Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Tim Cook memo: line by line

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 309 posts

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#261

Post by wissler »

MrScruff wrote: post #260
wissler wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Obvious" is a relative term. What is obvious to an adult may not be obvious to a 2-year-old. Likewise, to many engineers the iPhone was obvious. To many of the CEO's heading large cell phone companies? Not so obvious.

If the iPhone was obvious to many engineers, why did none of them develop a similar product? Why did Google's Android team develop an operating system that resembled a Blackberry, only to transition to something that closer resembled an iPhone after the iPhone's launch?

Usually engineers don't get to decide where major resources are applied. That's the call of the increasingly non-technically savvy CEO. (HP is typical of this trend -- founded by engineers who were the cause of its greatness, over time degrading and being run by MBA's instead).

"Why did Google's Android team develop an operating system that resembled a Blackberry"

Irrelevant. The trend toward a more powerful OS as computing resources increased was inevitable. Somebody happened to get there first, and they deserve a pat on the back for winning that race, but they should not get all the credit. People who came before who actually pushed the technology to the limit deserve most of the credit; all Apple did was exploit it at an opportune time.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#262

Post by ChuckMcM »

My take on it is encapsulated by this:

"For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money."

It is clear that it can't be about the money because Apple makes 10x the money Samsung does, its all about crushing your enemies using every available tool in your arsenal, no matter what. When Microsoft did that by bundling their own browser into their dominant OS they were convicted of illegally using their market domination to crush competition. I don't think that fate will befall Apple but the ramifications of this on Apple will be far and wide and for the most part uncontrollable.

I expect that everyone reading this today will, in 5 to 10 years be able to look back at today and see all the manifestations of what happened because of it and then see what Apple has wrought. I have no idea if it will be the best or stupidest thing they ever did, but it will define them as a company. I'm strangely reminded of the Tesla / Edison rant for some reason.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#263

Post by swombat »

learc83 wrote: post #242
pooriaazimi wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then make the stink when they do. Honestly, as an Apple "fan" who has no plan to switch from MacBook/OSX/iPhone/iPad, if they decide to just sue others for infringing one or to non-important patents I'll stop using their products and devote my time renouncing them. But that's not happening, and I seriously doubt that would ever happen. We all "know" that Samsung copied Apple in almost every thing. Home screen icons,…

The purpose of the patent system is not to "teach Samsung a lesson". The purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation. Apple made hundreds of billions of dollars even with Samsung copying them . If the patent system disappeared Apple would still make hundreds of billions of dollars, thus they would still have spent billions on R&D without the current patent system . If you'll notice the jury also found tha…

Hey, I think the patent system is broken too... but I think Apple used the broken tools at its disposal to make what was ultimately a completely fair case.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#264

Post by bpatrianakos »

cageface wrote: post #8

I think this is an excellent occasion to relink PG's essay on Apple's behavior from 2009: http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html Maybe Apple thinks they can afford to play bull in the china chop of developer opinion right now but I'm sure I'm not the only developer that felt a little sick to his stomach firing up Xcode today. I plan to put iOS and Apple in my rear view mirror.

I'm exactly the opposite. I don't have any strong feelings about patents but I'm fully aware that they're abused. That said, it was plain to me that Samsung was wrong and really did copy Apple. However, even if I thought Apple was plainly wrong which I have many times in the past I wouldn't think twice about buying their products and developer for their OS. I don't develop or buy Apple's products because of their corporate behavior. I do so for two reasons:

1. Apple products are the best in quality, design, and utility for me.

2. Their platform is hugely profitable and I want in on the action.

For me, it's simple economics. But I also tend to be an oddball around here. I'm one of the few who sees the benefits of copyright and I also believe patents have a completely valid place in society. What I think really sets me apart in these views is that I'm not a hard liner about any of them and from what I've seen on HN for the past 3 years, most people here (at least the ones who comment on these issues) are. I know about the dark side of patents, their abuse, and I'm right on the same page as others when they come out against abuse of the patent system. I also see some of the insanity surrounding copyright too. But you have to consider all the information in order to make an informed decision. Because of this I'm not one of those who decides to boycott all things made by company X because of their actions or position (could be one or a history of them) on issue Y.

I don't understand why people such as yourself take to boycotting every time something like this happens. I truly don't, and I'm not trying to be snarky or dickish at all so please don't read it that way. What I see in this case is standard Apple behavior and coincidentally they just happen to be right on this. If this abandoning of Apple really is about the lawsuit then why didn't you jump ship from the start instead of waiting for the ruling? And if this really is about the patent system then why is everyone making it about Apple? Apple is using the tools at its disposal to protect itself and in other cases simply make sure they stay ridiculously profitable. Apple didn't invent the patent system. If anger belongs anywhere it should be directed toward the system not the user of the system.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#265

Post by Tycho »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #241
nirvana wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah! There's nothing new in the iPhone, that Bell didn't demonstrate over a century ago! The reality is, you guys are ideologically driven- you want to get google off the hook for stealing Apples inventions, so you pretend like the patents cover features rather than implementations. Your dishonesty is shameful.

Since this is essentially Apple vs. the rest of the industry, how can you claim those supporting the industry are the ones that are ideologically driven?

Cause Android is the rest of the industry?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#266

Post by ShirtlessRod »

moe wrote: post #249
nirvana wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should try reading that patent sometime before you claim it isn't reasonable. It is profoundly dishonest to characterize patents using a trivial phrase like "one-click" and then pretend like that also means that the patent is itself trivial. I know why you do it- it fits your ideology. But it doesn't fit reality.

Would you care to explain which part of this patent is not trivial? http://www.google.com/patents?id=O2YXAAAAEBAJ Until then I'll have to assume we live in different realities.

Is that actually the entirety of the patent? If so, that is a major-league joke.

You mean a client communicates with a server with information, then returns some information? How delightfully ingenious!

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#267

Post by stanleydrew »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #105
beedogs wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart. What? No, we weren't. I had a Cingular 8125 (HTC Wizard) a year and a half before the iPhone was introduced and it was perfectly fine. Apple just added shiny icons and took away the keyboard and stylus. BFD.

I had a Cingular 8125 (HTC Wizard) a year and a half before the iPhone was introduced and it was perfectly fine No, it was not "perfectly fine." Otherwise they would have sold a hundred million of them. Give credit where it's due, for Pete's sake. It is a fact that prior to the iPhone, cell phones sucked ass. It is also a fact that granting Apple a twenty-year legal monopoly on trivial "innovations" will hurt consume…

> No, it was not "perfectly fine." Otherwise they would have sold a hundred million of them.

This is a lot like saying to a friend who sees $100 on the ground that it can't really be $100, otherwise someone would have picked it up already.

Apple is a marketing powerhouse. They are brilliant at it. They hook you emotionally. They convince you that they created some device specifically for you. They really make you believe that it is changing your life. That it is revolutionary. They even help you rationalize flaws. (iPhone drops cals? Oh, that's just stupid AT&T's fault.)

That's how they sell 100s of millions of devices. The devices are also quite slick, but you have to concede that slickness alone is not what drives Apple's profits. The marketing budget numbers came out during this trial I believe, and they were staggering.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#268

Post by tatsuke95 »

Tycho wrote: post #265
tatsuke95 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since this is essentially Apple vs. the rest of the industry, how can you claim those supporting the industry are the ones that are ideologically driven?

Cause Android is the rest of the industry?

Samsung is not Android.

But you bolster my point: it's clearly Apple on one side. Who is on the other side in order for the anti-bad-patent crowd to be labelled collectively as "ideologically driven"?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#269

Post by chimeracoder »

nirvana wrote: post #167
yogsototh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mentioned the difference between big and small company. When Apple had clearly stolen the look and feel of Delicious Library to make iBook. The author was a "small company". He even show some happiness that his work was used by Apple. The point is, he couldn't have sued Apple. Simply because, actually, a small company could certainly not win over a big one. The big one will use a lot of money to keep the trial as…

I wish you were kidding. In the 1990s I worked on software that had the same "look and feel" of the "delicious library". We had shelves and we put things on them, books, CDs, etc, in our software. This was for a seattle software company- the same city that Wil Shipley lived in when he created delicious library. So, can I claim that, because he put books on shelves in his software that he stole the idea from us, when…

Actually, if you'd had a patent on it, you could claim that, under current law. Some of the software patents being upheld cover far less.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#270

Post by pasbesoin »

The problem with prior art is that, with the Patent Office doing such a crap job -- thanks in part to the Congress that funds it -- you and your attorney have to document and present it yourself, at $300/hour.

Add first-to-file to this mess, and, well, at least there will no longer be any point in spending that $300/hour.

Post reply on HN