| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| 'What really made Steve Jobs so angry at Google?' |
| By Thom Holwerda, submitted by MOS6510 on 2012-09-10 14:51:33 |
| Written by Scott Cleland: "With so many fanboys spinning Silicon Valley history, it's sometimes easy to forget about the real chain of events that led to the ongoing Apple-Google thermonuclear war, how the romance turned to hate. This timeline presents an interesting case about why, despite patents and prior art, Steve Jobs had plenty of personal reasons to despise Schmidt, Page, and Brin." Cleland has a very, very good point; quite coherent and well-reasoned... That is, if you haven't got a single shred of historical sense and completely and utterly ignore the 30-odd years of mobile computing development that preceded our current crop of smartphones. It's hard not to be reminded of how certain groups of people dismiss millions of years of fossil records because this record inconveniences their argument. In any case, a comment on the article answered the question properly: "Jobs was a businessman. He was angry he was losing money. Simple." |
|
| Comment by Laurence |
| By Laurence on 2012-09-10 15:28:52 |
|
> "he had been betrayed by the two young men he had been attempting to mentor." What an utterly arrogant opinion to hold. Even in the timeline in question, Google were a hugely successful multi-million dollar business and Schmidt (et al) were anything by "n00bs" needing the guidance of Jobs. I swear to God, peoples evangelical views of Apple just get crazier and crazier. Anyhow, and @Thom; if you think the article is BS, then why publish it here? Edited 2012-09-10 15:31 UTC |
 - Score: 18 |
| Losing money? |
| By Windows Sucks on 2012-09-10 15:48:15 |
|
Huh? Jobs died with 15 billion in personal wealth and almost 100 billion in Apple bank account. And today with all the Android around Apple is still making the most money and the most profits. I think the most simple answer is that Google made it look like they would partner on the iPhone by providing what they did (YouTube, maps, search etc) instead in almost the same way Microsoft did it, Google came out with a similar product and in similar Microsoft fashion Jobs felt that those on the inside namely Schmidt stole ideas from Apple. If it was money then why would jobs just not license their patents like MS did and make the money like MS does. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Losing money? |
| By Yehppael on 2012-09-10 16:03:27 |
|
Google, has been steadily growing, almost all the time since it's inception. They're thinking long term. Make this comparison in another 10 years. If Apple still exists by then. Jobs, might know hardware/software and design, but he's done a poor job of when it comes to choosing leadership. Honestly though, I really have no idea why this is tech news at all, since all this is just business, has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with technology. Concerning the future, I'd say this, invest in Microsoft and Google, Apple, only if you stay on your toes and can sell everything in a split second. |
| - Score: 6 |
| RE[2]: Losing money? |
| By Windows Sucks on 2012-09-10 16:13:08 |
|
Google has been growing only in Ad revenue. Any day that people feel they are not getting their bang for their buck though Google its a rap since they have no other revenue sources. If you look at Apple, the iPhone by its self brings in more money and profits then Microsoft total company. If you scratch the iPhone Apple still makes more money then Microsoft from the rest of their businesses and growing. Microsoft is basically dead. Windows and Office make them their most money and both are played out. They still make a bunch of money on increased licenses fees, but the days of people getting excited over Microsoft products are long gone. |
| - Score: 0 |
| RE: Losing money? |
| By Laurence on 2012-09-10 16:27:40 |
|
A lot of people make this comment, but I think Microsoft and Apples position are very different. Please excuse the long post, but I'll explain why: Apple's revenue almost entirely come from iOS-related projects (iPhone, iPad, App store sales, etc), so they need to keep that revenue up else they'll see a significant drop in income. Thus they need to monopolise the market and thus they need to prevent their biggest competition from, well, competing. Furthermore, Apples shares are exceptionally high. They're very much in their own economic bubble; and like all financial bubbles in the technology sector, Apple knows that if said bubble would burst, their business could potentially crash quite significantly. However as Apple have grown so exponentially, they'll quickly end up in a situation where there isn't any physical room for more growth - and the very best scenario there is they plateau (but as past history has shown us - that rarely happens when bubble burst). So Apple have to artificially sustain their shares by creating the illusion that they're dominating the market to keep investors from selling shares (as once that happens, you could end up with a domino effect where yet more shareholders sell stock before the price drops further). Then you need to ensure that your products also sell - and when your product is easily copied (ignoring, for the moment, the argument of whether Apple did "invent" multi-touch et al), the easiest way to sell your product is to prevent others from selling theirs. Thus Apple go after their biggest rivals with sales bans and loud exclamations that they basically own the mobile paradigm and how everyone else should either change their designs (read: reinvent themselves with less attractive / usable designs) to booster their own sales and booster their public image to potential and current investors alike. Microsoft, however, don't need to artificially inflate their business. Redmond know that if your OS is available to OEMs then all you need to do is get that OS to reach critical mass before users select those types of handsets over rivals (much like how Android has taken off as a household name). So Microsoft licence their patents at exactly the same price as their OS licences to encourage OEMs to chose Windows Phone over Android. It's a bit more of a long term game, but MS have the backing of the desktop Windows brand. With Win8 on the horizon, I'm guessing their betting the success of that (which seems far from certain at the moment) will booster their smart phone sales too. tl;dr version: Microsoft licence because they're trying to sell their OS to OEMs, Apple seek sales bans because they can't afford to lose their primary sales revenue. Edited 2012-09-10 16:28 UTC |
| - Score: 6 |
| RE[3]: Losing money? |
| By Laurence on 2012-09-10 16:35:38 |
|
> Google has been growing only in Ad revenue. Any day that people feel they are not getting their bang for their buck though Google its a rap since they have no other revenue sources. If you look at Apple, the iPhone by its self brings in more money and profits then Microsoft total company. If you scratch the iPhone Apple still makes more money then Microsoft from the rest of their businesses and growing. Microsoft is basically dead. Windows and Office make them their most money and both are played out. They still make a bunch of money on increased licenses fees, but the days of people getting excited over Microsoft products are long gone. You could reverse that view and say that Apple basically only have one revenue stream, and that's from iOS. Where as Microsoft's income is significantly more varied (though granted MS have their cash cows too). But should, overnight, iPhones and iPads stop selling, then Apple could end up in a lot of trouble very quickly. I wont repeat myself as I go into a lot more detail here: http://www.osnews.com/thread?534... Suffice to say, I think MS realised they couldn't grow much more and hence why they expended into the console market and such like. Edited 2012-09-10 16:37 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[3]: Losing money? |
| By tylerdurden on 2012-09-10 16:38:47 |
|
Wow, could you supply any actual figures to back up your silly claims? Edited 2012-09-10 16:39 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Losing money? |
| By tylerdurden on 2012-09-10 16:56:49 |
|
Apple does not monopolize anything, in fact they don't have the biggest market shares in many of the segments in which they compete. What they have are the highest margins from almost any other vendor in the markets they are in, which is very different picture from the "soap opera" scenario many of you mistakenly assume the technology field is. Apple is not suing anyone because they can't compete, Apple sues other vendors who they think infringe on their designs (and design languages by extension). Because Apple's design is perhaps their principal value proposition that helps them justify/achieve their high margin business model. Microsoft and Google have both very different business models from each other, and Apple as well. They are all going to be fine. Apple will eventually execute poorly at some point (perhaps the iPhone 5 will be just too evolutionary and lead to an stagnant image), and they will be brought down back to reality. A bit over a decade ago, it was Microsoft who was unstoppable and couldn't do no wrong, alas... People so emotionally vested on specific technology companies, that they have nothing to do with, is an odd phenomenon. Perhaps a hint towards the possibility of an ill adjustment to reality. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Tinfoil hats for everyone! |
| By JAlexoid on 2012-09-10 17:16:58 |
|
> Isn't it interesting that when Mr. Schmidt was on Apple's board and aware of the iPhone, Google was not "late" to the smart phone market (Google-Android now has dominant market share), but when Google's Schmidt was out of the loop as a board director on the existence of the iPad, Google is somehow "late" to the tablet market? Please! Google was as late to the smartphone market as much as they were late to the tablet market. Can we stop with the damn conspiracy theories? Smartphone market was just a greener pasture for Android. Facts are: iPhone introduced in January 2007 Android demoed November 2007 (10 months apart) iPad introduced in January 2010 Honeycomb on XOOM first appears on screen December 2010 (11 months apart) Math kills that stupid logic. In fact, there's no logic there after all. What is interesting is that Scott Cleland doesn't bother actually looking at facts with a clear mind. (Scott Cleland: "He has testified before Congress three times on Google." Objectivity be damned!) Edited 2012-09-10 17:19 UTC |
| - Score: 8 |
| RE[4]: Losing money? |
| By Windows Sucks on 2012-09-10 17:22:26 |
|
> You could reverse that view and say that Apple basically only have one revenue stream, and that's from iOS. Where as Microsoft's income is significantly more varied (though granted MS have their cash cows too). But should, overnight, iPhones and iPads stop selling, then Apple could end up in a lot of trouble very quickly. I wont repeat myself as I go into a lot more detail here: http://www.osnews.com/thread?534... Suffice to say, I think MS realised they couldn't grow much more and hence why they expended into the console market and such like. There are two issues with that. 1. Apple has NO money losing enterprises at this time. Every business they are in makes some kind of profit. Microsoft on the other hand has several businesses that lose money to the point that they made no profit last quarter. (Esp their entertainment division) 2. For Apple to have a serious problem that would mean all their iOS devices would have to crash. Interesting part is everything Apple sells right now is still growing while MS has nothing that is growing and Google really only has Ad growth. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |