[ChuckMcM]

Sigh, emotionally this sort of crap from Apple just really irritates me. Sure software patents are stupid, but does it strike anyone else that this Android Jihad by Apple is doing more damage to their corporate brand than help?

I should have realized during the 'look and feel' wars that its part of their DNA.

[georgemcbay]

As someone who has been de facto boycotting Apple (the last Apple device I've owned was an iPhone 3G) over annoyance with their iron fisted control policies, I wish you were right that this would damage their corporate brand, but I don't think it will.

Most non-geeks just don't care about this stuff one way or another. And most geeks either rationalize it or post how annoyed by it they are from their shiny new MacBook or iPhone.

I think this course of action is incredibly stupid of Apple regardless of public perception though. If they ever did manage to get Android killed in the way they seem to want to (Jobs' 'thermonuclear' option), don't they realize that would make them the 90's-Microsoft of smartphones? Is killing Android worth a future in which they have to cede control of the app store, debundle mobile Safari, or offer the user a choice of browsers, etc?

Given their corporate culture of control, having a relatively strong competitor is actually a VERY GOOD thing for them, especially when they are still pulling in record profits quarter after quarter even with the competition.

Of course, I don't expect they ever will actually kill Android, they are just guaranteeing Google is going to go after them in all the same markets using Motorola IP, forcing widescale settlements. In the end nothing will be gained by anyone except the lawyers.

[shinratdr]

> If they ever did manage to get Android killed in the way they seem to want to (Jobs' 'thermonuclear' option), don't they realize that would make them the 90's-Microsoft of smartphones?

Not really, because it wouldn't. You don't see Apple going after WP7. Nor WebOS. Yes they are small competitors but that's only because Android is free and established, if there was no Android, they would pick up the slack quite quickly. Apple has a specific problem with Android because of the level of insider information Google had on the iPhone project at the time Android was being retooled into an iOS competitor.

Microsoft's schtick was embrace, extend, extinguish which was a much more two-faced policy and evil policy. 90's Microsoft wanted to own everything and control everything, from the lowliest embedded device to the most powerful servers in the world, from desktop PCs, to mobile devices, to the internet in general, you name it. If it was related to computers, it should run Windows, browse with IE and Microsoft should receive a license fee for it.

Apple has no such desires now, and never really had them in the first place. 90's Microsoft was genuinely malicious. 2011 Apple on the other hand just doesn't like Android and has a serious problem with how it was conceived. IMO because it repeats so perfectly the mistake Steve Jobs made when letting Bill Gates get so close to Apple. True, they maintain more control over their devices than Microsoft ever did, but they don't have the "100% control of the entire market in all aspects" aspirations that Microsoft had. It's just a completely different situation.

[georgemcbay]

The overall motivations of the company are irrelevant, what matters for antitrust concerns is marketshare plus using that marketshare as leverage to own other markets.

Apple gets away with things like the 30% content tax on their devices because they don't have the sort of marketshare Microsoft enjoyed. In a world sans-Android and with the iPhone on all the major carriers, that would soon change.

And sorry, I don't believe WebOS or WP7 would factor into the conversation even if Android died (and I say this as a WP7 fan). WebOS in particular is all but dead at this point.

[shinratdr]

> And sorry, I don't believe WebOS or WP7 would factor into the conversation even if Android died

So everyone would use iPhones or dumb phones? I doubt that. There is little reason to think that is exactly what would have ended up happening if Android never had existed.

[georgemcbay]

No, not everyone.

Just like not everyone ran Windows.

But, yes, I do believe that in a world without Android enough people would currently be using iPhones for it to be an antitrust matter, just as Windows was for desktop OSes in the 90s.

[Apple-Guy]

Android also charges 30% content tax: http://support.google.com/androidmarket/developer/bin/answer...

[hahainternet]

I don't believe this for a second. Apple has a specific problem with Android because android has >50% market share.

You have to be joking if you believe that Apple wouldn't consider the same actions against Microsoft if they had similar market share.

The only differences are

1. Microsoft has a lot more lawfare equipment.

2. Microsoft has < 1% market share.

[shinratdr]

> I don't believe this for a second. Apple has a specific problem with Android because android has >50% market share.

Apple has been targeting them since before Android was popular. The Android project caused a huge rift between Apple and Google, this is well documented. Marketshare has nothing to do with it.

> You have to be joking if you believe that Apple wouldn't consider the same actions against Microsoft if they had similar market share.

I'm not joking. They would have little or no case as Microsoft actually paid attention to patents when developing WP7. Google didn't.

You also have no evidence of this, other than the fact that you don't like Apple. I have lots of evidence that marketshare was irrelevant to Steve Jobs Android hate, for instance it's documented in his bio.

> Microsoft has a lot more lawfare equipment.

I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean.

> Microsoft has < 1% market share.

Really? That's the only difference?

How about the fact that WP7 is substantially different and original when compared to iOS and Android and they would have no case? No? That's not a difference? Ok...

[viraptor]

Does it do more damage than help? I don't know... How many Apple customers even know about the patent wars? How many care? How many are extreme Apple fanboys who will argue that Apple invented everything, starting with the phone itself?

It's only people who actually care about news like that who will see this as a bad thing. The rest get a new, shiny toy every year or so and are happy...

[stephend]

"jihad"... Apple has indeed an islamic mindset : they have a prophet you cannot criticize without violent reactions (like being permbanned from forums).

[tjogin]

These kinds of arguments only weakens your position. If you had something thoughtful to say, something of value, you would have said it.

Instead you serve this nonsense, the only logical conclusion of which is that you can't think of anything meaningful to say about the topic at all.

[tjogin]

I hate software patents, I really do. But what alternatives does Apple have? They're the big fish in their industries, they have to file and use patents or they'll be on the other end of the lawsuits.

At least the patents Apple use in lawsuits are ones they've filed themselves, rather than having bought them.

Or as they say, don't hate the player, hate the game.

[laumars]

Clearly you don't hate software patents because you then went on to justify them.

In fact, I think your whole attitude is backwards for the following reasons: While I agree with you that you cannot blame Apple (nor any other company) from filing software patents given the current culture within IT. You can 100% blame Apple for aggressively using flimsy patents to suppress obvious designs amongst competitors - forcing their competitors to deliberately cripple their products or risk having them forcefully removed from market entirely. That is not competition nor is that using patents defensively. What they are doing is exploiting a legal loophole to suppress legitimate competition.

Also, the "don't hate the player, hate the game" saying really winds me up. It's basically just endorsing moronic behaviour so long as the culprit doesn't get caught. It's just a retarded view of life in my opinion.

[smackfu]

The alternative that was the 10 years prior to this round of lawsuits where they didn't try to win in the courts.