PDA

View Full Version : Tim Cook Opposed Suing Samsung Over Mobile Device Patents




MacRumors
Feb 11, 2013, 12:44 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/11/tim-cook-opposed-suing-samsung-over-mobile-device-patents/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/08/tim_cook_headshot-150x171.jpgIn a report outlining the well-examined "frenemies" relationship between Apple and Samsung, Reuters notes (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/10/net-us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE91901Q20130210) that Apple CEO Tim Cook was opposed to suing Samsung for allegedly copying iOS, iPhone and iPad patents in the creation of its own line of tablets and smartphones. Cook's thoughts illustrate the differences between him and predecessor Steve Jobs, who said he was willing to wage "thermonuclear war" (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs-biography-im-going-to-destroy-android/) on companies that "stole" from Apple.Tim Cook, Jobs' successor as Apple chief executive, was opposed to suing Samsung in the first place, according to people with knowledge of the matter, largely because of that company's critical role as a supplier of components for the iPhone and the iPad. Apple bought some $8 billion worth of parts from Samsung last year, analysts estimate. [...]

Cook, worried about the critical supplier relationship, was opposed to suing Samsung. But Jobs had run out of patience, suspecting that Samsung was counting on the supplier relationship to shield it from retribution.Cook's operational expertise no doubt influenced his perspective in worrying about impacts on the supply chain side of the equation, but he was overruled by Jobs. Since the dispute with Samsung broke out into the legal arena, Apple has been working to reduce its reliance (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/02/tsmc-to-begin-trial-production-of-apples-a6x-chip-this-quarter/) on Samsung, but the two remain closely linked.

During Apple's Q2 2012 conference (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/24/apple-reports-results-for-q2-2012-11-6-billion-profit-on-39-2-billion-in-revenue/) call, Cook said he has always "hated litigation", noting that he would prefer to settle rather than battle it out in the courts, although he emphasized that Apple does not want to become the "developer for the world".*Apple has settled with other companies that it has had patent issues with, including HTC (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/10/apple-and-htc-settle-patent-dispute/), but last November Samsung publicly said that it was not interested (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/14/samsung-not-interested-in-settlement-with-apple-over-patent-issues/) in settling with Apple.

Article Link: Tim Cook Opposed Suing Samsung Over Mobile Device Patents (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/11/tim-cook-opposed-suing-samsung-over-mobile-device-patents/)



turtlez
Feb 11, 2013, 12:46 PM
Cook fails to see this:

You can choose another manufacturer. You can't get back stolen designs. EVER

MattMJB0188
Feb 11, 2013, 12:48 PM
I like Tim Cook. Jobs' tantrums were ridiculous. All he did was cry like a baby over stupid stuff.

MH01
Feb 11, 2013, 12:53 PM
You can't tell the difference between Apple and Samsung mobile devices?

I think Cook knows how to play the game. Sometimes you keep your enemies closer.

macnerd93
Feb 11, 2013, 01:01 PM
Cook needs to understand direct competition, not just let them get away with it and vice versa. The reason being i've seen it happen all too often just look at the British automotive and motorcycle industry.

Britain were at the top of their game in the 1950's and 1960's. Then other manufactures from other countries began copying our designs and concepts.

We did nothing and well the rest is history, we have no car industry today.

Gnomepatrol
Feb 11, 2013, 01:02 PM
Cook fails to see this:

You can choose another manufacturer. You can't get back stolen designs. EVER

I am much more apt to listen to a CEO than a forum surfer. As I have said in the past, Samsung is the best supplier of flash, nand, chips, and screens on the planet. From productions standpoint they would be shooting themselves in the foot to sever the ties with samsung. The higher failure rate of the alternatives was and still are unacceptable. They need samsung until they can find a manufactuerer that can meet the needs they have. We have already seen the issues with the new screen manufacturer (tracking diagonal swiping correctly) and I am sure they would like to avoid that.

In essence cutting ties with samsung, for now, would result in lower quality products. That is not to say that in the future it will be the same issue. Until the day comes though apple needs to play nice.

Tim Cook is a supply chain guy, he knows his stuff and wouldn't have raised these concerns if there was no reason.

Tankmaze
Feb 11, 2013, 01:05 PM
cook was thinking objectively... Just like don corleone said.. It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business :D. Steve took it very personally..

SockRolid
Feb 11, 2013, 01:06 PM
... Cook said he has always "hated litigation", noting that he would prefer to settle rather than battle it out in the courts ...

But I imagine he hates flagrant systematic copying even more than litigation.

"It's important that Apple not become the developer to the world."
- Tim Cook, 4/12/2012, during Apple's FYQ2 earnings call

True then. True now. True forever.

iMikeT
Feb 11, 2013, 01:07 PM
Definitely the difference between a leader and a manager.

Jobs was obviously a leader. Cook on the other hand, is a good manager but definitely no leader. He's willing to play nice to make sure the ship stays on course but is not willing to make the tough decisions that Jobs would have. Either way, Jobs is gone and we have Cook as the CEO and Jobs chose him for a reason or simply because he was the most qualified at the time.....

KdParker
Feb 11, 2013, 01:10 PM
cook was thinking objectively... Just like don corleone said.. It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business :D. Steve took it very personally..

What about he business impact or losing revenue to another company using your designs?

I would assume that is the angle most CEO's would take.

blackcrayon
Feb 11, 2013, 01:16 PM
I like Tim Cook. Jobs' tantrums were ridiculous. All he did was cry like a baby over stupid stuff.

Nah I'm pretty sure that's not all he did.

MattMJB0188
Feb 11, 2013, 01:22 PM
Nah I'm pretty sure that's not all he did.

I'm pretty sure it is.

SockRolid
Feb 11, 2013, 01:25 PM
[...] As I have said in the past, Samsung is the best supplier of flash, nand, chips, and screens on the planet. From productions standpoint they would be shooting themselves in the foot to sever the ties with samsung. [...]

Unless, of course, Apple has plans to design their own flash memory components.

You might remember that Apple bought Anobit, an Israeli flash memory controller design firm. Their intellectual property includes advanced techniques for increasing flash memory performance and longevity while reducing costs.

And guess what. Samsung had a large contract with Anobit for their NAND flash memory designs. But now that Apple owns Anobit, that deal has been cancelled. Samsung must now get their flash memory from someone else, and they won't have Anobit's advanced technology any more.

Also, Samsung will be losing Apple's flash memory business. And as we all know, that business is huge. Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory. They control the market.

Maybe this MacRumors post will refresh your memory (pun intended):

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/10/apple-confirms-acquisition-of-israeli-flash-memory-firm-anobit/

And here's a little more on Anobit at Wikipedia (65 patents owned or pending):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anobit

samcraig
Feb 11, 2013, 01:31 PM
Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory. They control the market.



Sure about that in 2012? Source?

charlituna
Feb 11, 2013, 01:38 PM
Cook fails to see this:

You can choose another manufacturer. You can't get back stolen designs. EVER

I suspect that Cook knew this and the insiders statements are bogus.

It's more likely that what he said was that he was opposed to suing Samsung until they got more manufacturers in place. that way if Samsung tried to throw a tantrum they would have their backup already going and it wouldn't screw with their supplies and seriously hurt things.

But it's more fun and gets more hits to make Apple look bad, thus the incorrect phrasing. Or these so called insiders are just stupid

----------

But I imagine he hates flagrant systematic copying even more than litigation.

"It's important that Apple not become the developer to the world."
- Tim Cook, 4/12/2012, during Apple's FYQ2 earnings call

True then. True now. True forever.

Which is why he didn't call off all the lawsuits as soon as he was fully in charge. And even perhaps started a few.

The settlement comment was more likely in regards to how some companies don't call the alleged offender first to try to work things out but go straight to the lawsuits. Cook probably doesn't like that tactic because it is a headache of legal wranglings, its costly etc. So under his watch, Apple sends a letter or makes a phone call and if the other side isn't willing to talk it out over tea, then a suit is filed. And Cook probably wishes other companies would give Apple that chance as well.

NOT that he would never sue if there was cause.

Tankmaze
Feb 11, 2013, 02:26 PM
What about he business impact or losing revenue to another company using your designs?

I would assume that is the angle most CEO's would take.

Well that is another way to look at it... losing your vendors or losing your customers, like which is worse... it sort of lesser of two evil kind of decision, and we know how that went down.

and the CEO take should really be an inform decision, like make a balance sheet on which is worse. but steve took it like a personal vendetta, maybe because it happen to him with windows, and now android (idk, i'm speculating here).

but at the end of the day, it is really a hard decision to make.

----------

Cook needs to understand direct competition, not just let them get away with it and vice versa. The reason being i've seen it happen all too often just look at the British automotive and motorcycle industry.

Britain were at the top of their game in the 1950's and 1960's. Then other manufactures from other countries began copying our designs and concepts.

We did nothing and well the rest is history, we have no car industry today.

Thats a nice info, I remember watching a documentary about a motorcycle in the 60's where honda made a better engine, model and style against the british manufacturer. and not only it was better, but it's also cheaper.

maybe cook should take note of this.

2 Replies
Feb 11, 2013, 02:35 PM
This is cool. This is the sort of thing we should see from CEOs.
But it needs to be followed though on.
He can't just bend over when his lawyers or managers insist on pushing through with the litigation.

In the end he's responsible for the company's image, and giving in to internal pressure to litigate isn't going to help the image. It's going to hurt the long term image, just for a short term court-ruling judgement.

rdlink
Feb 11, 2013, 02:59 PM
cook was thinking objectively... Just like don corleone said.. It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business :D. Steve took it very personally..


And as long as Cook continues to think "objectively" instead of taking it personally Apple will lose its luster. "Taking it personally" is what brings passion to the game. I wouldn't want anyone working for me who wasn't as pissed off as Jobs was about this.

Renzatic
Feb 11, 2013, 03:07 PM
Definitely the difference between a leader and a manager.

Jobs was obviously a leader. Cook on the other hand, is a good manager but definitely no leader. He's willing to play nice to make sure the ship stays on course but is not willing to make the tough decisions that Jobs would have. Either way, Jobs is gone and we have Cook as the CEO and Jobs chose him for a reason or simply because he was the most qualified at the time.....

"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Steve, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Samsung. He piled upon the corporation's similar design the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it."

- Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs

blackhand1001
Feb 11, 2013, 03:11 PM
Cook needs to understand direct competition, not just let them get away with it and vice versa. The reason being i've seen it happen all too often just look at the British automotive and motorcycle industry.

Britain were at the top of their game in the 1950's and 1960's. Then other manufactures from other countries began copying our designs and concepts.

We did nothing and well the rest is history, we have no car industry today.

Pretty sure the horribly unreliable land rover and jaguar was more to blame then copiers.

pacalis
Feb 11, 2013, 03:13 PM
Cook fails to see this:

You can choose another manufacturer. You can't get back stolen designs. EVER

Your post isn't even internally consistent.

If you can't get back stolen designs. Ever. Than why sue?

Apple's supply arrangements with Samsung are far more valuable than the likely outcome of the suit. So the good business decision is to not sue. Also, suing your suppliers doesn't exactly help you get the best suppliers.

It is also a good business decision to find alternative suppliers, which they have been doing. But Apple can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Giuly
Feb 11, 2013, 03:13 PM
Well, but not suing Samsung is not entertaining either. Also, I guess SJ saw a little bit of Big Blue in, well,
http://www.technologybloggers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Samsung-Logo.jpg

iMikeT
Feb 11, 2013, 03:15 PM
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Steve, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Samsung. He piled upon the corporation's similar design the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heartís shell upon it."

- Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs



Did you really have to quote from a book that I haven't read/listened to yet? Next time, please put "SPOILER ALERT" before I start reading! :p

Luckily, I'll start this book soon as the girl I'm dating just gave it to me as an audio book. :D

Renzatic
Feb 11, 2013, 03:21 PM
Comeon. Everyone knows about Steve Jobs going thermonuclear. I'm not spoiling anything.

Also Snape kills Dumbledore, and the Matrix is a computer simulation the robots set up so they can use people as batteries.

deconstruct60
Feb 11, 2013, 04:10 PM
Unless, of course, Apple has plans to design their own flash memory components.

they don't.



You might remember that Apple bought Anobit, an Israeli flash memory controller design firm. ....

And guess what. Samsung had a large contract with Anobit for their NAND flash memory designs.

having a microprcocessor design (ARM core based one ) doesn't mean you have a DRAM design. Similarly, a flash controller is not NAND flash chips. They are two different kinds of chips.



But now that Apple owns Anobit, that deal has been cancelled. Samsung must now get their flash memory from someone else, and they won't have Anobit's advanced technology any more.

Anobit can't make squat. Samsung has factories that make physical thinks people can buy. Samsung is not lacking at all in flash memory abilities at all.

Marvell , LSI/Sandforce , Intel, etc all make flash controllers with ECC and work arounds for flash wear problems. Samsung is not particularly pressed about this shift in controllers for a smaller subset of their business. Even back when the initially hooked up with Anobit it wasn't betting all of its money on just one solution

"... Samsung has a partnership with Seagate to develop and cross-license flash controller technologies, so there may conceivably be a role for Anobit in this relationship. It could also get a look-in with server flash storage supplier Fusion-io where Samsung has made an investment. ... "
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/18/samsung_anobit/

Samsung is a basic flash block supplier. It was and still is in their basic interest as a basic component supplier to work with all the Flash controller developers out there. If Apple wants to be boneheaded and exclude Samsung, a major flash provide, that their choice. Long term it is a bozo move. Especially, since Apple doesn't make anything.

There are also different levels of flash controller. Some are aimed at USB flash drive contexts. ( like this one that got some Anobit tech SK6630 and others ) and others are aimed at SSD drives... which Samsung has their own for MLC...

" ... Their Samsung 830 Series SSD is not based on the very common SandForce or Marvell controllers. The company uses their own design called S4LJ204X01. This controller is based on a triple core ARM processor, similar to what you have in your smartphone. The flash chips and controller DRAM are also produced by Samsung which means the company has full control over every component in their drive, certainly a unique situation. ..."
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Samsung/830_Series_SSD_512_GB/


Apple shouldn't be as dependent upon Samsung as they are now (more bids and investments in other suppliers ) but to cross them off completely is silly.


Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory. They control the market.

Apple is a player, but in so far they make nothing they hardly control it.

Apple purchased Anobit likely to merge the flash controller into future Apple SoC ( Apple A(6+?) ) and not have to pay for the IP license per 100 million sold. If $10 a pop the deal would easily pay for itself.

Kneecapping Samsung? Hardly.

Rodster
Feb 11, 2013, 04:23 PM
Pretty sure the horribly unreliable land rover and jaguar was more to blame then copiers.

No doubt, Lucas Electronics FTW ! :P

rmwebs
Feb 11, 2013, 05:07 PM
Steve's childish (and yes, the way he handled it was childish) 'Thermonuclear war on Android jusy highlighted his personality before he was fired from Apple.

He may have been a great marketer, and had great ideas, but despite what is portrayed he hated competition. If he'd had it his way, the iPhone would still be competing with Windows CE.

At some point you just have to step back and say "you know what, screw it - if they want to copy our icon style and have a black border, go ahead" as thats what it amounts to. Fundamentally iOS and Android have never been the same, to claim Android was copying iOS is laughable if you've actually sat and used the two operating systems.

I like Cook, he seems a lot more focused on making Apple do what Apple does best - work with their own products. I still dont think we've really seen any of his work as its still in the pipeline, everything up to the iPhone 5 and iPad Mini would have been in development under Jobs, even the iOS UI and Maps would have been.


One thing that I would like to know:

Would Cook have chosen to develop Apple Maps? It was a Jobs decision when he had a strop and got pissed off with Google. Maybe Cook, with a slightly more calm approach would have come to a better arrangement.

(Note: Dont get me wrong, I love what Jobs achieved, but I'm capable of recognising that like all of us, he was a flawed human being who did make a lot of mistakes - we all do it.)

diazj3
Feb 11, 2013, 05:16 PM
Cook needs to understand direct competition, not just let them get away with it and vice versa. The reason being i've seen it happen all too often just look at the British automotive and motorcycle industry.

Britain were at the top of their game in the 1950's and 1960's. Then other manufactures from other countries began copying our designs and concepts.

We did nothing and well the rest is history, we have no car industry today.

yeah... really??? is this your understanding of the automotive industry? so, the Germans, Austrians, Italians, French, Americans, had nothing or very little to do with innovation?

I guess this is why the internal combustion engines are still called Otto and Diesel engines, in honor of their inventors "Sir" Nikolaus Otto and "Sir" Rudolf Diesel... and the patents held by Maybach, Daimler and Benz were granted in the Germany, right?

BornAgainMac
Feb 11, 2013, 05:25 PM
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Steve, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Samsung. He piled upon the corporation's similar design the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heartís shell upon it."

- Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs

That book is the starting to sound like a Bible. That looks like a form of scripture. The Book of Jobs.

Renzatic
Feb 11, 2013, 05:35 PM
That book is the starting to sound like a Bible. That looks like a form of scripture. The Book of Jobs.

If the Jobs biography were written like that, it would've been a far, far more entertaining read.

Terrin
Feb 11, 2013, 06:26 PM
I am much more apt to listen to a CEO than a forum surfer. As I have said in the past, Samsung is the best supplier of flash, nand, chips, and screens on the planet. From productions standpoint they would be shooting themselves in the foot to sever the ties with samsung. The higher failure rate of the alternatives was and still are unacceptable. They need samsung until they can find a manufactuerer that can meet the needs they have. We have already seen the issues with the new screen manufacturer (tracking diagonal swiping correctly) and I am sure they would like to avoid that.

In essence cutting ties with samsung, for now, would result in lower quality products. That is not to say that in the future it will be the same issue. Until the day comes though apple needs to play nice.

Tim Cook is a supply chain guy, he knows his stuff and wouldn't have raised these concerns if there was no reason.

Yes, but people forget Samsung became the power house it is in large part because of large investments by US companies like Apple and even Dell. Apple gave well over a hundred million dollars to Samsung when it was struggling to 1) beef up its manufacturing capabilities, and 2) ensure a supply of components. Apple can do the same thing with Samsung's competitors.

Moreover, US companies are learning a hard lesson by outsourcing manufacturing. Take ASUS. ASUS convinced Dell to allow it to build its computers. After ASUS had a steady income from making Dell's computers, it decided to build its own computers where it could under cut Dell on pricing since it was a manufacturer.


By virtue of giving Samsung a large part of Apple's parts orders, Samsung became privy to information that allowed it to compete effectively with Apple.

Finally, when Samsung first started competing with Apple's iPhone it made its phones look almost identical. The designs today have changed probably because of Apple's lawsuits. I remember sitting in Best Buy waiting for my girlfriend. I was by a Samsung phone display. In the five minutes I was there two people came up and called it an iPhone.

Jobs already experienced having a friend (Microsoft) use inside information (Microsoft had access to the original Mac OS through a deal with Apple to create Office apps) to copy Apple's product. My only potential disagreement with Jobs is that Microsoft seemed smarter. It has licensing deals from just about everybody including Samsung. So it is making anywhere from 5 to 10 dollars per Android phone sold. Apple could have easily took that approach, and still protected its design patents. Then again APple is a design company. It stands out through design, and protecting the look and feel of its products are important.

fpsBeaTt
Feb 11, 2013, 06:27 PM
I like Tim Cook. Jobs' tantrums were ridiculous. All he did was cry like a baby over stupid stuff.

Yeah, that's definitely all Steve Jobs did. :rolleyes:

Terrin
Feb 11, 2013, 06:35 PM
Steve's childish (and yes, the way he handled it was childish) 'Thermonuclear war on Android jusy highlighted his personality before he was fired from Apple.

He may have been a great marketer, and had great ideas, but despite what is portrayed he hated competition. If he'd had it his way, the iPhone would still be competing with Windows CE.

At some point you just have to step back and say "you know what, screw it - if they want to copy our icon style and have a black border, go ahead" as thats what it amounts to. Fundamentally iOS and Android have never been the same, to claim Android was copying iOS is laughable if you've actually sat and used the two operating systems.

I like Cook, he seems a lot more focused on making Apple do what Apple does best - work with their own products. I still dont think we've really seen any of his work as its still in the pipeline, everything up to the iPhone 5 and iPad Mini would have been in development under Jobs, even the iOS UI and Maps would have been.


One thing that I would like to know:

Would Cook have chosen to develop Apple Maps? It was a Jobs decision when he had a strop and got pissed off with Google. Maybe Cook, with a slightly more calm approach would have come to a better arrangement.

(Note: Dont get me wrong, I love what Jobs achieved, but I'm capable of recognising that like all of us, he was a flawed human being who did make a lot of mistakes - we all do it.)



Suing Android manufacturers was not a mistake. Jobs viewed Eric Schmidt as using inside information to unfairly compete with Apple's iPhone. That particularly irked Jobs because Bill Gates did the same thing when Jobs trusted Microsoft with inside information concerning the Mac to create Office apps. It is undeniable that Android completely changed to resemble IOS when the iPhone first came out.

Moreover, Apple has always been a design company. The look of its products has always been important for it to stand out in a crowd. When the original iMac came out, Apple successfully sued a Japanese to stop making knock offs.

Apple's lawsuits have also have had some success in that Samsung has in fact stopped knocking the look of the iPhone off so directly. Suing also told other competitors they would be spending a lot of money in legal fees if they didn't make their devices look different than Apple's. If Jobs made a mistake, in my mind it was not entering more Microsoft like deals where the manufacturers paid a licensing fee.

turtlez
Feb 11, 2013, 06:59 PM
Your post isn't even internally consistent.

If you can't get back stolen designs. Ever. Than why sue?

Apple's supply arrangements with Samsung are far more valuable than the likely outcome of the suit. So the good business decision is to not sue. Also, suing your suppliers doesn't exactly help you get the best suppliers.

It is also a good business decision to find alternative suppliers, which they have been doing. But Apple can walk and chew gum at the same time.

you can't get back a stolen design unless you can go back in time. They sue for damages done by stolen designs. The product has been made from stolen designs you can't change that, you can only be paid damages from the thief.

----------

I like Tim Cook. Jobs' tantrums were ridiculous. All he did was cry like a baby over stupid stuff.

so you wouldn't be PO'ed if someone ripped off your hard work and not just hard work, your very passion.

----------

What about he business impact or losing revenue to another company using your designs?

I would assume that is the angle most CEO's would take.

exactly my thoughts, but you got guts bringing it up here since a lot of people on this forum don't realise that a lot of hard work goes into design.

I remember back in 2005 before I was aware of all this and before I was even a designer myself. A friend of mine had a chinese rip off iPod and for about 4 months I thought it was an official iPod. When I discovered it wasn't the Apple version I was shocked because it looked almost identical. So there you go, I was admiring a stolen design and at Apple's cost. Hence why they sue for damages. Again people would never understand that unless trained in art or have a logical mind.

John.B
Feb 11, 2013, 08:24 PM
Samsung advertises their flagship phone in a commercial where a woman copies her co-worker's report and passes it off as her own. Is that considered ethical in a chaebol?

Renzatic
Feb 11, 2013, 08:35 PM
Suing Android manufacturers was not a mistake. Jobs viewed Eric Schmidt as using inside information to unfairly compete with Apple's iPhone.

Oh, God. Not this again.

If Steve Jobs thought Schmidt was using his position to strengthen his own platform, then his "thermonuclear war" would've included suing the everliving hell out of the guy.

Instead, he went after Samsung.

And it's not like Jobs ever kept his feelings a secret. If he actually truly believed Schmidt stole directly from him, he would've been lambasting the guy every chance he got. Instead, he had nothing but nice things to say about him up until the day he died.

So please, lets all put this "Schmidt directly stole from Apple" fantasy to rest. Because that's exactly what it is. A fantasy. It has absolutely zero basis in reality.

And lets not get into the MS stole the GUI from Apple business. In fact, lets put this whole Apple Victimhood thing as deep in the dirt as we possibly can. It's really annoying, and only spoken from a position of ignorance.

jouster
Feb 11, 2013, 08:47 PM
I never understood Steve's problem. I mean, great artists steal, right?

iMikeT
Feb 11, 2013, 09:34 PM
Comeon. Everyone knows about Steve Jobs going thermonuclear. I'm not spoiling anything.

Also Snape kills Dumbledore, and the Matrix is a computer simulation the robots set up so they can use people as batteries.



I'm a huge Matrix fan so no spoiler there but thanks, I never finished watching the Harry Potter movies! :mad:

Renzatic
Feb 11, 2013, 09:42 PM
I'm a huge Matrix fan so no spoiler there but thanks, I never finished watching the Harry Potter movies! :mad:

Don't worry. I was still talking about the Steve Jobs biography.

Guy had an interesting life.

simonmet
Feb 12, 2013, 12:39 AM
I would have liked to see Jonny Ive become CEO. If Apple is a design company, no one epitomises design more than Ive. He was the figure behind the products that took Apple to where it is today. He probably wasn't eligible because he's British, but I suspect also that he didn't want the role.

Tim Cook doesn't interest me. He hasn't said anything that doesn't sound scripted or predictable. He doesn't have the stage presence or RDF that Steve had. If Apple recognises that they stuffed up so badly with maps then why are they still so bad more than six months later? Are they saving all the fixes for a big update Maps 2 in iOS 7? If they aren't it's a bit worrying...

macs4nw
Feb 12, 2013, 01:42 AM
.....Steve took it very personally..

As a person who (with Woz) started the company from scratch, and who personally and jointly, had many patents to his name, that fact could be expected, understood, and even forgiven.

Cook on the other hand, not having as much direct and creative input on the designs, can look at things more from a practical and business perspective, which is probably better for APPLE in the long run. Too much time, energy and $$$ wasted, which could all be better spent on product development.

It's better to win the war, than winning a few battles.

Renzatic
Feb 12, 2013, 01:47 AM
Snip

Honestly, if you want Ives to continue doing what he does best, you don't want him as the CEO. If he's running the entire company, he wouldn't have time to spend in the design labs.

macnerd93
Feb 12, 2013, 03:59 AM
yeah... really??? is this your understanding of the automotive industry? so, the Germans, Austrians, Italians, French, Americans, had nothing or very little to do with innovation?

I guess this is why the internal combustion engines are still called Otto and Diesel engines, in honor of their inventors "Sir" Nikolaus Otto and "Sir" Rudolf Diesel... and the patents held by Maybach, Daimler and Benz were granted in the Germany, right?

I'm not talking about who came up with the car first. After all Apple didn't invent the first microprocessor, computer, MP3 player, Smart phone or Tablet, but they had major innovations in these fields.

I'm talking more about who took "what" idea from us. Under bad management by the late 60's/70's we were practically giving our designs and ideas away, especially our motorcycle designs to the Japanese.

To put it into perspective in the 1930's Britain had over 350 different car manufactures, in more recent years LTI "London Taxi's International" was the only one left in British ownership, now thats gone too. If Apple aren't careful they could make some serious mistakes. That was my point.

----------

Well that is another way to look at it... losing your vendors or losing your customers, like which is worse... it sort of lesser of two evil kind of decision, and we know how that went down.

and the CEO take should really be an inform decision, like make a balance sheet on which is worse. but steve took it like a personal vendetta, maybe because it happen to him with windows, and now android (idk, i'm speculating here).

but at the end of the day, it is really a hard decision to make.

----------



Thats a nice info, I remember watching a documentary about a motorcycle in the 60's where honda made a better engine, model and style against the british manufacturer. and not only it was better, but it's also cheaper.

maybe cook should take note of this.

Yeah and thats what happened to our industry under abysmal bad management. BSA Motorcycles were practically giving the designs away to the likes of Honda and Yamaha and them companies had the money to spend improving and perfecting upon our original designs. We didn't bother and we was surpassed.

----------

Pretty sure the horribly unreliable land rover and jaguar was more to blame then copiers.

Pretty sure in the 50's & 1960's Jaguar wasn't unreliable & awful and this is my point. During this period they made stuff like the D-Type Jaguar, E-type Jaguar and the Jaguar MkII. Possibly some of the most legendary cars of all time. Jaguar became rubbish and junk when it was swallowed up into british Layland and they replaced the E-type with the XJS.

All you have to do is look at an E-type. Even Enzo Ferrari called it the beautifulest car ever made. So much so they were inspired by it in someway when building the 250 GT California, apart from the wider grille they do look quite similar.

diazj3
Feb 12, 2013, 05:12 AM
I'm not talking about who came up with the car first. After all Apple didn't invent the computer first.

I'm talking about who took what from us and by the late 60's/70's we were practically giving our designs and ideas away, especially our motorcycles designs to the Japanese.[COLOR="#808080"]

To put it into perspective in the 1930's Britain had over 350 different car manufactures, in more recent years LTI "London Taxi's International" was the only one left in British ownership, now thats gone too. If Apple aren't careful they could make some serious mistakes. That was my point.

This is quite an interesting discussion.

I know you didn't mean to compare Apple to the invention of the automobile itself several decades earlier, to which Britain's contribution was limited at most compared to other countries, but you get the point - also, in terms of innovation or manufacturing in that decade, British cars were not so edgy as you'd like to think, national sentiments apart. And how much of Britain's temporary commercial success was due to the steep recovery Germany, Japan, France and Italy had to face in the post-war, plus the steep growth and transformation of consumer spending and habits in those years in other parts of the world, should be discussed too. And a high number of artisanal auto shops is no proof of global market dominance... in fact, its possible that such an unconsolidated auto industry brought its demise on itself, and would've made any defense impossible.

What I'm trying to say is that it's more complicated than that.

But just for the sake of argument, even if world wide British auto supremacy in those days were true, how would you propose they protect and saved it? What specifically could've they done in terms of intellectual property in those days? There was nothing the british car manufacturers could do to forcefully stop competition and the erosion of it's supposed relevance in a world market. The same way there is little copyright-wise Apple can do to stop the inevitable new inexpensive consumer tablets, smartphones, computers, etc.

So anyway, the comparison of Apple's patent fights and supply chain conundrums, to the fate of the late british automotive industry in the 60s, to support an argument for stricter intellectual property madness is still terrible. In any case, it supports the opposite: the fact that Apple will go down, sooner or later, as have any other dominant figures in every industry, if it doesn't reinvents itself. That other dominant players, technologies and concepts will rise regardless of who came up with them. And that if they do what you propose - vigorously suing everybody that threatens them over simple BS, keeping the control freak philosophy Steve Jobs imposed, and isolating customers to hold on to their patents and markets... they will just keep putting themselves into smaller boxes... the faster and harder they will fall.

IMO, Tim Cook's reluctance is justified. Plus in the end, they will loose all those lawsuits, one way or another.

Cheers!

rmwebs
Feb 12, 2013, 06:35 AM
Jobs viewed Eric Schmidt as using inside information to unfairly compete with Apple's iPhone.

If that were true, why did Apple not sue Google?

It is undeniable that Android completely changed to resemble IOS when the iPhone first came out.

You do realize that every time someone has spun that line they have been proven wrong by looking at images of Android before and after iOS came out. Remember, Android was demoed on a full size touch screen over a year before the iPhone was announced - Google it.

Other than that, would you care to share evidence to back up the claim that Android changed after iOS was released?

In any case, even if it did it means very little. You dont see Google suing Apple for stealing their notification bar.

Moreover, Apple has always been a design company. The look of its products has always been important for it to stand out in a crowd.
I agree, and even to this day, there are computers and phones that dont look half as good as Apples.

Apple's lawsuits have also have had some success in that Samsung has in fact stopped knocking the look of the iPhone off so directly.

Yup, the Galaxy S was really the only handset that was a nockoff - it looked very similar to the 3G/s. However since that, they have looked nothing like Apple handsets at all.

deconstruct60
Feb 12, 2013, 06:46 AM
Suing Android manufacturers was not a mistake. Jobs viewed Eric Schmidt as using inside information to unfairly compete with Apple's iPhone.

Either Jobs is an idiot or this is a distorted recount of what happened. Google bought Android long before Schmidt was named to the Apple board.

"Google buys Android " 2005
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-5837102-7.html

"Apple appoints Schmidt to Apple Board " 2006
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric-Schmidt-Joins-Apples-Board-of-Directors.html

It is more likely that Jobs wanted to give Schmidt inside info about how the iPhone was so insanely great that Google should stop exploring phone OS opportunities and just concentrate on enabling Apple's phone. Jobs didn't want Google's billions to be bankrolling a "free OS" alternative. Any "free OS" would do exactly to mobile phones what DOS/Windows did to MacOS.

It is undeniable that Android completely changed to resemble IOS when the iPhone first came out.

It is also undeniable that companies like LG had prototype phones long before the iPhone came out that had large screens with fewer buttons. If Google was running around pitching their upcoming OS to several phone vendors they would also get NDA access to at least a few prototypes for a variety of manufacturers.

Certainly Schmidt knew how deep the competition was going to be with Apple. There is nothing to indicate that he came back and gave detailed specs to the Android team. Well any more than Jobs came back and gave specs of Xerox's GUI to Apple folks. Primarily he would have only observed that Apple was on the same track as LG , Motorola , and others.

Suing also told other competitors they would be spending a lot of money in legal fees if they didn't make their devices look different than Apple's. If Jobs made a mistake, in my mind it was not entering more Microsoft like deals where the manufacturers paid a licensing fee.

Because Jobs is more out to suppress competition for a time as opposed to being compensated for the patents. One primary reason Samsung didn't settle was the huge price tag Apple threw on top for licenses. At some point the size of the price actually leads to a suit. Piss folks off they will sue you back. The fact that Apple is using lots of FRAND patents without paying along with the giant bucket of money that just seems to collect for no reason (not going to spend it on anything that large) is also pissing folks off.

theluggage
Feb 12, 2013, 07:46 AM
Android was demoed on a full size touch screen over a year before the iPhone was announced - Google it.

Links, please, unless you mean this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg) dating from the SDK preview release in November 2007 (http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/googles-android-os-early-look-sdk-now-available/) - 6 months after the iPhone launch - in which half of the demo is on a blackberry-like device and the other half shows an advanced prototype which, if you look with your eyes turned on, is still primarily controlled with off-screen buttons and jog wheels (look e.g. at 3:08 - 3:13). All we see is a partially touch-enabled web browser and a rotating globe demo.

I'm not saying that Apple is entitled to its silly patents, but trying to deny that Android did a major design U-turn after the iPhone launch is just ridiculous.


Yup, the Galaxy S was really the only handset that was a nockoff - it looked very similar to the 3G/s. However since that, they have looked nothing like Apple handsets at all.

Agreed - that's the problem with the patent system - Samsung deserved a slap for the Galaxy S1 (and the first Galaxy Tab 10) but by the time the wheels of justice have finished grinding they will be ancient history, and Samsung have long since started coming up with their own ideas. It's like hitting a puppy 3 dog years after it has crapped on the floor.

Tankmaze
Feb 12, 2013, 08:10 AM
i'm not saying that apple is entitled to its silly patents, but trying to deny that android did a major design u-turn after the iphone launch is just ridiculous.


+1000

winston1236
Feb 12, 2013, 09:12 AM
Sure about that in 2012? Source?

Its a macrumors expert, theyre all "on the inside" and dont need to bother with things like sources!

flameproof
Feb 12, 2013, 09:30 AM
You can choose another manufacturer.

No, you can't.


You can't get back stolen designs. EVER

1. There was no design stolen. If it were stolen then how could Apple use it?

2. Who want's the same design, EVER?

Skoopman
Feb 12, 2013, 11:38 AM
Cook fails to see this:

You can choose another manufacturer. You can't get back stolen designs. EVER

But you know what you can do? Make an even better design and beat them again. Suing was the easiest option in this case.

SockRolid
Feb 12, 2013, 02:03 PM
Apple is a player, but in so far they make nothing they hardly control it.

Apple purchased Anobit likely to merge the flash controller into future Apple SoC ( Apple A(6+?) ) and not have to pay for the IP license per 100 million sold. If $10 a pop the deal would easily pay for itself.

Kneecapping Samsung? Hardly.

They control pricing. Biggest buyer -> best deals. Everyone else -> bidding war.

As I said, Samsung had a deal with Anobit that is now off the table.
Anobit's (now Apple's) controller technology provides for more efficient usage of NAND flash memory,
handling the degradation of the memory cells better than other controllers can, which allows the use
of less-expensive NAND memory.

Advantage Apple. Good luck Samsung.

SockRolid
Feb 12, 2013, 02:18 PM
Sure about that in 2012? Source?

You asked for it. I just DuckDuckGo-ed "apple 2012 nand flash market" and got quite a few results.
DuckDuckGo.com has a pretty good search engine. You should try it.

"Apple's iPad to dominate NAND use in tablets through 2015"

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4238015/Apple-s-iPad-to-dominate-NAND-use-in-tablets-through-2015


"How Apple’s NAND advantage helps its bottom line"

http://gigaom.com/2012/01/06/how-apples-nand-advantage-helps-its-bottom-line/


"Apple to account for a quarter of 2012′s entire NAND flash production"

http://www.macworld.com.au/news/apple-to-account-for-a-quarter-of-2012s-entire-nand-flash-production-51600/


And Apple is kicking Samsung under the bus:

"Apple cuts memory chip order to Samsung for new iPhone: source"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/07/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE88601A20120907

Some of the stories are a little old (early 2012.) But if someone, anyone, surpasses Apple's consumption
of NAND flash, I'm sure we'll be hearing about it non-stop from the more ignorant Android Apologists.
I think we all know how they over-emphasize components and specs.
So they can avoid talking about fragmentation and forking and all that.

samcraig
Feb 12, 2013, 02:29 PM
Only none of those fantastic articles actually states that "Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory. They control the market."

The articles you linked to (did you read them?) talk about NAND in tablets. Is there any evidence that Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory" in 2012?

You seem to think I'm trying to negate your statement. So your sarcasm, while amusing, fails to deliver.

Now - since I've already tried to locate a statement that backs up your assertion and could find none - perhaps you can find a source that states that "Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory" in 2012.

Thanks

You asked for it. I just DuckDuckGo-ed "apple 2012 nand flash market" and got quite a few results.
DuckDuckGo.com has a pretty good search engine. You should try it.

"Apple's iPad to dominate NAND use in tablets through 2015"

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4238015/Apple-s-iPad-to-dominate-NAND-use-in-tablets-through-2015


"How Appleís NAND advantage helps its bottom line"

http://gigaom.com/2012/01/06/how-apples-nand-advantage-helps-its-bottom-line/


"Apple to account for a quarter of 2012′s entire NAND flash production"

http://www.macworld.com.au/news/apple-to-account-for-a-quarter-of-2012s-entire-nand-flash-production-51600/


And Apple is kicking Samsung under the bus:

"Apple cuts memory chip order to Samsung for new iPhone: source"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/07/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE88601A20120907

Some of the stories are a little old (early 2012.) But if someone, anyone, surpasses Apple's consumption
of NAND flash, I'm sure we'll be hearing about it non-stop from the more ignorant Android Apologists.
I think we all know how they over-emphasize components and specs.
So they can avoid talking about fragmentation and forking and all that.

Renzatic
Feb 12, 2013, 02:39 PM
Some of the stories are a little old (early 2012.) But if someone, anyone, surpasses Apple's consumption
of NAND flash, I'm sure we'll be hearing about it non-stop from the more ignorant Android Apologists.
I think we all know how they over-emphasize components and specs.
So they can avoid talking about fragmentation and forking and all that.

Right, as opposed to hearing about it from you right now. DO NOT DO THIS THING I AM DOING, CUZ YOU WILL BE STUPID IF YOU DO THE THINGS THAT I DO!

And over emphasizing components and specs? Everyone does that. You get into an argument about the iPhone 5 vs. Galaxy S3, and you have people on both sides throwing up benchmark and spec graphs like they're going out of style. "The A6 is, like, a billion times faster than than stupid Exynos 4 crap Sameshame is using OLOL".

And lastly, do you know what forking actually is?

deconstruct60
Feb 12, 2013, 03:06 PM
They control pricing. Biggest buyer -> best deals. Everyone else -> bidding war.

Get best deals doesn't mean control market. It only means that Apple doesn't pay any more for Flash memory than anyone else. Compared to most competitors they pay slightly less. None of that means controlling the supply of Flash chips.



As I said, Samsung had a deal with Anobit that is now off the table.
Anobit's (now Apple's) controller technology provides for more efficient usage of NAND flash memory,

More efficient compared to what? 3 year old flash controllers?

" ... The companyís product goes beyond the standard for flash controllers, not only using advanced techniques for the error correction whose importance is growing with each new generation of NAND flash, but also tapping into proprietary knowledge about how the flash chips work internally, which is information only available through a very intimate relatioship with the NAND flash chipmakers themselves. ... "
http://thessdguy.com/apple-to-acquire-anobit/


Guess what? as NAND flash chipmakers change the internal dynamics of their chips over time so that "secret sauce" they had back in 2010-2011 will start to evaporate. The dynamics will change with process technology shrinks; it isn't a "just to be mean spirited" move. Apple could go raging hostile to NAND flash producers (including Samsung) but that would be a bozo move. As I said, all NAND producers not trying to shoot themselves in the foot work with several flash controller makers. Samsung isn't solely dependent upon Anobit.

Frankly, a simple way of staying out of the 3 bit error rate zone is to just not use 3 bit storage. The write speeds on 3-bit is slower. It is also more likely to crap out as the lower process levels.




handling the degradation of the memory cells better than other controllers can, which allows the use of less-expensive NAND memory.

Anobit has a approach to handling the issues. It isn't the only one.
There is little to no evidence that it is the unequivocally best one for the long term.



Advantage Apple. Good luck Samsung.

Apple has enough money and other resources that they don't "have to" use Samsung without any other choices. Short term product quality will likely suffer but long term they aren't dependent upon Apple.

However, the same is true in the other direction. Long term Samsung isn't dependent upon Apple. As flash prices generally come down (which they are and Apple can't control ) more system integrators will use flash. In that context Apple will stop being the "biggest". One reason Apple is major consumer is because their devices cost more. It isn't owning Anobit or iPhone ... just the price.

turtlez
Feb 12, 2013, 05:32 PM
But you know what you can do? Make an even better design and beat them again. Suing was the easiest option in this case.

make a better design and have that one stolen too because Samsung realise they can get away with it? no

----------

No, you can't.



1. There was no design stolen. If it were stolen then how could Apple use it?

2. Who want's the same design, EVER?

http://static.trustedreviews.com/94/051fd9/e313/samsung-Galaxy-S-vs-iphone-3gs.jpg I have nothing more to say

decksnap
Feb 12, 2013, 05:37 PM
If that were true, why did Apple not sue Google?


They don't sue google because google doesn't sell Android. Samsung sells Android.

G4DP
Feb 12, 2013, 05:39 PM
I'm not talking about who came up with the car first. After all Apple didn't invent the first microprocessor, computer, MP3 player, Smart phone or Tablet, but they had major innovations in these fields.

I'm talking more about who took "what" idea from us. Under bad management by the late 60's/70's we were practically giving our designs and ideas away, especially our motorcycle designs to the Japanese.

To put it into perspective in the 1930's Britain had over 350 different car manufactures, in more recent years LTI "London Taxi's International" was the only one left in British ownership, now thats gone too. If Apple aren't careful they could make some serious mistakes. That was my point.

----------



Yeah and thats what happened to our industry under abysmal bad management. BSA Motorcycles were practically giving the designs away to the likes of Honda and Yamaha and them companies had the money to spend improving and perfecting upon our original designs. We didn't bother and we was surpassed.

----------



Pretty sure in the 50's & 1960's Jaguar wasn't unreliable & awful and this is my point. During this period they made stuff like the D-Type Jaguar, E-type Jaguar and the Jaguar MkII. Possibly some of the most legendary cars of all time. Jaguar became rubbish and junk when it was swallowed up into british Layland and they replaced the E-type with the XJS.

All you have to do is look at an E-type. Even Enzo Ferrari called it the beautifulest car ever made. So much so they were inspired by it in someway when building the 250 GT California, apart from the wider grille they do look quite similar.

You haven't got a clue about the British Motor industry have you. The fact that you made up a word - beautifulest? What the hell is that?

Bad management had nothing to do with the demise of the British motor industry. It was the morons in the unions. Striking because the coffee machines were out of coffee, comes to mind. I know because my grandfather worked in the industry for decades.

Back on topic, if Cook was that against litigation he could have stopped them. Instead Apple has gone through with those and started even more. Not the sign of a CEO who would rather make a deal.

SockRolid
Feb 13, 2013, 01:46 PM
Only none of those fantastic articles actually states that "Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory. They control the market."

The articles you linked to (did you read them?) talk about NAND in tablets. Is there any evidence that Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory" in 2012?

You seem to think I'm trying to negate your statement. So your sarcasm, while amusing, fails to deliver.

Now - since I've already tried to locate a statement that backs up your assertion and could find none - perhaps you can find a source that states that "Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory" in 2012.

Thanks

OK, let's keep this fascinating thread going. Because, after all, every single post on MacRumors.com is concrete evidence of MacRumors' enormously high web traffic. Which, in turn, helps to drive up the site's ad revenue. Which, ultimately, benefits MacRumors, one of the leading pro-Apple sites.

Where to start? Ummmm.... I know! Let's just DuckDuckGo the phrase "apple leading flash memory consumer" shall we? If you'd like to follow along, here's the link:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+leading+flash+memory+consumer

Quite a few results, including:

"Apple now world's largest consumer of flash memory"
http://news.techworld.com/sme/3285185/apple-now-worlds-largest-consumer-of-flash-memory/

"Apple now No. 1 in flash memory consumption"
http://www.winbeta.org/news/apple-now-no-1-flash-memory-consumption

First, the thing about "leading" is that you are ahead until someone else passes you. Correct? Next, Apple news dominates the tech news media, even that faction that looks for any and all weaknesses. Any and all weaknesses, whether real or merely perceived, in Apple's products and operations. I think we've all seen this umpteen times over the past few decades.

Given all of the above, don't you think it would be big news if anyone else, say HiSense (the brand that replaced Microsoft at CES' biggest booth, in case you haven't heard of them) surpassed Apple's consumption of NAND flash? I think it would be big news. I think it would spread throughout the tech media even if it were a false rumor. But nope. Can't find a single news story, blog post, or tweet about Apple losing its #1 spot as world's largest consumer of NAND flash memory.

Question: So where are the headlines like "Brand X surpasses Apple in NAND flash orders," or "Apple slips to number two in key flash memory component purchases", or "Apple is doomed because they bought less NAND flash than Brand X this quarter"?

Answer: There are none.

Hence, we can safely assume that Apple still leads in worldwide consumption of NAND flash memory, as they have since 2011.

Let's try this: I DuckDuckGo'd "Apple #2 nand memory" and still got articles like this, from way back in 2009. Again, if you'd like to play along at home:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+%232+nand+memory+

NAND memory shortage blamed on Apple
http://www.techspot.com/news/36202-nand-memory-shortage-blamed-on-apple.html

Apple leading is old news. Apple falling behind would be big news.
If it ever happened.

----------

Right, as opposed to hearing about it from you right now. DO NOT DO THIS THING I AM DOING, CUZ YOU WILL BE STUPID IF YOU DO THE THINGS THAT I DO!

And over emphasizing components and specs? Everyone does that. You get into an argument about the iPhone 5 vs. Galaxy S3, and you have people on both sides throwing up benchmark and spec graphs like they're going out of style. "The A6 is, like, a billion times faster than than stupid Exynos 4 crap Sameshame is using OLOL".

And lastly, do you know what forking actually is?

Oops. Did I hit a hot button? Was it the "specs" thing?
Or was it the "ignorant Android Apologists" turn of phrase?

I hope you'll understand that MacRumors is a predominantly pro-Apple news and blog site.
Not everything they publish is pro-Apple, but their audience is mostly pro-Apple.

Huge difference between praising Apple here and spam-trolling Android and whatever else here.

samcraig
Feb 13, 2013, 02:27 PM
Assume away. Clearly you enjoy doing so. I prefer actual facts. Of which you've provided none for 2012. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Have a lovely day.

OK, let's keep this fascinating thread going. Because, after all, every single post on MacRumors.com is concrete evidence of MacRumors' enormously high web traffic. Which, in turn, helps to drive up the site's ad revenue. Which, ultimately, benefits MacRumors, one of the leading pro-Apple sites.

Where to start? Ummmm.... I know! Let's just DuckDuckGo the phrase "apple leading flash memory consumer" shall we? If you'd like to follow along, here's the link:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+leading+flash+memory+consumer

Quite a few results, including:

"Apple now world's largest consumer of flash memory"
http://news.techworld.com/sme/3285185/apple-now-worlds-largest-consumer-of-flash-memory/

"Apple now No. 1 in flash memory consumption"
http://www.winbeta.org/news/apple-now-no-1-flash-memory-consumption

First, the thing about "leading" is that you are ahead until someone else passes you. Correct? Next, Apple news dominates the tech news media, even that faction that looks for any and all weaknesses. Any and all weaknesses, whether real or merely perceived, in Apple's products and operations. I think we've all seen this umpteen times over the past few decades.

Given all of the above, don't you think it would be big news if anyone else, say HiSense (the brand that replaced Microsoft at CES' biggest booth, in case you haven't heard of them) surpassed Apple's consumption of NAND flash? I think it would be big news. I think it would spread throughout the tech media even if it were a false rumor. But nope. Can't find a single news story, blog post, or tweet about Apple losing its #1 spot as world's largest consumer of NAND flash memory.

Question: So where are the headlines like "Brand X surpasses Apple in NAND flash orders," or "Apple slips to number two in key flash memory component purchases", or "Apple is doomed because they bought less NAND flash than Brand X this quarter"?

Answer: There are none.

Hence, we can safely assume that Apple still leads in worldwide consumption of NAND flash memory, as they have since 2011.

Let's try this: I DuckDuckGo'd "Apple #2 nand memory" and still got articles like this, from way back in 2009. Again, if you'd like to play along at home:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+%232+nand+memory+

NAND memory shortage blamed on Apple
http://www.techspot.com/news/36202-nand-memory-shortage-blamed-on-apple.html

Apple leading is old news. Apple falling behind would be big news.
If it ever happened.

----------



Oops. Did I hit a hot button? Was it the "specs" thing?
Or was it the "ignorant Android Apologists" turn of phrase?

I hope you'll understand that MacRumors is a predominantly pro-Apple news and blog site.
Not everything they publish is pro-Apple, but their audience is mostly pro-Apple.

Huge difference between praising Apple here and spam-trolling Android and whatever else here.

SockRolid
Feb 13, 2013, 02:40 PM
Assume away. Clearly you enjoy doing so. I prefer actual facts. Of which you've provided none for 2012. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Have a lovely day.

The absence of proof of guilt means innocence.

Show me one single traditional news story, one blog post that proves that Apple has lost its dominant position as the world's largest consumer of NAND flash memory.

(... crickets ...)

samcraig
Feb 13, 2013, 03:03 PM
The absence of proof of guilt means innocence.

Show me one single traditional news story, one blog post that proves that Apple has lost its dominant position as the world's largest consumer of NAND flash memory.

(... crickets ...)

The absence of of proof of innocence does not mean guilty. That's my point. You're clearly missing.

By the way - I have now found a source (recent) which confirms the fact. No thanks to you, however since all you could provide was old data.

You seem to think this was about proving you wrong. It wasn't. It was about confirming the facts. With proof. Not conjecture. Maybe you should spend less time trying to be snarky or clever and more time understanding the question being asked and providing the (factual) answer. FYI - here it is.

http://www.zdnet.com/nand-flash-market-expected-to-recover-in-2013-despite-ultrabooks-stumble-7000010859/

Again - have a lovely day.

macnerd93
Feb 13, 2013, 03:07 PM
let us see what becomes of this

hchung
Feb 13, 2013, 07:34 PM
Only none of those fantastic articles actually states that "Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory. They control the market."

The articles you linked to (did you read them?) talk about NAND in tablets. Is there any evidence that Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory" in 2012?

You seem to think I'm trying to negate your statement. So your sarcasm, while amusing, fails to deliver.

Now - since I've already tried to locate a statement that backs up your assertion and could find none - perhaps you can find a source that states that "Apple is the world's leading consumer of flash memory" in 2012.

Thanks

Perhaps he was looking for the source article that those quote?

“Because of its high-memory density, combined with high-volume shipments, Apple’s iPhone line in 2012 was the largest single consumer of NAND, helping to increase demand for the memory from the smartphone market,” said Michael Yang, senior principal analyst for memory & storage at IHS. “However, Ultrabook sales fell short of industry expectations, dragging down the overall NAND market for the year.”

http://www.isuppli.com/Memory-and-Storage/News/Pages/Despite-Surging-Demand-from-Apple-NAND-Market-Contracts-in-2012-as-Ultrabooks-Disappoint.aspx

"iPhones consumed 10.5 percent of the total NAND flash supply in 2012. In comparison, all other smartphones combined used 10.4 percent."

"The fate of the NAND industry in the near and intermediate term rests on the support of three pillars of demand: smartphones, tablets and SSDs."

Given that in two out of three categories, Apple ships the most devices with the most NAND, and that SSDs is diluted across many companies, it's pretty certain that Apple bought the most raw NAND.

As for who controls the NAND market? Dunno. It doesn't really matter.
I'd say it's probably JEDEC. :P

SockRolid
Feb 18, 2013, 11:03 AM
[...] You seem to think this was about proving you wrong. It wasn't. It was about confirming the facts. With proof. Not conjecture. Maybe you should spend less time trying to be snarky or clever and more time understanding the question being asked and providing the (factual) answer. FYI - here it is. [...]

Ah yes, ZDNet. Very important source of tech industry news. In the '90s.

My original point still stands. You *do* remember it. Don't you?

samcraig
Feb 18, 2013, 01:13 PM
Ah yes, ZDNet. Very important source of tech industry news. In the '90s.

My original point still stands. You *do* remember it. Don't you?

Do you remember my point. It was about locating an actual source. I provided one. You didn't. Enough said.

SockRolid
Feb 20, 2013, 12:21 PM
Do you remember my point. It was about locating an actual source. I provided one. You didn't. Enough said.

Great. Now do you think that qualifies you for a career in journalism?
This is a blog, in case you hadn't noticed. Big difference between "journalism" and "blogging."

samcraig
Feb 20, 2013, 12:48 PM
Great. Now do you think that qualifies you for a career in journalism?
This is a blog, in case you hadn't noticed. Big difference between "journalism" and "blogging."

Can you get a little more off topic. Where did I claim I was trying to qualify for a career in journalism.

You stated something. I simply asked if you had a source. Clearly something you are completely bent out of shape about since you keep trying to make this into some personal attack.

You couldn't provide one. I provided one. You can try and discredit the source as much as you'd like - but the link I posted referred to another source - one that another forum poster linked to directly.

Since when is this "discussion" between you and I about journalism/blogging. Hint: It's not. Never was. It was about providing a source. Any source.

Wow. Done with this and you. The matter has been resolved.

SockRolid
Feb 26, 2013, 12:04 PM
Can you get a little more off topic. Where did I claim I was trying to qualify for a career in journalism. [...]

Traditional journalists need to provide sources. Bloggers may not need to.
Commenters, such as myself, absolutely do not need to.

So why, again, do you believe I absolutely positively must without fail provide a source?
And yes, thanks for the link. I'll use that again in the future.