6 ms·

Hearing this now makes me cringe. Apple is so, so, so far at the opposite end of the spectrum than what the commercial championed.

by blhack 14y ago

tokenizer 14y ago
But that's their image. That's why they can get away with charging what they do. Their design is still considered, "rogue/maverick"...
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  Oddly enough -- that was also Microsoft's self-image for many, many years. The were the maverick to IBM's stodgy conformist. Not that I saw them that way.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    I don't think anyone outside Microsoft saw it that way later than 1990 or so. From talking to microsofties, though, they had the underdog/maverick image internally at least until 2005. All the techies I knew left MS long ago, and all the business people I know at MS joined in the last 3-5 years and never bought into the "underdog" image.
- rhizome 14y ago
  I don't know about "rogue/maverick," but I'll take "good" in a world of companies still rehashing 20 year-old laptop designs.
deveac 14y ago
How? Because they have a large market share in certain product categories? I see that kind of out of the box thinking and pure passion in many of their most recent designs. The iPhone is a perfect example. Look at where that paradigm shifting product has taken them, and think about how that device is only 5 years old. I see the same transformative execution and design in their iPad, and now the rest of the OEMs are desperately trying to catch up instead of having delivered. Intel had to invent a new product category just to first describe, and then compete with the Macbook Air. When I try to imagine what that quote means for Apple, I always thought it meant designing the absolute best products for people, no matter what, -no compromises. That they have delivered beyond what anybody could have possibly expected is a realization of that quote, not a negation to me. But maybe you take it to mean something else? They've certainly changed the world...
- mrich 14y ago
  Because they are trying to use a broken patent system to corner the market, instead of trying to compete. They are the most aggressive in IT doing this, so in a way they are misfits.
  - msbarnett 14y ago
    > They are the most aggressive in IT doing this [Citation Needed]
    - mrich 14y ago
      http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/132050-patents-werent-designed http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/132050-patents-werent... "Apple, which has been one of the most aggressive players in patent litigation..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation "Apple is known for and promotes itself as an active and aggressive pursuer of enforcement of its intellectual property interests."
      - deveac 14y ago
        I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where either of the links you provided demonstrated that Apple is "abusing" the patent system lieu of competing like you claimed, unless you define competing as letting your competitors help themselves to your IP while you look the other way. Yes the patent system is broken, but a company choosing not to enforce or license their IP isn't the definition of abuse. Violating your own FRAND terms and suing someone for Frand is clearly abuse of it though. Nor are Motorala, Nokia, Google and others "abusing" the patent system when they protect their IP that they choose not to license. They are using the system for the exact purpose for which it is designed. If we don't like that, it's on us to change the system appropriately.
      - msbarnett 14y ago
        A citation is not backing up your fact-free assertion by pointing at other people's equally fact-free assertions. A citation is where you point at some, y'know, facts that back up your assertion. Like, and I'm just brainstorming here, number of litigation events per patent held, or offensive suits vs defensive countersuits, or really, anything other than "well extremetech said so and that's good enough for government work!". As it is your assertion doesn't seem to pass the smell test. Surely if we count shell companies, Intellectual Ventures is far and away the biggest litigant in the IT space. And if we're ruling them out, you'd be hard-pressed to beat the major baseband companies.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

Hearing this now makes me cringe. Apple is so, so, so far at the opposite end of the spectrum than what the commercial championed.

by blhack 14y ago

Hearing this now makes me cringe. Apple is so, so, so far at the opposite end of the spectrum than what the commercial championed.

tokenizer 14y ago

But that's their image. That's why they can get away with charging what they do. Their design is still considered, "rogue/maverick"...

dredmorbius 14y ago
Oddly enough -- that was also Microsoft's self-image for many, many years. The were the maverick to IBM's stodgy conformist. Not that I saw them that way.
- beagle3 14y ago
  I don't think anyone outside Microsoft saw it that way later than 1990 or so. From talking to microsofties, though, they had the underdog/maverick image internally at least until 2005. All the techies I knew left MS long ago, and all the business people I know at MS joined in the last 3-5 years and never bought into the "underdog" image.
rhizome 14y ago
I don't know about "rogue/maverick," but I'll take "good" in a world of companies still rehashing 20 year-old laptop designs.

deveac 14y ago

How? Because they have a large market share in certain product categories? I see that kind of out of the box thinking and pure passion in many of their most recent designs. The iPhone is a perfect example. Look at where that paradigm shifting product has taken them, and think about how that device is only 5 years old. I see the same transformative execution and design in their iPad, and now the rest of the OEMs are desperately trying to catch up instead of having delivered. Intel had to invent a new product category just to first describe, and then compete with the Macbook Air. When I try to imagine what that quote means for Apple, I always thought it meant designing the absolute best products for people, no matter what, -no compromises. That they have delivered beyond what anybody could have possibly expected is a realization of that quote, not a negation to me. But maybe you take it to mean something else? They've certainly changed the world...

mrich 14y ago
Because they are trying to use a broken patent system to corner the market, instead of trying to compete. They are the most aggressive in IT doing this, so in a way they are misfits.
- msbarnett 14y ago
  > They are the most aggressive in IT doing this [Citation Needed]
  - mrich 14y ago
    http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/132050-patents-werent-designed http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/132050-patents-werent... "Apple, which has been one of the most aggressive players in patent litigation..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation "Apple is known for and promotes itself as an active and aggressive pursuer of enforcement of its intellectual property interests."
    - deveac 14y ago
      I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where either of the links you provided demonstrated that Apple is "abusing" the patent system lieu of competing like you claimed, unless you define competing as letting your competitors help themselves to your IP while you look the other way. Yes the patent system is broken, but a company choosing not to enforce or license their IP isn't the definition of abuse. Violating your own FRAND terms and suing someone for Frand is clearly abuse of it though. Nor are Motorala, Nokia, Google and others "abusing" the patent system when they protect their IP that they choose not to license. They are using the system for the exact purpose for which it is designed. If we don't like that, it's on us to change the system appropriately.
    - msbarnett 14y ago
      A citation is not backing up your fact-free assertion by pointing at other people's equally fact-free assertions. A citation is where you point at some, y'know, facts that back up your assertion. Like, and I'm just brainstorming here, number of litigation events per patent held, or offensive suits vs defensive countersuits, or really, anything other than "well extremetech said so and that's good enough for government work!". As it is your assertion doesn't seem to pass the smell test. Surely if we count shell companies, Intellectual Ventures is far and away the biggest litigant in the IT space. And if we're ruling them out, you'd be hard-pressed to beat the major baseband companies.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]