10 ms·

My dad: Apple just won right? Me: No - they just lost big time - Apple is done. Dad: Wait - What? They just won the court case and got a billion dollars to bo

My dad: Apple just won right? Me: No - they just lost big time - Apple is done. Dad: Wait - What? They just won the court case and got a billion dollars to boot. Me: That doesn't matter - Samsung won. Dad: Explain. Me: As soon as you have to sue your competition to remain competitive - you're done. Apple did the same thing with Microsoft in the nineties. Furthermore, Samsung builds not only many of Apple products - it's also leading the charge with the explosive growth of Android - open systems always win in the long run. Dad: So Apple is done? Me: Yeah - I sold my Apple stock after this very short case finished up. Funny thing is - the new CEO will be blamed for the fall set up by Steve Jobs - a damn shame if you ask me.

taligent 14y ago
Apple is the most successful IT company in the world and they are the most profitable in the phone industry and have the greatest market share in the tablet and music player industries. So not sure how you come up with this ludicrous idea that they can't compete. Also "open systems" always win ? Linux would like a word with you.
- confluence 14y ago
  Don't you think I know that? I've owned their stock since 08. But the past isn't what matters - but chances for future growth. Success always comes before the fall - Apple can either stabilise or fall. They will fall. Linux won - Android is Linux. Consumer electronics are Linux. Servers are Linux. Everything runs on Linux. Microsoft is done. Google wins. I own Google now.
  - veemjeem 14y ago
    I wouldn't exactly confuse Google with Linux. They're linked because of Android, but if some company innovated on the search engine front and took Google's monopoly, Google would be in a rough spot. Linux was winning before Google arrived, and Google still would've won had they used BSD instead. Nobody cares what OS is running underneath google.com
    - confluence 14y ago
      I would then sell Google now then wouldn't I - just like I sold Apple.
  - dmpk2k 14y ago
    but chances for future growth I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. If a company isn't growing, it's "done". I realize that isn't quite what you mean, but then you shouldn't write it. The mindset is actively destructive.
    - confluence 14y ago
      Sorry but I'm an investor. Companies need to grow my investment above 11% a year to be worth extra volatility/liquidity/market risks. Mature companies are like bonds - I don't invest in them because they don't generate enough capital in return for the risks taken.
      - dmpk2k 14y ago
        From an individual perspective that makes sense. That does not change what I said, however. This is old and beaten ground though, which you are no doubt familiar with. I'll refrain from treading it again.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      >I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. // The current capitalist system revolves around rich people making more money because they are rich - that only works if they invest in companies that can return a [quick] profit. It is very sad.
arn 14y ago
Big distinction is that Apple lost their big court case with Microsoft in the 90s.
- confluence 14y ago
  Key point here is suing your competition to remain competitive is an indicator of a coming fall.
  - arn 14y ago
    Or that losing a key look and feel lawsuit means the competition can copy you without fear, losing your distinctiveness. I don't think its that black and white but suggesting the lawsuit, and not the lawsuit outcome, is somehow responsible for a company's lack-of-success is silly.
    - confluence 14y ago
      > losing your distinctiveness You honestly think that is why they lost? They lost because the stopped trying to compete - and just ran off to "Mommy" government screaming "Microsoft took my toy!" instead of fighting back. And I didn't sell on outcome - this was a relatively short case - I was just waiting for the market to increase my exit price - 660 - from 600 (http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL).
      - pazimzadeh 14y ago
        What do you mean, they stopped trying to compete? Are you implying that Jony Ive and Scott Forstall are sitting on their butts right now thinking "good thing we won, we won't have to compete any more?" What evidence do you have that they've stopped competing? Anyway, maybe you should have waited until the new iPhone and iPad come out before selling your stock.
        confluence 14y ago
wklauss 14y ago
So what if you are wrong? How long do we have to wait to see if you gave your father an inaccurate reading of the situation? I mean, I remember a lot of the "Apple is at 90$ a share now, it will go down soon" crowd in the '06 in the Yahoo Finance forum posts and I'd love to see them now and sincerely ask them what were they thinking or why did they reach that conclusion back then. I'm completely serious. This kind of "its the beginning of the end" prophecies are easy to make because you can always say "wait a little bit longer, it will happen" but other than anecdotal evidence, i don't know what prompt you to say "s soon as you have to sue your competition to remain competitive - you're done". Is this a real thing? No company has remained afloat and well after suing a rival? Is there no way that Apple might be both suing and at the same time innovating in some other way or on any other markets? Does it have to be one or the other?
- confluence 14y ago
  Seeing as I bought Apple in 08 I understand your reasoning :D A few factors lead to my understanding of this situation changing. 1: Mobile saturation - only thing left is more of the same and virtual/augmented reality. 2: Absolute domination of Android and the continual manufacturing dominance of Samsung 3: The move towards commoditizing most consumer electronics thanks to work done by Google and other hardware manufacturers. The iPad was insanely cool when it came out - not so cool when everyone else looks the exact same as you do. 4: Domination of the living room by both Sony and Microsoft - leaving Apple little room for entry. 5: CPU underutilisation - people don't really need to upgrade their computers anymore.
  - veemjeem 14y ago
    Companies often sue each other, but I doubt the lawsuits are what caused previous companies to fold. Kohler sued Moen on several popular faucet designs that were patented, but I don't see either companies going away any time soon. I can agree with your other factors for argument, but not the lawsuit.
  - SCdF 14y ago
    re #2, dominance is an interesting word, and it can mean a few different things. In terms of percentages of devices in pockets, I believe Android (including all versions) as an OS is doing better than iOS as an OS. In terms of physical smart phones, I think Apple's phones are in more pockets than any other specific manufacture with their name on the box. In terms of raw profit in the smartphone industry, Apple dominates. In terms of people using smartphones like smartphones (downloading apps and using them, actually browsing the internet) instead of like dumbphones (phone calls / txting etc), I believe iOS still dominates (more people use Mobile Safari than they use Android Browser et al). Manufacturing dominance is an interesting one. Lots of parts for iPhones are made by Samsung, but does that mean Samsung controls iPhone sales? Could Samaung halt iPhone production if they wanted too, or could Apple just go to someone else (with a ramp-up delay presumably). (I own a Samsung android phone and am happy with it, in case this post comes off pro apple and people wonder about my "allegiances" [because apparently everyone must have one])
AllenKids 14y ago
You then should have sold your AAPL the day Apple started suing Samsung. How is the outcome of this particular case affecting your reasoning in any way?
- confluence 14y ago
  Price wasn't high enough and I wanted to see the outcome and Apple's reaction - would they leave it alone - or double down? They doubled down. So instead I sold at 660 instead of ~600 and got my answer.
  - AllenKids 14y ago
    How high is high enough and the trial has being going on for fucking 18 months. In what unicorn infested world would Apple "leave it alone" and what constitutes "double down"? AAPL will at least pop briefly in a few hours, seems like you have no problem making a profit on the back of a company you have a ethical disagreement with, can you justify your behavior to not riding the AAPL train further?
    - confluence 14y ago
      660 is high enough. I changed my mind with the Koh case.
      - AllenKids 14y ago
        Not rational to say the least. Your prediction is on equally magical ground. Good luck and have fun.
        confluence 14y ago
        I got 60% CAGR on AAPL (90-660) and I've pulled 20% CAGR on GOOG (570-670). I will have fun. Check back in a year and see how my prediction pans out.

taligent 14y ago

Apple is the most successful IT company in the world and they are the most profitable in the phone industry and have the greatest market share in the tablet and music player industries. So not sure how you come up with this ludicrous idea that they can't compete. Also "open systems" always win ? Linux would like a word with you.

confluence 14y ago
Don't you think I know that? I've owned their stock since 08. But the past isn't what matters - but chances for future growth. Success always comes before the fall - Apple can either stabilise or fall. They will fall. Linux won - Android is Linux. Consumer electronics are Linux. Servers are Linux. Everything runs on Linux. Microsoft is done. Google wins. I own Google now.
- veemjeem 14y ago
  I wouldn't exactly confuse Google with Linux. They're linked because of Android, but if some company innovated on the search engine front and took Google's monopoly, Google would be in a rough spot. Linux was winning before Google arrived, and Google still would've won had they used BSD instead. Nobody cares what OS is running underneath google.com
  - confluence 14y ago
    I would then sell Google now then wouldn't I - just like I sold Apple.
- dmpk2k 14y ago
  but chances for future growth I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. If a company isn't growing, it's "done". I realize that isn't quite what you mean, but then you shouldn't write it. The mindset is actively destructive.
  - confluence 14y ago
    Sorry but I'm an investor. Companies need to grow my investment above 11% a year to be worth extra volatility/liquidity/market risks. Mature companies are like bonds - I don't invest in them because they don't generate enough capital in return for the risks taken.
    - dmpk2k 14y ago
      From an individual perspective that makes sense. That does not change what I said, however. This is old and beaten ground though, which you are no doubt familiar with. I'll refrain from treading it again.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. // The current capitalist system revolves around rich people making more money because they are rich - that only works if they invest in companies that can return a [quick] profit. It is very sad.

arn 14y ago

Big distinction is that Apple lost their big court case with Microsoft in the 90s.

confluence 14y ago
Key point here is suing your competition to remain competitive is an indicator of a coming fall.
- arn 14y ago
  Or that losing a key look and feel lawsuit means the competition can copy you without fear, losing your distinctiveness. I don't think its that black and white but suggesting the lawsuit, and not the lawsuit outcome, is somehow responsible for a company's lack-of-success is silly.
  - confluence 14y ago
    > losing your distinctiveness You honestly think that is why they lost? They lost because the stopped trying to compete - and just ran off to "Mommy" government screaming "Microsoft took my toy!" instead of fighting back. And I didn't sell on outcome - this was a relatively short case - I was just waiting for the market to increase my exit price - 660 - from 600 (http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL).
    - pazimzadeh 14y ago
      What do you mean, they stopped trying to compete? Are you implying that Jony Ive and Scott Forstall are sitting on their butts right now thinking "good thing we won, we won't have to compete any more?" What evidence do you have that they've stopped competing? Anyway, maybe you should have waited until the new iPhone and iPad come out before selling your stock.
      - confluence 14y ago

wklauss 14y ago

So what if you are wrong? How long do we have to wait to see if you gave your father an inaccurate reading of the situation? I mean, I remember a lot of the "Apple is at 90$ a share now, it will go down soon" crowd in the '06 in the Yahoo Finance forum posts and I'd love to see them now and sincerely ask them what were they thinking or why did they reach that conclusion back then. I'm completely serious. This kind of "its the beginning of the end" prophecies are easy to make because you can always say "wait a little bit longer, it will happen" but other than anecdotal evidence, i don't know what prompt you to say "s soon as you have to sue your competition to remain competitive - you're done". Is this a real thing? No company has remained afloat and well after suing a rival? Is there no way that Apple might be both suing and at the same time innovating in some other way or on any other markets? Does it have to be one or the other?

confluence 14y ago
Seeing as I bought Apple in 08 I understand your reasoning :D A few factors lead to my understanding of this situation changing. 1: Mobile saturation - only thing left is more of the same and virtual/augmented reality. 2: Absolute domination of Android and the continual manufacturing dominance of Samsung 3: The move towards commoditizing most consumer electronics thanks to work done by Google and other hardware manufacturers. The iPad was insanely cool when it came out - not so cool when everyone else looks the exact same as you do. 4: Domination of the living room by both Sony and Microsoft - leaving Apple little room for entry. 5: CPU underutilisation - people don't really need to upgrade their computers anymore.
- veemjeem 14y ago
  Companies often sue each other, but I doubt the lawsuits are what caused previous companies to fold. Kohler sued Moen on several popular faucet designs that were patented, but I don't see either companies going away any time soon. I can agree with your other factors for argument, but not the lawsuit.
- SCdF 14y ago
  re #2, dominance is an interesting word, and it can mean a few different things. In terms of percentages of devices in pockets, I believe Android (including all versions) as an OS is doing better than iOS as an OS. In terms of physical smart phones, I think Apple's phones are in more pockets than any other specific manufacture with their name on the box. In terms of raw profit in the smartphone industry, Apple dominates. In terms of people using smartphones like smartphones (downloading apps and using them, actually browsing the internet) instead of like dumbphones (phone calls / txting etc), I believe iOS still dominates (more people use Mobile Safari than they use Android Browser et al). Manufacturing dominance is an interesting one. Lots of parts for iPhones are made by Samsung, but does that mean Samsung controls iPhone sales? Could Samaung halt iPhone production if they wanted too, or could Apple just go to someone else (with a ramp-up delay presumably). (I own a Samsung android phone and am happy with it, in case this post comes off pro apple and people wonder about my "allegiances" [because apparently everyone must have one])

AllenKids 14y ago

You then should have sold your AAPL the day Apple started suing Samsung. How is the outcome of this particular case affecting your reasoning in any way?

confluence 14y ago
Price wasn't high enough and I wanted to see the outcome and Apple's reaction - would they leave it alone - or double down? They doubled down. So instead I sold at 660 instead of ~600 and got my answer.
- AllenKids 14y ago
  How high is high enough and the trial has being going on for fucking 18 months. In what unicorn infested world would Apple "leave it alone" and what constitutes "double down"? AAPL will at least pop briefly in a few hours, seems like you have no problem making a profit on the back of a company you have a ethical disagreement with, can you justify your behavior to not riding the AAPL train further?
  - confluence 14y ago
    660 is high enough. I changed my mind with the Koh case.
    - AllenKids 14y ago
      Not rational to say the least. Your prediction is on equally magical ground. Good luck and have fun.
      - confluence 14y ago
        I got 60% CAGR on AAPL (90-660) and I've pulled 20% CAGR on GOOG (570-670). I will have fun. Check back in a year and see how my prediction pans out.