Apple Pursuit of Samsung Starts Bordering On Farce(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Apple Pursuit of Samsung Starts Bordering On Farce
http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2014/03/31/apple-pursuit-of-samsung-starts-bordering-on-farce/
3 comments
Apple can't innovate any more because Apple are too busy fighting a legal battle with Samsung.
I think this statement is the biggest problem with the article. I can't reasonably see how the innovators within Apple would be too bothered by what the legal team are up to.
I think this statement is the biggest problem with the article. I can't reasonably see how the innovators within Apple would be too bothered by what the legal team are up to.
I certainly have a problem with it.
I have a rather firm rule that when a company moves its competition from the marketplace to the courthouse, it's a bad sign, one way or another.
That doesn't mean they weren't justified in doing so, but it's still a bad sign, e.g. consumes management and eventually engineer/designer/the creators of this stuff mind share, tells us they're really worried about competition, etc. And as noted in the article, tends to result in reputational damage.
I have a rather firm rule that when a company moves its competition from the marketplace to the courthouse, it's a bad sign, one way or another.
That doesn't mean they weren't justified in doing so, but it's still a bad sign, e.g. consumes management and eventually engineer/designer/the creators of this stuff mind share, tells us they're really worried about competition, etc. And as noted in the article, tends to result in reputational damage.
I agree - if some tiny % of Apple's 80k employees are poking Samsung in the eye via lawyers, no way the other ~80k employees are somehow useless or starved for attention or money. Especially since the $160B cash hoard implies each employee could have ~$2M at their disposal - without using any credit.
Seriously, even small companies can do more than one thing at a time - why can't a big company.
Seriously, even small companies can do more than one thing at a time - why can't a big company.
Apple's underdog shtick stopped being cute a long time ago.
Ugghhh... Forbes. Clicking through four pages and then having to scroll to find my place in TFA makes me uncomfortable about having to upvote the content.
Point one is probably true. Point two is probably false which by default makes point three false.
People have such short memories. Apple has never innovated in public, so we don't know what they are trying internally and rejecting. Other companies do so we not only see their innovation — we see their public failures.
There is certainly an interesting article, yet to be written, that could try to make the argument that the market now wants to see constant, open innovation (successful or not) rather than sporadic, closed only-ship-when-we-get-it-right innovation — but this article is not it.
Is the market wanting to see open innovation or are the share prices of Apple and Google unrelated to this entirely?