decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Corporate group think? | 360 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corporate group think?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 02:42 PM EST
I think what we are seeing is a combination of loyalty to Steve Jobs, and the
lack of Steve Jobs sitting on certain people.

Back in the days of the Apple ][, there were a bunch of Apple ][ clones. Steve
Jobs felt like every clone sold was money taken from him personally. Since then
he has always tried to keep things as closed as possible and use every means,
technical and legal to keep anything Apple did from being copied. It didn't
matter if Apple invented it, or copied it from someone else.

Now like lemmings marching off a cliff, Apple is following his legacy and trying
to go nuclear on everything that might be a copy of anything Apple has ever
produced. Out of loyalty to their dead leader, no one will even consider
changing course until after they have marched over the cliff. By then it will
be too late.

The other thing we are seeing is something I hadn't expected. Everyone always
thought much of the coolness of Apple products came from Steve Jobs himself.
It's now apparent that he was able to higher a lot of people who are very good
at being cool. The problem is they are too good at it. It seems as though Jobs
was riding herd on all the cool people he hired and remembering the customers
and other little practical matters like that. It is also apparent that no one
is doing that anymore.

We can expect Apple to create a bunch of really cool products. Products that
are too cool for most of Apple's customers. There will be a core group of
fanatics that will continue to buy Apple products. The rest of us just won't
get it, and that will be our fault.

The UK website debacle is an example of someone in marketing being too cool to
listen to a judge. It's not to say that Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed it to
happen, but he would have been aware of it and made a conscious decision to
irritate the judges. Now, I don't think anyone even thought twice about it.

Combine those two things, and you've got a company that is going to crash and
burn rather quickly. Unless there is a massive leadership shake up and someone
is able to step up and remember the customer, Apple will be a fraction of its
current size in a few years.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Whatever were they thinking!
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 04:23 PM EST

I've been thinking that Apple maybe thought they could rally their fans with this behaviour - standing up to those who would dare "copy" their precious iPad even in the face of adversity - ie, the English Court. Apple may have thought it would be viewed as a hero, and a great hue and cry would go up from the Fandom as they gather torches and pitchforks with which to go after Apple's enemies. However, it must have a been a big shock for Apple to learn they were so out of touch that instead of being inspired their fans were for the most part just as appalled as the rest of us at Apple's boorish behaviour.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Corporate group think?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 05:51 PM EST
I think it is more the attitude that seems to emerge from the US that the US is
the world and that everyone in the world follows their laws and their ways of
doing things.

I hate to say it, but the actions of corporate America are very puerile (as
viewed from this side of the pond), and US courts seem to tolerate, even reward,
that kind of behaviour; Apple got a rather nasty shock when they brought that
attitude into a court here.

Apple's actions may have been noticed in the US, but from observing the SCO
fiasco and how the Apple v Samsung case has gone, it would probably have taken 6
months or more for anything to have been done about it, leaving the muddying
message up for the pre-Christmas present buying season during which harm would
have definitely been done to Samsung, making a proper victory for Samsung a
rather pyrrhic one

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Hear, hear! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:40 PM EST
    • Hear, hear! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 01:06 AM EST
      • Hear, hear! - Authored by: stegu on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 04:14 AM EST
        • Hear, hear! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 09:41 PM EST
    • Hear, hear! - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 01:09 PM EST
      • Hear, hear! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 05:12 PM EST
Law School Hubris
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 06:02 PM EST
It looks to me more like a bunch of Californian lawyers whispering
in ears in Cupertino, said lawyers having zero courtroom time
on the east shore of the Atlantic. Yet more Americentrism.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Very well respected"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 07:46 AM EST
There may be some environment in which John Browett is well-respected, but it's
not the British technology-buying public. Before he went to Apple he ran
Dixon's, the most despised electronics retailer in Britain. Their shops (now
branded as Currys and PC World) are known for their overpriced goods,
ill-informed staff, and general poor quality. They regularly appear at the
bottom of customer satisfaction tables (e.g. PC World is 96th of 96 in Which
magazine's survey of online shops this month).

It's hardly surprising he failed at Apple, a company that prides itself on its
brand image. Though they seem to be making a lot of mistakes in that area
recently...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hubris
Authored by: digger53 on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 10:34 PM EST
Often defined as overweening pride, perhaps the best definition I've seen for hubris is "moral blindness." Greek tragedy was all about, some would say only about hubris. Usually ended in the death, dismemberment, or insanity (or some combination thereof) for the "hero." There'e something of a formula: koros (surfeit), hubris, ate (insanity), then Nemesis; it's like clockwork in Greek tragedy. Apple-ites think that they can do no wrong, that they are above the laws of God and man."Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a a fall" the Bible says. I suspect Aeschylus would concur.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )