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
Except | 401 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Except
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 11:09 PM EDT
That is the old App;e. The Apple that thought hardware control meant *being*
the platform.

The new Apple wants those revenue margins on hardware, yes, but they've seen
what Google can do with services, and they now realize the danger of a platform
that doesn't care about the hardware. They also realize they can't stop it.
That means they have to join the party. They are trying to roll their own
services, and they will end up going head to head with Google.

And the win-win scenario could never happen anyway as long as Apple is still
trying to stop Android by suing Samsung. Apple knows it futile, but they're
trying to buy time, hoping they can grow their own quckly. Much like Microsoft
funding SCO's nonsense, hoping to slow Linux until they could release their next
big thing to rule them all (aka Vista).

Here's hoping it works out as well for Apple;-)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Except - Authored by: squib on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 03:08 PM EDT
  • Except - Authored by: squib on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 03:10 PM EDT
Android is winning. Apple is whining.
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 09:45 AM EDT
The problem with Apple's tragedy strategy is that having a high margin is not a winning situation as market share gradually shrinks toward zero.

Google's strategy of growing market share will make Apple's high margin strategy fail to generate massive amounts of income. I'm sure Apple is furious that Google is taking Apple's God given divine right to a monopoly market to which Apple is entitled. Consider the statements of the angry monopolist: phrases like "going thermonuclear", and I'll spend every last dime of the stockholders Apple's to destroy Android, and I'm going to f*%^#! kill Google (throws chair) -- Oh, sorry. Nevermind that last one. That was from a different crazy monopolist, and was edited for polite company, but gives you a correct sense of the exact quotation.

If Apple was winning, or could win, given Google's increasing market share, then Apple would not be throwing such a hissy fit over every new Android device. Do you see a pattern here. Apple sues Samsung for selling successful device. Samsung makes device not infringe patents. Also releases new generation of devices. Apple sues over the new devices with different claims. It doesn't really matter what Samsung does with their newer and newer devices, Apple is determined to sue over any claim it can find.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ 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 )