Google's Android is Eating Apple's Lunch

[frahse]

Originally Posted by afv011

Like antennas? Or batteries? Or voice assistants? Oh, no, you mean like maps, right?

Let us not send for whom the bell tolls at least not yet.

Apple as done well. It moved the technology to the smartphone a step up from the pda (which I loved well.)
It broke open the tablet market which MS failed to do though they and maybe others blazed a path.
Steve Jobs was a marketing genius able to convince a well off group that this was the "next thing."

And finally Apple made money. Big money. Yes it was in good part bubble, but still it excited everyone.

But, the tragedy of Apple was that after running the table a few times, after seemingly owning the dice, they got cocky, and thought that they were were Gods of technology, but there are no true Gods of technology. Just a few prophets that pop up every so often and then pass on into the desert.

The new prophets have taken advantage of the niches that Apple left untended. The 7" market for tablets. The 4+ inch market in smartphones. They got a foothold, and are coming on fast. The momentum has changed. It is now up to Apple to keep up. Indeed maybe to catch up.

[kennyc]

Doesn't look like the CA courts are having any of it, denied retrial, denied banning products:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20212...etry-case.html

[Graham]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Doesn't look like the CA courts are having any of it, denied retrial, denied banning products:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20212...etry-case.html

Yes, the general feeling in courts worldwide seems to be shifting towards 'stop wasting our time and start playing nice'.

I see that Samsung have also just pulled their own lawsuits seeking injunctions against Apple in Europe:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20773678

Whatever the reasons (which can run the gamut from cynical to honourable) let's hope that this signals the start of a retreat to more reasonable positions all round.

Graham

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, the general feeling in courts worldwide seems to be shifting towards 'stop wasting our time and start playing nice'.

I see that Samsung have also just pulled their own lawsuits seeking injunctions against Apple in Europe:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20773678

Whatever the reasons (which can run the gamut from cynical to honourable) let's hope that this signals the start of a retreat to more reasonable positions all round.

Graham

We can hope!

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, the general feeling in courts worldwide seems to be shifting towards 'stop wasting our time and start playing nice'.

I see that Samsung have also just pulled their own lawsuits seeking injunctions against Apple in Europe:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20773678

Whatever the reasons (which can run the gamut from cynical to honourable) let's hope that this signals the start of a retreat to more reasonable positions all round.

Graham

Samsung is retreating because they are under investigation by the EU over patent abuse. Nothing to do with adopting a reasonable position. They were (and still are) trying to retaliate by suing over FRAND patents which have already been licensed by Qualcomm.

However, the patent wars are basically over at this point.

Despite PatNY's laughable hope that the US verdict would be overturned, Apple will get its $1Bn, give or take. But it doesn't matter: Samsung made $3Bn from its smartphone sales last quarter alone. The courts have expressed an extreme unwillingness to ban products, and have often lifted bans following minor changes to the offending device. Samsung's lawyers now vet its products for outright imitation before they hit the market, so the risk of being sued again in the future is low.

Copying the iPhone is the best business decision Samsung ever made.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Graham

Whatever the reasons (which can run the gamut from cynical to honourable)

Originally Posted by holymadness

Samsung is retreating because they are under investigation by the EU over patent abuse. Nothing to do with adopting a reasonable position.

Yes, that's the cynical side. The honourable side is that they could hardly complain in the US that Apple was trying to stifle competition with injunctions and continue with their own injunction suit once the US ban was denied.

Regardless of the reasons, it does represent a small de-escalation which is a good thing.

Graham

[Penforhire]

Steve, the Dow is not as widely held in major mutual funds as AAPL. I see it in my own funds (it is a big holding in every good-performing science or tech fund in addition to all the large cap growth types). Therefore it gets liquidated more than other stocks to meet redemption needs.

If you do not see this yourself then perhaps I should recommend a few books back at you? I read widely on the stock market, including A Random Walk. I'm a big fan of Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffet but, IMO, the market is irrational for quite a while now.

In the long run the market is a weighing machine (rational) but for over a decade it was more like a voting machine (irrational). The "long run" is now being redefined as requiring mutliple decades! That is no comfort to anyone approaching retirement these days.

I have no doubt Apple's profitability (and more importantly, growth) will slip. Just not as fast as some naysayers believe. I certainly do not poke fun at people buying Android hardware. I see some of them as valid choices but Android as an OS is not somehow intrinsically superior.

[kennyc]

Yep, just now sold some xlk (aapl a major component of it) after it popped up on fiscal cliff negotiations. It will probably continue to rise, but what the hey...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Doesn't look like the CA courts are having any of it, denied retrial, denied banning products:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20212...etry-case.html

Neither party has conclusively shown whether Hogan intentionally concealed his lawsuit with Seagate, or whether he merely forgot to mention it when asked by the court whether he was ever involved in a lawsuit, or whether he believed that the answer he gave had sufficiently responded to the court's question, Judge Koh said.

So when this guy was asked about having been involved in a lawsuit, he didn't mention Seagate, and the judge doesn't consider this lying, because it is possible that he just forgot? I would think that going to court would bring back memories of being in court before, not amnesia.

[holymadness]

He was never asked whether he was involved in a lawsuit with Seagate. That's the whole point.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by holymadness

He was never asked whether he was involved in a lawsuit with Seagate. That's the whole point.

According to the article he was asked whether he was ever involved in a lawsuit.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

According to the article he was asked whether he was ever involved in a lawsuit.

Exactly. His excuse was that he thought there was some kind of statute of limitations regarding previous lawsuits, which is incorrect.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by afv011

Exactly. His excuse was that he thought there was some kind of statute of limitations regarding previous lawsuits, which is incorrect.

Yes. It should have been thrown out because of the foreman's action/behavior.

[holymadness]

Better write to the trial judge and let her know.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by afv011

Exactly. His excuse was that he thought there was some kind of statute of limitations regarding previous lawsuits, which is incorrect.

Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law does not excuse).