the industry...in fact its shrinking compared to the market. In fact even in the US Android phones are more common than iPhones. I personally would argue that their brand is diminished because its getting harder to justify the massive mark-ups on re-badged foxconn phones.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact even in the US Android phones are more common than iPhones.
According to Comscore: this quarter
Android went from 52.5% to 53.4%
While Apple went from 34.3% to 36.3% of the installed base.
In terms of sales, Verizon reported over 60% Apple for Postpay and AT&T it went over 80%. That's been a steady trend of growth for a long time.
____
In terms of worldwide share Apple has been steadily over 20% of smartphones. They never held that prior to 2012.
Do you even understand your figures? (Score:2)
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/2/comScore_Reports_December_2012_U.S._Smartphone_Subscriber_Market_Share [comscore.com] I'm sorry why are you posting figures tha agree with me, as though they don't its a little eerie. From the article "Google Android ranked as the top smartphone platform with 53.4 percent market share (up 0.9 percentage points)"
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim was that Apple was growing more slowly than the industry in the USA. Apple is gaining share, ergo it is growing faster. Not only is it growing faster it is growing much faster than Android. Those numbers don't agree with you.
Hi sorry you seem a little confused. (Score:2)
Your claim was that Apple was growing more slowly than the industry in the USA.
No it wasn't to quote myself. "No Apple has been growing slower than the industry...in fact its shrinking compared to the market. In fact even in the US Android phones are more common than iPhones."
The market is a *worldwide* market...notice the little *even* that is because I'm talking about something different :). That is the magic of English. For your benefit.
The US[and to a lesser extent the UK] is slightly different from the rest of the world which is why I separated it out, because customers pay for t
Re: (Score:2)
I addressed worldwide as well, "In terms of worldwide share Apple has been steadily over 20% of smartphones. They never held that prior to 2012.". It is very simply if Apple is gaining share in group X than Apple's sales are growing faster than the industry as a whole in group X.So for example in the Europe Apple going from 20.3% Dec 2011 to 21.2% Dec 2012 is growing faster. Similarly in Brazil going from 0.4% to 1% is gaining.
As far as Android having a larger share in the USA... There is no question that
Re: (Score:2)
That article has iOS (Apple Inc.'s iPhone) — 26.9 million units, 14.9 percent share (13.8 percent a year earlier). Which means they are gaining share and growing faster than the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
No Apple has been growing slower than the industry...in fact its shrinking compared to the market.
Absolutely not. The percentage of iPhones in the phone market is growing. Actually, the phone market has been slightly shrinking in the last year. However, apparently it makes some people on Slashdot happy to declare "smartphones" to be _the_ market. Since $80 feature phones are being replaced with $80 "smartphones", the percentage of smartphones in the total phone market is growing. That doesn't help the sellers, when for every $80 smartphone they are selling they lose the sale of a $80 feature phone.
Ap
iPhone nano? (Score:2)
Every $80 smartphone they are selling they lose the sale of a $80 feature phone.
Ok sorry for ignoring your post. It was better when I reread it. The reality is if you argue that the smartphone market is simply the *phone* market as dumbphones are replaced by smartphones. The your right Apple are still growing market share of that pie. Its a weird way of looking at it.
So lets have a look at some current figures for that. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2335616 [gartner.com] Now here is the thing..conversion rate Android grew 20% to 70% while iOS lost 2% to 20%. It shows how Apples expansion is slo
he always wanted... (Score:3)
In the Forests of British Columbia, Leaping from tree to tree amongst the Larch, the Pine and the mighty Sequoia!
-I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know, earlier today I read that headline and thought the same thing. But I decided it would be silly to post such a thing and I'm not having things getting silly.
Nobody likes a good laugh more than I do...except perhaps my wife and some of her friends...oh yes and Captain Johnston. Come to think of it most people likes a good laugh more than I do. But that's beside the point. Now let's have a good clean story about Russian Meteors. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be fair.... (Score:2)
Even the styling of their signature products has been directly copied from other company's work from the 70s.
....they copied Sony http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2012/07/27/apple-prototypes-show-iphone-inspired-by-sony-and-kickstand-ipad/index.html [electricpig.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple shares are in freefall falling from $705 a share to $450 and deservedly so. It is no longer the largest company in the world by market cap.
Actually, it is. For some strange reason, it was heavily reported when Apple fell behind Exxon, but nobody reported when Apple overtook Exxon again.
If you subtract cash from market caps, the enterprise value of Apple right now is only about 6 1/2 years of profits. That means the company is right now ridiculously undervalued.
fuckin' cynical politicians (Score:3)