• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Google Has Had Enough: Files Lawsuit To Ban Multiple Apple Products

And Apple is one thing... image.. every sale it has is based on image. Loose that, and Apple is nothing but ordinary.

Ordinary product, with an extraordinary price tag.
 
the recent litigation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. i like Apple products, though i find them to be unnecessarily expensive. however, there is (and should be) so much shared technology that i'm sure all of the companies could successfully sue each other for something. Apple has its patents, but it does not own the idea of a rectangular smartphone or tablet. i've actually really wanted to try an Iphone, but the company itself and its die hard fans really turn me off.
 
Ordinary product, with an extraordinary price tag.

The price tag is dictated based on the image. Originally the price tag was a symbol of quality, but that has changed over the last few years because of the problems with quality (breaking backs of iPhones, laptops that burn your lap, bad iPad screens, and faulty software galore). Now image is everything for Apple and they are fighting tooth and nail to defend that image... regardless of the facts and truth.

A good example is the malware scares on the OSX. For a decade, Apple had built an image for its self, that malware and virus is something Apple machines dont have. They used it in their marketing. Now anyone in the industry knows that the reason that Apple OSX did not have malware and virus was because no one used the operating system and computers. But with the help of the iPhone, Macs became popular in certain parts of the world. This meant that Mac OSX came in on the radar of hackers and suddenly OSX became a target. Now everyone in the industry knew that security was never a strong Apple point, and the first malware attacks showed us this and damaged their image. It took them weeks to admit there was a problem... because Macs dont get viruses right? and then more weeks to fix it.. and that was just one attack. And now days, they have removed the "Macs dont get virus's" marketing from their material.. reality hit home it seems.. and they have with the new version gone over to a draconian way of "protecting" their users.. basically making the OS even more pointless and less user friendly when it comes to 3rd party programs.

Or take a look at the iPhone 4S. When it came out SIRI was the "WOW innovation" part, despite voice recognition being around for years. Fact is.. SIRI sucks and is basically useless other than in a minor gadget way. Even one of the founders of Apple admits this and all tests against rivals show how bad SIRI is. Apple knew this, but still continued to market it as innovation.. because their image dictated that every product they came out with had to be "innovative" and perfect. Problem was the iPhone 4S was a minor upgrade to the iPhone 4, which in turn was an outdated smart phone, but the image pushed sales.

Or take the iPad 3. Super screen yes, but in reality the resolution is pretty useless in such a small format and considering the heating problems that it created (the new ipad is damn hot to hold in your hand), not to mention the increase in size of apps and movies full HD means.. but not an increase in storage capacity.. simply not worth the upgrade. What is the use of an iPad 3 16 GB if your apps double in space size and you cant even have one full HD movie on the damn thing? But it did not stop Apple from marketing it as innovation and revolutionary. Most human beings cant see any difference in the iPad2 screen and iPad3 screen in day to day use.

I would say the next iPhone needs to set a new industry standard on many fronts for Apple to maintain the illusion they have built over the years. If it is another iPhone 4s or even iPhone 4.. then Apple could be in serious trouble. Mac sales are falling, iPad sales are flattening out and there is far more credible competition and iPod sales are taking a nose diving. If for example, the new iPhone 5 does NOT have the compatible 3G chip for the China Telecom...... then well, Apple will never be more than a bit player in China. We already know how the new iPhone 5 OS looks like, and it is nothing but more catch up to Windows Phone and Android, with a healthy bit of "borrowing" of idea's... so the technology has to be spectacular... better than the Samsung S3, HTC One and LG L7 and so on.... and that is going to be damn hard.

But we shall see.. only 2 weeks left or so before we know.
 
The price tag is dictated based on the image. Originally the price tag was a symbol of quality, but that has changed over the last few years because of the problems with quality (breaking backs of iPhones, laptops that burn your lap, bad iPad screens, and faulty software galore). Now image is everything for Apple and they are fighting tooth and nail to defend that image... regardless of the facts and truth.

A good example is the malware scares on the OSX. For a decade, Apple had built an image for its self, that malware and virus is something Apple machines dont have. They used it in their marketing. Now anyone in the industry knows that the reason that Apple OSX did not have malware and virus was because no one used the operating system and computers. But with the help of the iPhone, Macs became popular in certain parts of the world. This meant that Mac OSX came in on the radar of hackers and suddenly OSX became a target. Now everyone in the industry knew that security was never a strong Apple point, and the first malware attacks showed us this and damaged their image. It took them weeks to admit there was a problem... because Macs dont get viruses right? and then more weeks to fix it.. and that was just one attack. And now days, they have removed the "Macs dont get virus's" marketing from their material.. reality hit home it seems.. and they have with the new version gone over to a draconian way of "protecting" their users.. basically making the OS even more pointless and less user friendly when it comes to 3rd party programs.

Or take a look at the iPhone 4S. When it came out SIRI was the "WOW innovation" part, despite voice recognition being around for years. Fact is.. SIRI sucks and is basically useless other than in a minor gadget way. Even one of the founders of Apple admits this and all tests against rivals show how bad SIRI is. Apple knew this, but still continued to market it as innovation.. because their image dictated that every product they came out with had to be "innovative" and perfect. Problem was the iPhone 4S was a minor upgrade to the iPhone 4, which in turn was an outdated smart phone, but the image pushed sales.

Or take the iPad 3. Super screen yes, but in reality the resolution is pretty useless in such a small format and considering the heating problems that it created (the new ipad is damn hot to hold in your hand), not to mention the increase in size of apps and movies full HD means.. but not an increase in storage capacity.. simply not worth the upgrade. What is the use of an iPad 3 16 GB if your apps double in space size and you cant even have one full HD movie on the damn thing? But it did not stop Apple from marketing it as innovation and revolutionary. Most human beings cant see any difference in the iPad2 screen and iPad3 screen in day to day use.

I would say the next iPhone needs to set a new industry standard on many fronts for Apple to maintain the illusion they have built over the years. If it is another iPhone 4s or even iPhone 4.. then Apple could be in serious trouble. Mac sales are falling, iPad sales are flattening out and there is far more credible competition and iPod sales are taking a nose diving. If for example, the new iPhone 5 does NOT have the compatible 3G chip for the China Telecom...... then well, Apple will never be more than a bit player in China. We already know how the new iPhone 5 OS looks like, and it is nothing but more catch up to Windows Phone and Android, with a healthy bit of "borrowing" of idea's... so the technology has to be spectacular... better than the Samsung S3, HTC One and LG L7 and so on.... and that is going to be damn hard.

But we shall see.. only 2 weeks left or so before we know.
It always amazed me that hackers didn't attack Apple sooner. The "prestige" of shooting them down would have been appealing within the hacker community, or so I thought.
 
It always amazed me that hackers didn't attack Apple sooner. The "prestige" of shooting them down would have been appealing within the hacker community, or so I thought.

Well.... first of all hackers are motivated by money. 90+% of the world market is on Windows PCs. Apple has a very small %. Simply not worth the effort.

Secondly and maybe more importantly.. OSX is based on an open source OS, a close cousin to Linux, the hackers preferred OS. It would be like eating your own or committing incest if they went after OSX. Of course at some point the money aspect becomes a much bigger urge and that point has been reached.

The only reason Apple iOS has not been officially hit hard by malware and spyware is the dictatorial aspect of Apple. They simply screen everything and only allow what they think is good for the consumer.. this of course means no boobies or bad words, which pisses off many non-Americans. But that does not prevent malware and spyware 100%.. because root your phone, which many iPhone users do, and well. Plus at one point.. iOS it self was malware, when it allowed in app purchasing without conformation,... which meant parents suddenly got massive bills from Apple because their small gems has been buying "small gems" in games on their iPhone/iPad. Apple knew fully well that this was going on, and it was not before a law suit was being prepared in the US, that Apple "patched" the OS. This aspect is now what is going to be implemented in their OSX system, and frankly it is even more draconian.. sure you will be "more secure" on paper, but in reality the biggest security risk is 20 inches from the screen.

Now you see I said.. officially. Often we dont get much information about malware and spyware attacks on OSX because Apple has great marketing department and friendly media coverage. OSX has been the first to be hacked for years in the yearly "hackathon" events, way ahead of linux and Windows, but when the guy who hacked it the fastest started pointing out the flaws, then Apple totally cut him off from their developing community instead of inviting him in to fix the problems.

The biggest problem with Mac is not that it is unsecure.. that is to be expected, but that the Mac users are totally unprepared for malware and viruses because they have lived in this false security atmosphere that Apple has generated and moulded over the last 20 years. At least with Windows PCs you know you have to protect yourself, and users accept this.

Basically the more popular a technology product is, the more interested hackers will be.
 
i remember reading about apple suing microsoft back in the 80's for supposedly copying macos that came out a year earlier.however even though apple won that suit it was later undone once everyone caught on apple didnt design the gui,or even the core components,it ripped them off of zerox's gui that was designed more than a decade earlier.others parts used were licensed to microsoft from apple.

however if anyone deserves credit for loss of intellectualproperty,its zerox who created the gui and had it stolen by apple.
 
i remember reading about apple suing microsoft back in the 80's for supposedly copying macos that came out a year earlier.however even though apple won that suit it was later undone once everyone caught on apple didnt design the gui,or even the core components,it ripped them off of zerox's gui that was designed more than a decade earlier.others parts used were licensed to microsoft from apple.

however if anyone deserves credit for loss of intellectualproperty,its zerox who created the gui and had it stolen by apple.

Xerox had a much more cooperative relationship with Apple than would be denoted through the word "stolen." Their influence was spectacular, truly.
 
Xerox had a much more cooperative relationship with Apple than would be denoted through the word "stolen." Their influence was spectacular, truly.

i use the word stolen even though they licensed use of their ideas,signifying that apple did not create them,yet tried to sue and lost against microsoft claiming they stole their ideas even though apple licensed them to microsoft.
 
Such is litigation in the computer (well, and other) industry.

I'm more amused than anything at the vilification or veneration of these companies when it comes to the litigation process. People really seem to get their panties in a bunch.
 
And I will raise you Steve Jobs admitting that he stole ideas and designs from his competitors, plus documentation that the iPhone actually was designed and planed by... Sony Corporation and Apple stole the idea from them.

Like it or not, the Apple is ruining its own image and hence future profitability by going on with these law suits. More and more people realise that they are nu-seance lawsuits designed to slow down the competition, a competition that has surpassed Apple in technology and innovation. And Apple is one thing... image.. every sale it has is based on image. Loose that, and Apple is nothing but ordinary.

Your post has a lot of opinion and nothing else. I know 6 people that thought like you do and now all want iPhones. Can you give me examples how apple doesn't innovate? I would say many times Apple does safe innovation but how will your tune be at the end of the month when Apple sells 5 million of their new phones the first day when the S3 took a month to get to a million?
 
4 pages of people crying foul because apple is successful. The most laughable claim on this thread is that product pricing has ever been based on "quality" in the last 70 years. Hahahaha. Spoken like somebody who's never worked in marketing before Pete. At the very least you could look up the term "Sloanism".
 
Your post has a lot of opinion and nothing else. I know 6 people that thought like you do and now all want iPhones. Can you give me examples how apple doesn't innovate? I would say many times Apple does safe innovation but how will your tune be at the end of the month when Apple sells 5 million of their new phones the first day when the S3 took a month to get to a million?

S3 has sold over 9 million in pre-order alone.

And tell me of some Apple innovation.... give me an example since the iPad came out.
 
Can one buy anything these days that doesn't fall under slave labor, theft of service, and other abhorrent practices? I'll bet you that daily, you buy and enjoy products that violate your ethics.

I certainly do my best not to. It's hard in this world to avoid EVERY corrupt corporation, but if you actually care about your convictions you make the effort.
 
I certainly do my best not to. It's hard in this world to avoid EVERY corrupt corporation, but if you actually care about your convictions you make the effort.

Personally, I think it's hard to find anything that isn't corrupt to some extent. From our factory-farmed food to gas to Walmart PJ's, there are many underlying social issues with most of our everyday needs. Heck, even feel good preachy Lululemon is far from perfect.
 
Google Has Had Enough: Files Lawsuit To Ban Multiple Apple Products - AndroidPIT



This might not seem like political news, but I can't help but notice how liberal Google and Apple are in their marketing campaigns when it comes to freedom of information. It's their business models after all, so you'd expect them to spoil the public. They don't care how stupid people are when it comes to STEM principles as long as they can make a buck, sabotaging the next generation of engineers just so a few can make it big. They thrive on having a diverse labor supply as well from all over the world.

I guess some might qualify them as Rockefeller Republican, but it's the same deal. Either way, it's nice seeing them butt heads. I hope this lawsuit drains as much of both company's treasuries as possible.

No, progressives are not socialists.

Business is 99.8% politics...
 
S3 has sold over 9 million in pre-order alone.

And tell me of some Apple innovation.... give me an example since the iPad came out.

The iPad itself was nothing more than yet another innovation in marketing. It's nothing more than a glorified PDA, which is noting more than a limited, portable computer... which has been around for quite a long time. Even in the tablet configuration, Microsoft beat them to market. If only Bill Gates understood marketing like Steve Jobs did.
 
The iPad itself was nothing more than yet another innovation in marketing. It's nothing more than a glorified PDA, which is noting more than a limited, portable computer... which has been around for quite a long time. Even in the tablet configuration, Microsoft beat them to market. If only Bill Gates understood marketing like Steve Jobs did.
For the most part I agree with what you say here. The last sentence seems out-of-place to me, though. While I don't disagree that Jobs is probably one of the best marketers of our time, Apple's market share in most major shared categories/markets still pales in comparison to Microsoft's.
 
For the most part I agree with what you say here. The last sentence seems out-of-place to me, though. While I don't disagree that Jobs is probably one of the best marketers of our time, Apple's market share in most major shared categories/markets still pales in comparison to Microsoft's.

Market share does not really matter in the big picture.... profits matter and especially profit margin per sold item and here Apple and Steve Jobs excel.

Apple has managed to take average parts and put it in a packaged that looks exclusive and smack a massive profit margin on top to create an "exclusive quality" product image. Few other companies out there have managed that over the decades... Chevas Regal and Bang & Oloufsen come to mind. Apple basically hit the marketing equivalent of a home run.. for now at least.

Now unlike Chevas Regal and B&O, Apple has a so called ringer.. the mass media. You see, Apple managed back in the days of Apple vs Microsoft to grab the graphics industry where as Microsoft grabbed pretty much everything else. Apple despite almost going bankrupt (and being bailed out by Microsoft), managed to hold on to this market and with graphics comes media .. which means a large portion of the mass media use Macs for video editing. That effects the coverage of Apple products.. yes it is utter bias, but that is how it is. So with this ringer, Apple has managed directly or in-directly to get free advertising on an almost daily basis for the last 7 years. For example CNBC is one big Apple commercial most days. Just wait for Wednesday when the new iPhone 5 is announced... CNBC will be there live I bet as will many other news organisations. And no they were not live covering the release of the Samsung Galaxy 3 or Windows 8, or any other technology that a majority of people actually use.

Due to this media bias, Apple has managed to expand and maintain the illusion that it is the biggest, best and most innovative in all products it makes, despite the facts. At best Apple has a 34ish% market share in the US. Elsewhere it is much much lower. In Spain it is under double digits and falling.. in China and Brazil, Windows Phone has a bigger market share. But because of the marketing and media bias, I would wager most non-geeks would say it was Apple that was the biggest everywhere. They would also state that the iPhone 4S was the most advanced phone around.. with the best screen and all that. Not exactly factual or true.

But in the end their whole business model is based on one thing.. maintaining their grip on their iPhone customers with this image. 75% of all Apple profits comes from its iPhone and if the cost of making the phone goes up and the margin goes down, and the customers drop the phone because it is not the best on the block any more.. then watch Apple stock price fall like a rock and the image they have created over the last decade will be eroded even more.
 
Market share does not really matter in the big picture.... profits matter and especially profit margin per sold item and here Apple and Steve Jobs excel.

Apple has managed to take average parts and put it in a packaged that looks exclusive and smack a massive profit margin on top to create an "exclusive quality" product image. Few other companies out there have managed that over the decades... Chevas Regal and Bang & Oloufsen come to mind. Apple basically hit the marketing equivalent of a home run.. for now at least.

Now unlike Chevas Regal and B&O, Apple has a so called ringer.. the mass media. You see, Apple managed back in the days of Apple vs Microsoft to grab the graphics industry where as Microsoft grabbed pretty much everything else. Apple despite almost going bankrupt (and being bailed out by Microsoft), managed to hold on to this market and with graphics comes media .. which means a large portion of the mass media use Macs for video editing. That effects the coverage of Apple products.. yes it is utter bias, but that is how it is. So with this ringer, Apple has managed directly or in-directly to get free advertising on an almost daily basis for the last 7 years. For example CNBC is one big Apple commercial most days. Just wait for Wednesday when the new iPhone 5 is announced... CNBC will be there live I bet as will many other news organisations. And no they were not live covering the release of the Samsung Galaxy 3 or Windows 8, or any other technology that a majority of people actually use.

Due to this media bias, Apple has managed to expand and maintain the illusion that it is the biggest, best and most innovative in all products it makes, despite the facts. At best Apple has a 34ish% market share in the US. Elsewhere it is much much lower. In Spain it is under double digits and falling.. in China and Brazil, Windows Phone has a bigger market share. But because of the marketing and media bias, I would wager most non-geeks would say it was Apple that was the biggest everywhere. They would also state that the iPhone 4S was the most advanced phone around.. with the best screen and all that. Not exactly factual or true.

But in the end their whole business model is based on one thing.. maintaining their grip on their iPhone customers with this image. 75% of all Apple profits comes from its iPhone and if the cost of making the phone goes up and the margin goes down, and the customers drop the phone because it is not the best on the block any more.. then watch Apple stock price fall like a rock and the image they have created over the last decade will be eroded even more.
While your previous posts on this subject have been fantastic, you lost me on this one. You start out by discounting the importance of market share, then proceeded to explain why market share is so important.
 
While your previous posts on this subject have been fantastic, you lost me on this one. You start out by discounting the importance of market share, then proceeded to explain why market share is so important.

I do? Okay let me try to untangle it then.

Market share for companies does not really matter. Market share for the average joe that does not understand anything.. another matter. By creating the myth that they are the biggest, the age old marketing ploy of "following the leader" is invoked and some people simply start buying that product because they hear that everyone has it, or think that all their friends have it and they dont want to feel left out. That the market share aspect does not tell this myth is not something that the average Joe follows in the media.. and when the media actually promotes the myth, then you can get a snowball effect.. that could eventually lead to the myth becoming a fact.. but it does not look like it will.

But in reality, Apple is just fine with 30% market share, as long as it has the massive profit margin on its iPhone... because that gives profit. Nokia has been the biggest phone maker in the world for a decade and only just lost that place to Samsung in the last 4ish months... and that market share is in low cost phones, with next to no profit margin.. which means Nokia last few quarters has run in the red. Nokia's market share on phones dwarfs Apple.. but Apple has massive profits on its small market share. Hence market share does not really matter from Apple's point of view.. other than bragging rights of course.

As long as Apple can keep its 20-30% market share, then its user base and profits is growing, since the over all market for smartphones is expanding. Now the problem for Apple comes when its market share falls like it has in Spain, Germany and other countries.. they are still highly profitable in said countries, but their user base is not expanding but might even be contracting. If that also starts to hit the US, then yes market share suddenly becomes important for Apple, because it will effect its bottom line. But at the moment.. they dont care since the profit margin on what they have is so huge.
 
I am surprised Apple won this lawsuit, as patent infringement is one of the hardest cases to prove. How did they manage it?
I'm just courious in where you found that patent infrigement is hard to prove. The patents that I developed are pretty simple; they are easy to copy but hard to do anyother way.
 
Back
Top Bottom