Apple's lone-wolf strategy backfires

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

And it appears that Apple has hired the best lobbyist in the world. Obama.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

Obama Administration Vetoes Ban on Sale of Some Apple iPhones, iPads

I'd start a thread but I don't care enough.

That Obama!
Such a card!
And two days before he was being villified for "hating indie bookstores" and being in Amazon's pocket for giving a speech at their brand-new 5000-jobs-created facility in Tennesee and giving Kindle Singles a 13 page interview to distribute for free.
(Bad Obama! Naughty!)

I suppose the authors of the original article will now say something like, "See? Spend a little, get big results. Politicians can be bought cheap! Bwah-ha-hah!"

[Graham]

Out of interest, given that the ban was the penalty applied to Apple for losing the ITC case, will an alternate penalty be arranged?

If not, you can understand that Samsung would be aggrieved, as it wasn't in question that Apple have been infringing these patents - simply that they were unwilling to pay what Samsung felt was a fair and reasonable rate.

Graham

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Graham

Out of interest, given that the ban was the penalty applied to Apple for losing the ITC case, will an alternate penalty be arranged?

Litigated.

While today's veto means Apple will be free to continue importing and selling those devices in the US, Froman makes it clear that the veto in no way addresses the legal merit of Samsung's claims, explaining: "My decision to disapprove this determination does not mean that the patent owner in this case is not entitled to a remedy. On the contrary, the patent owner may continue to pursue its rights through the courts."

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/3/458...d-select-ipads

What happened here is rare but not earth-shaking.
It is the equivalent of a judge issuing a pre-trial injunction that get overturned on appeal.

The ban was to prevent the continued "violation" of the Samsung patent while the case is litigated and, presumably, a value gets attached to the total violation. Now the case moves on and the award Samsung gets, if they win, is bigger.

The ban was a stick to get Apple to negotiate with Samsung and settle quickly. Apple prefers to fight it out in court every step of the way instead of settling so they'll fight it out and keep racking up billable hours for the hounds of law.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Litigated.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Another win for the lawyers on both sides, then. ;-)

Graham

Originally Posted by holymadness

Here is another perfect example of cognitive dissonance. (much removed)

... and this is why a lot of people start attacking Mac users as fanatical.

(I'm now closing MacBook and am going to find something better to do.)

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by jswinden

So you only do business with companies that blindly stay on the track you think they should. I call those companies medieval because they never rock the boat, never innovate, never challenge the establishment to make changes for the good. Seems like you will miss out on those who truly innovate and push the envelope.

I think what he probably means is that it is not good doing business with companies that do things differently where "doing things differently" is the sole reason to do so.

Even if other companies start doing things their way (doing them the way the "different" company is doing them, I mean), because they see some advantages in that approach, I'd expect that company to change their ways, just to *stay* different, at all costs.

In the IT-world at least, this often creates problems, especially if the company is important in some way or another. Often, I have the feeling that Apple is such a company.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Apple sells hundreds of millions of devices that consistently achieve the highest customer satisfaction rankings in their respective categories...

It's logical if you think about it. Apple stuff is like the "My way, or the highway". People who consistently buy Apple products *want* to work in the Apple way, and therefore, they are very satisfied.

As one of my colleagues once said:

"Why should I think? Apple does that for me."

And it's true: whatever Apple does, whatever Apple decides, it's all fine with him. If Apple decides that the OS in the new Air needs to be in Flash memory and there should be no hard drive because they now have iCloud, it's fine with him. If Apple decides that the only iMac should be one with a 28.47 inch screen and an aspect ratio of 18:8.31 and should be used in portrait mode only, then it'll be fine with him. Should Apple decide that the Dvorak keyboard is better than anything else, then he'll learn to type anew.

Apple knows what's best for him, and he will always be satisfied. If he could, I'm sure he'd buy an Apple TV (even if it was only 32", downgrading from his current 42"), an Apple watch, an Apple car, and an Apple washing machine without ever looking at anything else than the fact that they're made by Apple.

IMHO, that's not just being complacent, that's moronic.

The bad part is, I know quite a lot of people like that. Among Apple users I know, he is not an exception.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I think what he probably means is that it is not good doing business with companies that do things differently where "doing things differently" is the sole reason to do so.

Not-invented-here syndrome is the bane of unwary consumers.
It leads to many a blind alley.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Here is another perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

Apple sells hundreds of millions of devices that consistently achieve the highest customer satisfaction rankings in their respective categories...

Ah, well, not any more. Dissonance you say?

Samsung hits a home run with its Galaxy S III and Note II, according to a smartphone brand study released today by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). The new study provides 2013 customer satisfaction benchmarks for 10 of the past year’s top-selling smartphone models in the United States.

Samsung’s flagship model for 2012, the S III, receives an ACSI benchmark of 84 (on a 0 to 100 scale), beating Apple’s iPhone 5 at 82, the company’s most recent smartphone offering. Another Samsung model, Note II, shares the top of list at 84. Galaxy S4 is not included because the ACSI study was fielded just prior to its launch.

Source

[frahse]

I remember from the God Father movies the expression that went like this:

~have the judges in your pocket like so many coins~

I guess you can also have politicians in your pocket and Presidents as well.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

IMHO, that's not just being complacent, that's moronic.

The bad part is, I know quite a lot of people like that. Among Apple users I know, he is not an exception.

I very much appreciate your reasonable tone but disagree with the idea that anecdotal/inductive evidence is nonprejudicial. "Many Apple users are moronic fanboys" = "many Asians are terrible drivers."

It doesn't matter how many members of a subset of people you happen to know personally. The idea is not to generalize -- especially when your tone is rational and you can make your point just as well without resorting to reductive characterizations.

I hope that didn't sound too preachy.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I very much appreciate your reasonable tone but disagree with the idea that anecdotal/inductive evidence is nonprejudicial. "Many Apple users are moronic fanboys" = "many Asians are terrible drivers."


I hope that didn't sound too preachy.

I can honestly say that I have never heard that about Asians and I (to quote an old country song) have been everywhere.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

I can honestly say that I have never heard that about Asians and I (to quote an old country song) have been everywhere.

Spoiler:

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by holymadness

In reality, "open" is the greatest marketing buzzword of all time. Open means being the target of over 90 per cent of all mobile malware infections. Open means owning a device that is pre-loaded with non-removable crapware, spyware, and bloat by OEMs and carriers. Open means being denied OS upgrades, forcing early obsolescence, such that over half of the user base is still using operating systems that came out thee years ago or more. Open means being denied access to features, such as tethering, by one's carrier. Somehow none of this is considered anti-consumer. How bizarre.

Open means, having a choice.

Or the longer version of it. You may choose to only buy/use apps from within the walled garden stores or you may choose to buy/run apps from anywhere.

A prime example of this is the choice Mac owners get. Either:

* Install Mac App store apps only
* Install Apps from anywhere that is signed by a apple developer certificate
* Install Apps from anywhere

If Apple applied that to their tablets and phones, I'd be a much greater supporter. As it is, I use both, I enjoy using both, but I don't like the restriction on choice and will likely jump ship before long.

As for all the "Open" examples you gave, I agree and I wouldn't call those platforms open either. Pre-installed bloatware is fine as long as the platform is open enough that you can delete it, if it's not, it's not open. Features shouldn't be restricted on the device itself, if they are, it's not open. If they're restricted by the network, that's different, that's down to choice of carrier and contract etc.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by WillysJeepMan

That article is codespeak for, "Apple should hire lobbyists to grease the palms of politicians and judges". They wouldn't have lost the lawsuit had they done that.

That's exactly what I thought reading it. The one guy managed to sound like a mafia hit man. Pay up your protection money or else. They sure are open about corruption these days, aren't they?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

I can honestly say that I have never heard that about Asians and I (to quote an old country song) have been everywhere.

http://www.racialicious.com/2013/07/...e-sfo-tragedy/

The stereotype that Asians aren’t great behind the wheel isn’t new, of course. I mean, it’s been featured in Family Guy. It has its own special place in the revered Urban Dictionary. It’s entrenched enough that it’s been the focus of multiple studies, which compared crash rates of immigrant drivers with those of native drivers. (One Canadian study from 2011 found that immigrant drivers — the biggest groups of whom were from China and India — actually had fewer accidents than “long-term” drivers.)