×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tim Cook Never Wanted To Sue Samsung

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

Apple 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

197 comments

Unable to control your company, or complicit. (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about a year ago | (#42916395)

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.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916439)

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:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (2)

niftydude (1745144) | about a year ago | (#42916625)

Yep. Judge people by their actions not their words.

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. (5, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#42916791)

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:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917257)

That story says the investigation is ongoing. The $1000 fine was for a delay in reporting.
This is far from over.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42918021)

These lawsuits were one of the worst mistakes Apple has ever made. It turned the Apple-Samsung brand comparison from "Coke vs RC Cola" to "Coke vs Pepsi" nearly overnight.

Apple has always been a company defined by finding a niche and focusing on being #1 in that particular niche. They have no capacity (or institutional culture) to compete directly with a peer. Samsung does. Samsung's entire history has been fighting in markets flooded with nearly indistinguishable products from dozens of manufacturers.

Apple fucked themselves hard...and are going to implode like as IBM in the 1980s. Their very foundation of their business has been eroded.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916615)

If you RTFS it says right there that he "has still toed the party line". He's not owner or dictator of Apple. Not every decision is based on what he personally "permits", and not every personal desire of his is made into company policy. Success is based on company value, not on how much control he wields to get his way.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (4, Informative)

JonathanF (532591) | about a year ago | (#42916633)

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. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916777)

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.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917303)

My god, slashdot has really become a haven to trolls and fanboys. You completely ignore the fact that as soon as the iPhone came out, they got sued by a number of phone manufacturers. They're defendants in far more patent suits than they are plaintiffs, but you don't want to admit that, do you?

You're just all butthurt because they're fucking with a company you like.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917381)

Samsung is well known for cross-licensing intellectual property, and it's pragmatic attitude towards litigation...

No they are not! Look up their corruption charges in Singapore and South Korea. Lee Kun-hee is no better than a mafia boss. They don't litigate either but if you go against it you will be taken care of.

The author of Steve Jobs biography mentions a call to Samsung from Steve asking them to settle out of court and not to go down the path of litigation but I guess they turned him down.

So basically what you are saying is... (1, Troll)

tlambert (566799) | about a year ago | (#42917071)

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... (3, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#42917211)

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:So basically what you are saying is... (-1, Flamebait)

penix1 (722987) | about a year ago | (#42917551)

One can agree or disagree with Apple's infringement claims, but the analogy with SCO is unfounded.

How so? They both are using the courts to try and extort money out of their competitors. They both are using flimsy excuses to do the extortion. How are they different? Oh, I see, because Apple continues to manufacture something they are no longer considered trolls... Anyone who uses the legal system as a club to extort money using legal trickery is a troll in my eyes even if they were bloody Mother Theresa otherwise.

And it would serve Apple right if Samsung refused to renew any contracts with them to supply their technology to Apple. It would also serve Apple right if Samsung ended any license Apple may hold for for the use of any of Samsung's patented technology. Good luck building that iPhone without a screen...

Re:So basically what you are saying is... (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#42917935)

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:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (4, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#42917149)

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 (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#42917737)

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 do with. It wanted a ban on Samsung products, so it products could continue without competition.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (3, Insightful)

infinitelink (963279) | about a year ago | (#42918131)

When the conflict gets to litigation, everyone except the lawyers lose.

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:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (5, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#42916653)

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. (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#42917325)

The usual solution is to agree an "out of court settlement" where neither party admits fault.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#42918253)

What's to say this hasn't been tred already?

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (5, Interesting)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about a year ago | (#42916667)

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:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917481)

> Jobs was still alive when the litigation started. . . if you had even read the first paragraph of the article you would know that

Doesnt %$*&!@ matter.

Jobs died. Cook could call up Samsung and say: "hey, there's new leadership here. Let's find a way to put this business behind us and make sure that it doesnt come back." But he chose to continue the lawsuit. Sunk costs are sunk.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#42918271)

Again, Samsung were told to sort shit out by the judge and tried and failed.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (1)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year ago | (#42916733)

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:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916755)

are you LITERALLY retarded? because you'd basically have to be to not understand that once a lawsuit is started, you can't stop it easily, besides settling out of court, which neither company wanted to do. these lawsuits were started under steve jobs; tim cook merely inherited them.

I'm pro Anonymous comments but... (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#42917263)

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:I'm pro Anonymous comments but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917929)

That was an appropriate use of "literally"'. He was enquiring if the other person had an actual real life mental handicap.
Next time try reading the whole sentence before you go after someone, because you're making yourself look like an asshat.

Moral Coward (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916779)

Ray Noorda was willing to say "bad idea" when Novell bought out the UNIX rights from AT&T and stopped/settled the BSD/AT&T lawsuit once he became "in charge" over it.

Thusly Mr. Cook is trying to BS ya all.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about a year ago | (#42916991)

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. (3, Insightful)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about a year ago | (#42917085)

He has no right to do with the company as he pleases, his job as a CEO is to run the company in the direction mandated by the board. And the board in turn is supposed to manage the company according to the will of the share holders.

Re:Unable to control your company, or complicit. (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#42918109)

Bimbo Newton Crosby, if Cook has so little control as CEO that the desires of the dead former CEO trumps his wishes? Then frankly he doesn't deserve to be in the big chair. Sadly too often we have seen "upward failure' let people that never should have had the big chair sit in it, take Ballmer who would have been a fine VP of marketing or something but just doesn't have what it takes to truly run the company.

But Jobs has been gone for awhile now, if he can't even wrest control from the guy when he is cold and gone then he really needs to step down and give the reins to somebody who can. I have to wonder how much of this is CYA to give Wall street excuses for when the iWatch fails though. After all he can say "Hey it was Steve's idea, we were honoring the man by following his final wishes even though I didn't agree, yada yada yada" and deflect some of the blame when it goes tits up.

Everyone will have to build circular phones. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916399)

Or triangular, or octagonal... pretty much anything that's not a rectangle with rounded corners and Apple will accept it as innovation.

Re:Everyone will have to build circular phones. (1)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about a year ago | (#42916827)

The Sabre Pyramid. [amazonaws.com] By this time next year, everyone will have one.

Re:Everyone will have to build circular phones. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916975)

Looks more like a triangle. Of course, taking occlusion into account, it may well be a tetrahedron.

I'm not the bad guy here (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916403)

That's what they all say.

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916467)

I'd say that he isn't the bad guy, and nor was Steve Jobs.
Samsung's behaviour and that of Google's Eric Schmidt is disgusting and has left me with absolutely no respect for either.

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916643)

Spoken like a true Apple boot licker.

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916647)

I'd say that he isn't the bad guy, and nor was Steve Jobs.
Samsung's behaviour and that of Google's Eric Schmidt is disgusting and has left me with absolutely no respect for either.

Weirdo

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (0)

theRunicBard (2662581) | about a year ago | (#42916655)

What behavior is that? I'm genuinely curious. You have apple making devices more closed, patenting shit like rounded corners, and suing everyone around. If you read up on Jobs, he had a very nasty side to him too. Look at his biography (the one by Walter Isaacson). He wouldn't give one of the initial employees of Apple any stock despite Wozniac insisting on it. He cheated Wozniac on multiple occasions (I won't look this up - Google). There are stories of him having horrible relations with his wife (in the biography). It seems from a glance that his "innovation" was just good salesmanship. Supposedly (again, in the biography) there were times when an employee would bring up an idea, he would hate it, and then claim it as his own a few days later. I can't think of any instance of him donating money like Bill Gates, who although not a saint is certainly helping the world at this point. Not much of what I'm saying here is hard evidence but it paints a pretty poor picture of someone so idolized. What did Google and Schmidt do that left you more disgusted than that?

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (5, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#42916931)

Can I just say that repeating the nonsense of "patenting shit like rounded corners" marks you as either a troll or an imbecile.

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 (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#42917151)

I think his point was more to the fact that jobs was a dbag. Something that is really well known to people in the industry. Woz even has said that jobs screwed him over in the early years.

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917867)

Woz even has said that jobs screwed him over in the early years.

aaaaand what else? He also said they reconciled. But yeah, what a monster. He sounds like he was almost as bad as the miserable douche bags who find it necessary to endlessly campaign against the irrellivant things they hate.

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (3, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about a year ago | (#42917161)

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:I'm not the bad guy here (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#42918347)

Yes rounded corners was one of the items. But it wasn't the single item as some seem to like to suggest. To be sued you don't need to merely use rounded corners. You need to copy the entire design wholesale. Not a single element. This is why HTC and Nokia (amongst others) haven't been sued.

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (3, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#42916939)

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:I'm not the bad guy here (2)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#42917259)

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 sound and music processing, advanced graphics primitives, internationalization, and modern typography, in a consistent manner across all applications. I can do a similar thing for many of his innovation. No he is not just rounded corners. Jobs was often an asshole no question. Jobs was also a genius who helped to make people think they were part of changing the world, and many of the people who were abused by Jobs are the ones who say how important he was in moving them from doing pretty good work to doing outstanding work.

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#42918303)

Apple isn't suing over simply rounded corners. They are suing over devices that copy many, many things in a single device. Things that didn't have to be the same and that in apples opinion (to be decided b a jury) were copied to ride the iPhone's success by confusing the market.

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (0)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about a year ago | (#42916895)

And pray tell what behavior is that? Apple didn't invent a damn thing that Android uses. For every "invention" that Apple has sued over there's at least a half dozen devices prior to the iPhone that implement that functionality or design.

Re:I'm not the bad guy here (2, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#42917283)

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.

Money where your mouth is (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#42916425)

"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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916499)

"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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917857)

That's how you say it in iNewspeek.

Re:Money where your mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917887)

That's how you say it in iNewspeak.

Re:Money where your mouth is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916677)

But really, whose property is "notification shade" anyway? Does Android legitimately own that property?

Re:Money where your mouth is (3, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#42916711)

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:Money where your mouth is (1)

bug1 (96678) | about a year ago | (#42917277)

Troll (-1) = Insightful (+1) * CounterIntuitive (0).

Clearly moderation is broken.

Re:Money where your mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42918113)

You should be modded troll for responding to yourself bitching about how you were modded.

Re:Money where your mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916735)

And that "3D dock" thing at the bottom of the screen, lifted straight off Project Looking Glass - that's got to go too.

Re:Money where your mouth is (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#42916951)

Really? The Macs have had a dock for like, a damned long time...

Re:Money where your mouth is (1)

MrYingster (594507) | about a year ago | (#42917273)

Well, shoot. I came to tell you that you were correct.... However, although Mac OS X 10.0 was introduced in 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X [wikipedia.org] and Project Looking Glass wasn't displayed publicly till 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass [wikipedia.org] , one must point out that Mac OS X didn't adopt the 3D "shelf" look until 10.5 which came out in 2007... It was a flat rectangle before that, which i had completely forgotten....

Re:Money where your mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917499)

Well, shoot. I came to tell you that you were correct.... However, although Mac OS X 10.0 was introduced in 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X [wikipedia.org] and Project Looking Glass wasn't displayed publicly till 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass [wikipedia.org] , one must point out that Mac OS X didn't adopt the 3D "shelf" look until 10.5 which came out in 2007... It was a flat rectangle before that, which i had completely forgotten....

And Next had a dock well before Project Looking glass ripped that idea wholesale in 3D. I vividly remember using a Next like dock Window Maker on a Red hat box Back in the late 90s.

Re:Money where your mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917653)

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.)

Re:Money where your mouth is (1)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year ago | (#42917907)

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:Money where your mouth is (1, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about a year ago | (#42917059)

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'll find they think the first smart phone was an iPhone. Same goes for iPod, same goes for iPad, same goes for just about every popular product Apple makes. There's no accident there. It's aggressive, manipulative and deceptive marketing that makes that happen. So much so that they have many times been successfully sued and or banned over their deceptive marketing tactics.

IMO, and I'll probably be modded down for this, 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. Every time I see a Mac boot I feel sorry for The Regents of the University of California. Credit needs to go to the people who made the OS, not the people who shamelessly threw their window handler on top of it and re-branded it.

Re:Money where your mouth is (4, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#42917409)

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:Money where your mouth is (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#42917871)

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:Money where your mouth is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42918085)

It's true that OSX is based on BSD, and maybe Apple could publicize more of its BSD roots, but it's a laughable exaggeration to say OSX is really just a window handler on top of a modified FreeBSD. In fact, you're committing the same "crime" as Apple when you only talk about BSD and fail to mention how OSX is based on Mach as well (so maybe you should fell sorry for the people at Carnegie Mellon University, too).

So, to set the record straight: the actual OSX kernel is XNU [wikipedia.org] ; it's a based on Mach [wikipedia.org] (the same kernel GNU Hurd is based on) with a lot of BSD [wikipedia.org] code on top of it (to provide a POSIX interface). Most of the very low-level hardware access (disk, network, graphics, USB, etc.) is built on top of something they call "I/O Kit [wikipedia.org] ", which also has nothing to do with BSD code.

pfft (2)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year ago | (#42916471)

Yet he is at the helm of the ship when mostly all the lawsuits from apple against Samsung started. He is just trying to save face in all the Bad PR apple has gotten over last couple years.

Re:pfft (2)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year ago | (#42916531)

"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" ^ Yet apple has done everything to kill off innovation of others that compete with them and ripped off a lot more intellectual property then anyone even knows.

But it's still ok for Apple ... (-1, Troll)

Noir Angellus (2740421) | about a year ago | (#42916491)

to rip off other company's intellectual property ... apparently. Apple have never innovated anything EVER. Even the styling of their signature products has been directly copied from other company's work from the 70s. Rounded corners are NOT an innovation, they're standard practice for anyone making anything.

Allow me to join in here (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#42916565)

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 (3, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#42916685)

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 (5, Informative)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about a year ago | (#42917179)

I think he means, losing market share. And they're bleeding market share like a stuck pig.

Re:Allow me to join in here (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917471)

They had peaked on the share of the market that they could get with $500~$600 phones + the ATT tariff. So, just like with the Mac back in the 80s, they lost market share to multiple makers of clones running a better OS. Remember, the Mac was designed to retail for around $500 at a time when IBM computers were selling for well over $2300. Jobs axed the low price point and the first Macs sold for ~$2500. You know the rest, Apple computers now sell at a premium, appealing only to those who think the value is in higher price, and Apple's market share in personal computers is low. The same thing is happening with tablets and phones now.

(capcha: "unclean"...guess speaking the truth about APPL is un/.)

Re:Allow me to join in here (1)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year ago | (#42917697)

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 devices it's remarkable how well they have kept up with the growing legion Android device makers. The ones bleeding market share like stuck pigs over the last couple of years are pretty much everybody except Apple with the biggest losers being Blackberry and Nokia. We are heading into a Mobile OS monoculture dominated by Google/Android to thundering applause from half the people on this forum.

Re:Allow me to join in here (2)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about a year ago | (#42918003)

No, Android is gaining market share faster than iOS

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:Allow me to join in here (2)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#42918075)

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 diversify. A closed monoculture, not so much. Indeed, the biggest common complaint about the Android ecosystem is fragmentation -- i.e. that it's already not a very homogeneous monoculture.

Would you like me to explain :) (4, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#42917207)

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 (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about a year ago | (#42917719)

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. (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#42917981)

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 will dive. Averaging out the peaks and troughs. Its not gaining market share because it is growing *the same* as the market.

The figures your looking for is the market grew 46% in 2012. Apples market share was 18.8% in 2011...and is still 18.8% in 2012 because it sold only 46% more phones...the same as what the market grew.

Its easier to see what is happing when averaging over a year. The reality is the big launch was the turning point, and everyone knew it. Its why its market share have dropped 35% since then. :)

Re:Allow me to join in here (1)

blindbat (189141) | about a year ago | (#42917335)

It takes time for your customers to show up as lost. I have many macs in my household--they will not be replaced with more macs. I have an iPhone; my next phone will run android.

Re:Allow me to join in here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916703)

Exactly, they are winning the battles but loosing a war.

Re:Allow me to join in here (0)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#42917447)

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?

Shrinking Margins (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#42917549)

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:Shrinking Margins (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#42917895)

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.

Re:Allow me to join in here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917705)

> Explain to me what a CEO does again?

Ok, if I even take Tim Cook at his word, then I still can't help but think that Steve Jobs is still ruling this Apple company from beyond the grave. Yes, it must be hard to overrule a 'Dying Man's Last Wish (for Thermonuclear War)' but yeah... what does the CEO title mean again?

he always wanted... (2)

hguorbray (967940) | about a year ago | (#42916577)

to be a Lumberjack!

In the Forests of British Columbia, Leaping from tree to tree amongst the Larch, the Pine and the mighty Sequoia!

-I'm just sayin'

Rounded Corners (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42916587)

How are rounded corners considered either "intellectual" or "property"? They sued because they could make money WITHOUT innovating.

Litigation Failed - Lets have some Samsung News (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#42917089)

I'm getting a little tired of these non-Apple articles when daily I see great technology come out of other electronics companies...Which is after all what Apple is now. Timmy has a major problem, Apple is not prepared for the new norm. Apples biggest profit machine the iPhone had Jobs give away the whole smartphone market to Android [for a few years of amazing profits], an OS that is packed though a range of compelling devices, in different shapes; price ranges, specifications [ranging from joypads; e-ink displays; giant displays; waterproof; projectors;....]; Apple does have 4S and 4 [lower margins] as a product range...which cannibalised the iphone 5 [killing their profit margins] as people wanted the brand more than the device, Steve Jobs wanted to have the market to himself and his...not Little Timmy's response to this was litigation, but lets be fair its not like Timmy has another solution. For completeness the ipod is vanishing [being replace by android phones], they have pretty much walked away from OS X [20% drop is sales], and the iPads dominance has already come to an end [its market share dropped last quarter below 20%]...and will never be as profitable as the iphone.

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. Innovation in the form of an iWatch or an iTv is not going to save Apple we are already seeing Smart devices in both these categories. Apple needed to do the boring things like have a phone that people could buy [In China and Brazil]...an iPhone nano [and mini]*years ago*, the same way it needed an iPad mini years ago. It needs do interesting things on its current platforms...Apple could have reinvented the PC market...Microsoft have made a mess with Surface, and its Chromebooks getting all the good press. Hell the needed to spend that cash pile before buying hell Dell would have been fun or twitter or Nintendo, Hell I was thinking Attack Microsoft with an Office suite and hell License their OS [oooh Google did that already]...buy steam Anything.

There has been *NO* real news from Apple. Lets talk about companies that are relevant; and innovate with new exciting devices...not iterations of old ones.

Sure I believe him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42917581)

Just like I believe Oscar Pistorius "accidentally" shot his wife four times!

Sue Samsung? I went to school with her! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42918323)

I have fond memories of sweet Susie Samsung.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...