Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Bobtodd

macrumors member
Jun 10, 2011
51
0
As a stock holder I think that was a terrible mistake and a waste of money.Someone should have been fired for that.....oh wait.
 

ScottishCaptain

macrumors 6502a
Oct 4, 2008
871
474
You're all acting like Apple was window shopping with $21M in hand, looking for a clock design to purchase (as if they actually wanted to throw that money away).

This is not the case.

Apple ripped off the design in iOS 6 because their skeuomorphic ******** got the better of them and apparently they don't employ original graphics designers anymore.

They thought they could get away with it.

They were wrong. And luckily for them, Swiss Railways seems to be a pretty cool-headed customer in that they "only" asked for $21M. Had they taken Apple to court and won (which they would have), the settlement for that could have been ten or twenty times as much or more (given that iOS 6 is included on every new shipping product, plus the existing devices that have already been upgraded).

-SC
 

bernuli

macrumors 6502a
Oct 10, 2011
710
403
If given the choice between a clock and a calculator on my iPad,

I WOULD CHOOSE THE CALCULATOR!

As long as the calculator had NO design.

B
 

admanimal

macrumors 68040
Apr 22, 2005
3,531
2
Oh please, what dumb logic and rebuttle; just look at the damn facts, why the hell would Apple waste that much money on a damn clock vs. helping victims? It shows they could have donated alot more, and care more about a damn clock than helping victims.


So please, quit trying to defend something that just makes you look, well, not so great.

My point, which you missed, is that every big company in existence spends tens of millions of dollars on things that are relatively trivial. So to chastise Apple for donating "only" $2.5 million is simply ignoring the practical reality of the situation.

Maybe some beer company should skip a 30 second Superbowl ad this year and donate that $5 million to charity. Maybe Facebook should have only paid $900 million for Instagram and donated the extra $100 million to charity. Maybe McDonalds should put 1 less pickle on their hamburgers and donate the $1 million/year that will save them.
 

tech4all

macrumors 68040
Jun 13, 2004
3,399
489
NorCal
Oh please, what a stupid statement. I hope you have donated every cent you earn that doesn't go directly to something that you absolutely cannot live without.

I suppose Apple should also buy a house for every homeless person in the country. They can technically afford it, so why don't they?

Its not a stupid statement at all. While its great that Apple donated, they paid 10x more to use a clock design. Stop being the Apple Dept of Defense. :rolleyes:
 

Mak47

macrumors 6502a
Mar 27, 2011
751
32
Harrisburg, PA
Nice :)
But it doesn't work that way. Swiss rail won't lower their prices and neither will Apple raise theirs. Every company will always ask the highest price for their product they think they can get away with. So these 21 million come out of the shareholders' pockets, not the customers'.

Of course it works that way.

Swiss Rail wouldn't likely lower prices for customers, but if they have a major cash influx, they'll likely spend it upgrading facilities and equipment. This would directly benefit their customers.

All businesses, Apple included, factor the cost of doing business into the price of their products. A specific cost like this one wouldn't likely amount to enough to raise the price of products on their own. However, this cost combined with all the other various costs of doing business (components, labor, real estate, taxes etc.) are what determines the final price of products.

When those costs go up, the price of products increases. When they go down, additional features can be added, higher margins can be temporarily taken (if reductions are seen as temporary) or prices can be reduced to be more competitive.

----------

As a stock holder I think that was a terrible mistake and a waste of money.Someone should have been fired for that.....oh wait.

It would be a terrible mistake if it were true. I still don't think it is.
 

anomie

Suspended
Jun 29, 2010
557
152
Oh please, what dumb logic and rebuttle; just look at the damn facts, why the hell would Apple waste that much money on a damn clock vs. helping victims? It shows they could have donated alot more, and care more about a damn clock than helping victims.


So please, quit trying to defend something that just makes you look, well, not so great.

So please, quit trying to make yourself look good on the back of the victims.

You and I, we live in a capitalist society. If you think it´s wrong that a company accumulated 100 billion dollars, maybe you´re right.
But then go and fight for a better economic system, because Apple is just another well oiled capitalist company. And companies in capitalism exist ONLY to make profit. They are not there to solve social problems or the consequences of a natural catastrophe.
Just don´t be so damn naive!
 

admanimal

macrumors 68040
Apr 22, 2005
3,531
2
Its not a stupid statement at all. While its great that Apple donated, they paid 10x more to use a clock design. Stop being the Apple Dept of Defense. :rolleyes:

As I said, every big company in the world is going to spend waaaay more on things that probably seem pretty trivial than they donate to charity. To pick on this one example where Apple was forced to pay $21 million for something stupid after they donate $2.5 million to the Red Cross is silly.

Exactly how much were they supposed to donate in order for it to be an acceptable amount?
 

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
The move would even be nicer if Apple settled up front. Apple doesn't play nice any more, they've become 'The Man'.

Do you seriously think that anyone in a responsible position at Apple knew that this was a legally protected design? Or let's say anyone who _still_ is in a responsible position at Apple?


So if I stole your car, stopped driving it and bought another one, you'd be OK with that?

I think that is like someone with rich parents stealing a car worth $5,000, getting caught, and the victim decides not to press charges when the thief's rich parents buy the car for $20,000.
 

Tucom

Cancelled
Jul 29, 2006
1,252
310
As I said, every big company in the world is going to spend waaaay more on things that probably seem pretty trivial than they donate to charity. To pick on this one example where Apple was forced to pay $21 million for something stupid after they donate $2.5 million to the Red Cross is silly.

Exactly how much were they supposed to donate in order for it to be an acceptable amount?

It makes sense now that you bring up the beer company and McDonald examples, and I didn't know that Apple was FORCED to pay 21million, so I correct myself and partially retract my statements. However, it's not like Apple couldn't afford more than the pocket change of 2.5 million to them.

Apple still rules though, but for now, I prefer my gaming computer to a Mac just because I'm a PC gamer.
 

TVreporter

macrumors 68000
Mar 11, 2012
1,817
2,895
Near Toronto
That is an insane amount of money for a simple looking symbol which does anyone really care what the clock logo looks like? This reeks of arrogrance and a cocky attitude.

Put that $21 million to charity or something.
 

rufwork

macrumors regular
Aug 5, 2003
143
68
I wonder if that was yet another thing that led to Forstall's departure.

Oooh, excellent call. Seems like they're paying about what they might pay for a punitive court verdict, with the only advantage that they get to say they licensed it instead of lost in court. If they truly designed it in a case of convergent evolution, I'm a little surprised at the price.

Apple trying to make a horribly failed rights search under Forstall's watch go away makes this huge payment make more sense.

That is an insane amount of money for a simple looking symbol which does anyone really care what the clock logo looks like? This reeks of arrogrance and a cocky attitude.

Wait, what? Arrogance? They're paying because, I assume, they would have lost a court case on copyright. Apple stole the design, whether they meant to or not. It's really pretty sad that such a design got through.

Who's the kid who made up stuff out of whole cloth that was published in the NYT or New Yorker? I wonder if something similar didn't happen here.
 

dumell

macrumors member
Aug 4, 2008
31
2
Finland
"the licensing agreement may not provide any compensation to watchmaker Mondaine..."

And why would it? They're just another licensee of the design.

Actually, Mondaine bought exclusive rights to the design so they might be entitled to some compensation now that their license no longer is exclusive.
 

RoadOfMajor

macrumors newbie
Sep 21, 2011
15
0
I wonder how the investors feel about spending $21M on a block of 144x144 pixels.

I'm a huge Apple fan and all but realistically speaking, this company is going downhill.
 

mgsarch

macrumors regular
Jan 19, 2008
155
0
I wonder how the investors feel about spending $21M on a block of 144x144 pixels.

I'm a huge Apple fan and all but realistically speaking, this company is going downhill.

Apple had about $76B on-hand in early August 2012. That's $76,000M. Do you realize what percentage $21M is of $76,000M? 0.028%

The savvy investors will not be looking twice at this $21M "write-off". This deal mitigates the potentially great legal expenses, penalties, negative press, etc., that would have come from dealing with this mess another way. As investors, this is what we *want*.
 
Last edited:

scottness

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2009
1,368
5
Room 101
Anyone wanna buy my simple clock design for $5mil? It's a huge bargain, and would make a nice Christmas gift for a family member.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.