10 ms·

"...instead of being nice..." There is the problem. Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons. Neither does Google, no matter how vehemently

by sbuk 14y ago

"...instead of being nice..." There is the problem. Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons. Neither does Google, no matter how vehemently they say that they do. As others have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be a boycott on Google for their part in the attempt to gain an import ban of the XBox or their support of the alleged abuse of FRAND patents, both by their newly acquired subsidiary. Apple are playing the same legal game as Google are.

polymatter 14y ago
> "Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons." While true in a strictly short term sense, not being "nice" is the sort of thing that erodes your brand image. One too many of these sorts of stories stick in a consumers head to create a generally negative image, which can be extremely hard to reverse (see Scoda). And for a luxury company like Apple, brand image is everything.
- sbuk 14y ago
  So it's ok for Google to lie and steal? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/google-caught-pilfering-kenyan-business-directory-in-sting-operation/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/google-caught-pil... A far, far worse abuse of trust wouldn't you say? as was a serving member of a board of directors not initially declaring a conflict of interest. This will be, as we say in the UK, tomorrows fish and chip paper.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Slow down there. First, you're conveniently omitting the part where Google apologized and fired the people involved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/google-mocality-action http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/google-moca... Second, as for Eric Schmidt not disclosing his conflict-of-interest, it's not like the Android acquisition (and its relationship to Google's mobile ambitions) was some deep, dark secret (like the iPhone was): http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb And that was public over a year before Eric Schmidt joined the Apple board: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric-Schmidt-Joins-Apples-Board-of-Directors.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric... It seems to me that if anyone had the responsibility of keeping Schmidt off of the Apple board because of a conflict-of-interest between Android and the iPhone, it was Apple.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
> there doesn't seem to be a boycott on Google for their part in the attempt to gain an import ban of the XBox or their support of the alleged abuse of FRAND patents, both by their newly acquired subsidiary. That is because the perception is that they're using it to countersue Microsoft and Apple who filed the first volleys. >Apple are playing the same legal game as Google are. No, Apple was the initial aggressor against HTC, Motorola and Samsung. And that matters a lot. Have you seen the PC OEMs sue each other over patents like this? They seem to compete in the marketplace like most other industries.
- dthunt 14y ago
  All parties here are responsible. As long as companies keep building up arsenals of shit patents that they can use to justify these preliminary injunctions, or shop jurisdictions, the beatings will continue and make it virtually impossible for new players to enter the market for fear of legal morass. The issue in the Apple cases that makes me so angry is that they're treating the US patent system like the Japanese 'product design' patents, only impossibly broader and less specific. This type of nonsense - both from non-practicing trolls and the hegemony of practicing patent trolls - has a real cost. Congress needs to step in and limit the scope on a broad swath of patents, make it harder to get injunctions on this stuff, and generally find ways to penalize anticompetitive behavior.
- sbuk 14y ago
  The FRAND suit legally has nothing to do with this, and what's more it is blatant. What I see here is a bunch of fans of Google giving them a free ride. I don't like Apples approach at the moment either, but to lay any kind of blame solely at their feet is at best naive. Googles recent business dealing are far more worrisome, especially the Kenyan affair. It doesn't matter who shot first either.
- v0cab 14y ago
  > Apple was the initial aggressor against HTC, Motorola and Samsung. Samsung own the South Korean government, and they've been putting up obstacles to foreign phones in South Korea for years, even before the iPhone.
msabalau 14y ago
All the early adopters already have their Xboxes. The iPhone is lame and tired, and there was nothing at Apple's WWDC that had any wow. For the moment, the fun stuff is coming from the Android ecosystem, and Apple is getting in the way of people getting it. Hence the wrath of the crowd who adore new things, the ones that Apple used to care about, before they crossed the chasm and jumped the shark.
- sbuk 14y ago
  That is entirely subjective, and bordering on a troll.
  - Intermernet 14y ago
    If they'd commented the exact opposite, but with equal subjectivity, would you have thought the same?
  - msabalau 14y ago
    "Cool" and "appealing" and "innovative" are inherently subjective. Nevertheless, "Apple is getting in the way of us getting neat things" seems a more plausible source of the anger expressed than, than to believe that people have deeply held views about IP laws as they apply to this particular case, or that they have strong opinions about Apple's business practices generally (the spark point is a ban preventing consumers from buying a product, not, say labor practices in China) If Apple were to announce a bright shiny new iPhone that was seen as innovative, and people were still angry and wanted to #BoycottApple, then this subjective hypothesis will be proven incorrect.

by sbuk 14y ago

polymatter 14y ago

> "Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons." While true in a strictly short term sense, not being "nice" is the sort of thing that erodes your brand image. One too many of these sorts of stories stick in a consumers head to create a generally negative image, which can be extremely hard to reverse (see Scoda). And for a luxury company like Apple, brand image is everything.

sbuk 14y ago
So it's ok for Google to lie and steal? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/google-caught-pilfering-kenyan-business-directory-in-sting-operation/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/google-caught-pil... A far, far worse abuse of trust wouldn't you say? as was a serving member of a board of directors not initially declaring a conflict of interest. This will be, as we say in the UK, tomorrows fish and chip paper.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Slow down there. First, you're conveniently omitting the part where Google apologized and fired the people involved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/google-mocality-action http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/google-moca... Second, as for Eric Schmidt not disclosing his conflict-of-interest, it's not like the Android acquisition (and its relationship to Google's mobile ambitions) was some deep, dark secret (like the iPhone was): http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb And that was public over a year before Eric Schmidt joined the Apple board: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric-Schmidt-Joins-Apples-Board-of-Directors.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric... It seems to me that if anyone had the responsibility of keeping Schmidt off of the Apple board because of a conflict-of-interest between Android and the iPhone, it was Apple.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

> there doesn't seem to be a boycott on Google for their part in the attempt to gain an import ban of the XBox or their support of the alleged abuse of FRAND patents, both by their newly acquired subsidiary. That is because the perception is that they're using it to countersue Microsoft and Apple who filed the first volleys. >Apple are playing the same legal game as Google are. No, Apple was the initial aggressor against HTC, Motorola and Samsung. And that matters a lot. Have you seen the PC OEMs sue each other over patents like this? They seem to compete in the marketplace like most other industries.

dthunt 14y ago
All parties here are responsible. As long as companies keep building up arsenals of shit patents that they can use to justify these preliminary injunctions, or shop jurisdictions, the beatings will continue and make it virtually impossible for new players to enter the market for fear of legal morass. The issue in the Apple cases that makes me so angry is that they're treating the US patent system like the Japanese 'product design' patents, only impossibly broader and less specific. This type of nonsense - both from non-practicing trolls and the hegemony of practicing patent trolls - has a real cost. Congress needs to step in and limit the scope on a broad swath of patents, make it harder to get injunctions on this stuff, and generally find ways to penalize anticompetitive behavior.
sbuk 14y ago
The FRAND suit legally has nothing to do with this, and what's more it is blatant. What I see here is a bunch of fans of Google giving them a free ride. I don't like Apples approach at the moment either, but to lay any kind of blame solely at their feet is at best naive. Googles recent business dealing are far more worrisome, especially the Kenyan affair. It doesn't matter who shot first either.
v0cab 14y ago
> Apple was the initial aggressor against HTC, Motorola and Samsung. Samsung own the South Korean government, and they've been putting up obstacles to foreign phones in South Korea for years, even before the iPhone.

msabalau 14y ago

All the early adopters already have their Xboxes. The iPhone is lame and tired, and there was nothing at Apple's WWDC that had any wow. For the moment, the fun stuff is coming from the Android ecosystem, and Apple is getting in the way of people getting it. Hence the wrath of the crowd who adore new things, the ones that Apple used to care about, before they crossed the chasm and jumped the shark.

sbuk 14y ago
That is entirely subjective, and bordering on a troll.
- Intermernet 14y ago
  If they'd commented the exact opposite, but with equal subjectivity, would you have thought the same?
- msabalau 14y ago
  "Cool" and "appealing" and "innovative" are inherently subjective. Nevertheless, "Apple is getting in the way of us getting neat things" seems a more plausible source of the anger expressed than, than to believe that people have deeply held views about IP laws as they apply to this particular case, or that they have strong opinions about Apple's business practices generally (the spark point is a ban preventing consumers from buying a product, not, say labor practices in China) If Apple were to announce a bright shiny new iPhone that was seen as innovative, and people were still angry and wanted to #BoycottApple, then this subjective hypothesis will be proven incorrect.