I think it is already pretty clear that the demand for their products is so high that only Chinese labor factories can fulfill them. In any case Foxconn has been expanding internationally to countries like Brazil so it is getting better with time. Apple needs to stop pretending that they are the only saints in the market with their outrageous tactics to undermine competition. They are doing what they do as much for money as the next guy. You are a publicly traded company. Your primary goal is to be profitable.
-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Like us?
Jonathan Ive: Apple is not in the business of making money
- Thread starter Sushubh
- Start date
- Replies 51
- Views 6,274
Check this Tim Cook D10 interview out. You'll get all possible answers.
Liveblog: Tim Cook's Interview at D10 Conference - Mac Rumors
In retrospect, when Kara Swisher asked Tim that "What's your goal? To become at trillion dollar company? Be very secretive? Create your own CIA?"
He replied that "I just want to build great products. There's not a specific revenue goal. I think if we do that, the other things follow. Companies that get confused and think their goal is revenue or a certain profit or whatever, or a stock price of something -- those things you can't focus on and make better. You have to focus on the things that lead to those. For us, that's all about great products. All of our energies are on that, not the result of that."
Liveblog: Tim Cook's Interview at D10 Conference - Mac Rumors
In retrospect, when Kara Swisher asked Tim that "What's your goal? To become at trillion dollar company? Be very secretive? Create your own CIA?"
He replied that "I just want to build great products. There's not a specific revenue goal. I think if we do that, the other things follow. Companies that get confused and think their goal is revenue or a certain profit or whatever, or a stock price of something -- those things you can't focus on and make better. You have to focus on the things that lead to those. For us, that's all about great products. All of our energies are on that, not the result of that."
that's largely pr bullshit. if you just cared about building great products, you would focus on doing just that. you would not get worried about competition and accuse them of copying you. but then i guess they are scared to be tesla and as a result have turned into edison. poor analogy i know. i bet Apple is not proud of this steve jobs videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqUit is widely documented how they stole the idea of mouse and gui from xerox parc. if parc had patented their concepts and designs, they would have killed apple before they could have launched their products in the market. this alone is a good example why what apple is doing is hurting the entire industry and not just them as they claim.
This is hilarious! Once again proving that how people believe in myths and never ever loose any opportunity to trash the most advanced technology company of the world. What they don't know is that they are making fool of themselves when they are unaware of reality. They can't accept that everything from modern computer to smartphones of samsung/htc to tablets which they are currently using is originally evolved from Apple's innovations in broader sense.
Anyways let's go again one more time shall we?
Whenever Apple tries to protect its intellectual property (this week Apple sued Samsung/HTC for patent infringement of patented iPhone/iPad technology), there will always be few people who parrot variation of this myth: “Apple stole GUI from PARC / Xerox.”
Is it a case of “Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal?”
Apple stole Gui? Did Apple steal Xerox PARC GUI intellectual property without permission?
Myth:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs saw Xerox PARC product such as the GUI, either on a tour or at a trade show, then stole the PARC GUI implementation without permission, to create the Apple Lisa and the original Mac OS / Macintosh GUI.
Fact:
Apple obtained permission ahead of the Xerox PARC visit. In addition, Apple provided compensation in exchange for the various Xerox PARC ideas such as the GUI.
The Motley Fool, financial publication of investment news and provider of investment advisory services, on the real story of Apple and PARC:
“Xerox could have owned the PC revolution, but instead it sat on the technology for years. Then, in exchange for the opportunity to invest in a hot new pre-IPO start-up called “Apple,” the Xerox PARC commandos were forced — under protest — to give Apple’s engineers a tour and a demonstration of their work. The result was the Apple Macintosh, which Microsoft later copied to create Windows.”
Xerox Received Financial Compensation from Apple
The compensation for the Xerox PARC technology sharing deal with Apple was in form of $1 million dollars pre-IPO Apple stock / investment (if Apple does well, Xerox will benefit from Apple’s success).
The PARC demo took place in 1979. Xerox received its compensation in exchange for showing some prototypes that Xerox didn’t know what to do with.
“November: Steve Jobs and software engineer Bill Atkinson visit the Xerox PARC lab in Palo Alto, California. More Apple employees will visit a month later.”
“Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share.”
Myth:
“Apple copied everything from Xerox.” With the assumption that Most of the initial Apple GUI was copied from the GUI of Xerox PARC Alto Computer’s Smalltalk integrated programming environment. Thus Apple never innovated, and did not contribute to GUI innovations.
Fact:
There is substantial difference between the technology behind Apple’s GUI and the Xerox PARC Smalltalk GUI. Apple had to invent its own architecture. Drag-and-drop file manipulation came from the Apple Mac group, along with many unique concepts.
Bruce Horn, one of the main designers of the Macintosh software who worked at Xerox for years before he worked at Apple, discusses the substantial differences between the Apple interface and the various interfaces on Xerox systems:
“There is a significant difference between using the Mac and Smalltalk. [Xerox PARC Alto Workstation] Smalltalk has no Finder, and no need for one, really. Drag-and- drop file manipulation came from the Mac group, along with many other unique concepts: resources and dual-fork files for storing layout and international information apart from code; definition procedures; drag-and-drop system extension and configuration; types and creators for files; direct manipulation editing of document, disk, and application names; redundant typed data for the clipboard; multiple views of the file system; desk accessories; and control panels, among others. The [Apple] Lisa group invented some fundamental concepts as well: pull down menus, the imaging and windowing models based on QuickDraw, the clipboard, and cleanly internationalizable software… The Mac and Lisa designers had to invent their own architectures.”
In short, did Apple take Xerox PARC Alto computer Smalltalk and reverse engineered it to make a copy? No, besides compensating PARC for the demo (with pre-IPO Apple stock deal), Apple took the basic concepts demonstrated by PARC and invented the architecture that is now used by modern computers.
Apple Stole GUI from PARC Was the Reason Xerox Sued Apple
Myth:
Why else would Xerox sue Apple for $150 million for copyright infringement if Apple did not steal GUI from PARC?
Fact:
Anyone can make any claim in court. In this case, Xerox lost the case. The U.S. Federal court dismissed all of Xerox’s copyright claims seeking damages against Apple.
After Apple sued Microsoft and HP for copyright infringement of GUI elements that are similar to those used in Apple computers (look and feel lawsuits), Xerox accuses Apple of unlawfully using Xerox copyrights in its Macintosh and Lisa computers. Xerox’s new CEO wanted to get paid if Apple wins its copyright lawsuits. The lawsuit got more to do with Xerox got no royalties or financial earnings from Apple besides the Apple stock deal.
New York Times, March 24, 1990: “A Federal judge today dismissed almost all the closely watched copyright lawsuit filed by the Xerox Corporation against Apple Computer Inc. In what appears to be a sweeping victory for Apple, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco threw out five of the six counts in Xerox’s lawsuit, saying, in essence, that Xerox’s complaints were inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.”
Conclusion
Microsoft apologists, sorry to bust your bubble.
I. Did Apple stole GUI from Xerox? No. It was a pre-arranged technology / investment deal between Xerox and Apple.
II. Did Apple plagiarize the Xerox PARC Alto / Smalltalk GUI code and overall functionality? No, not only did Apple created its own architecture, Apple have invented various GUI technologies such as drag-and-drop file manipulation (that were later stolen by Microsoft).
III. Were the Xerox / PARC claims of being the original inventor of the Apple Mac GUI proven in court? No, U.S. Federal Court rejected Xerox claim of ownership of Apple GUI copyright.
Plenty of people fall for all kinds of pranks, scams, and urban legends, from rickrolls to Nigerian “royalty” emails, even Oprah got pwned (over 9000 wins).
If you still believe Apple stole GUI from Xerox PARC, I got a bridge to sell you.
Reference
1) How Xerox Forfeited the PC War [the motley fool]
2) Apple: The first 30 years [macworld]
3) Apple Inc. wiki [wikipedia] (note that this quote doesn’t have proper attribution on wiki, however it seems to be the most detailed explanation of the $1 million in pre-IPO Apple Stock investment deal)
4) Q&A with Bob Cringely, Triumph of the Nerds: Pg 15 [pbs]
5) On Xerox, Apple and Progress [folklore]
6) Xerox vs. Apple: Standard ‘Dashboard’ Is at Issue [new york times]
7) Most of Xerox’s Suit Against Apple Barred [new york times]
8 ) Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc. U.S. District Court 1990 [google scholar]
Anyways let's go again one more time shall we?
Whenever Apple tries to protect its intellectual property (this week Apple sued Samsung/HTC for patent infringement of patented iPhone/iPad technology), there will always be few people who parrot variation of this myth: “Apple stole GUI from PARC / Xerox.”
Is it a case of “Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal?”
Apple stole Gui? Did Apple steal Xerox PARC GUI intellectual property without permission?
Myth:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs saw Xerox PARC product such as the GUI, either on a tour or at a trade show, then stole the PARC GUI implementation without permission, to create the Apple Lisa and the original Mac OS / Macintosh GUI.
Fact:
Apple obtained permission ahead of the Xerox PARC visit. In addition, Apple provided compensation in exchange for the various Xerox PARC ideas such as the GUI.
The Motley Fool, financial publication of investment news and provider of investment advisory services, on the real story of Apple and PARC:
“Xerox could have owned the PC revolution, but instead it sat on the technology for years. Then, in exchange for the opportunity to invest in a hot new pre-IPO start-up called “Apple,” the Xerox PARC commandos were forced — under protest — to give Apple’s engineers a tour and a demonstration of their work. The result was the Apple Macintosh, which Microsoft later copied to create Windows.”
Xerox Received Financial Compensation from Apple
The compensation for the Xerox PARC technology sharing deal with Apple was in form of $1 million dollars pre-IPO Apple stock / investment (if Apple does well, Xerox will benefit from Apple’s success).
The PARC demo took place in 1979. Xerox received its compensation in exchange for showing some prototypes that Xerox didn’t know what to do with.
“November: Steve Jobs and software engineer Bill Atkinson visit the Xerox PARC lab in Palo Alto, California. More Apple employees will visit a month later.”
“Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share.”
Myth:
“Apple copied everything from Xerox.” With the assumption that Most of the initial Apple GUI was copied from the GUI of Xerox PARC Alto Computer’s Smalltalk integrated programming environment. Thus Apple never innovated, and did not contribute to GUI innovations.
Fact:
There is substantial difference between the technology behind Apple’s GUI and the Xerox PARC Smalltalk GUI. Apple had to invent its own architecture. Drag-and-drop file manipulation came from the Apple Mac group, along with many unique concepts.
Bruce Horn, one of the main designers of the Macintosh software who worked at Xerox for years before he worked at Apple, discusses the substantial differences between the Apple interface and the various interfaces on Xerox systems:
“There is a significant difference between using the Mac and Smalltalk. [Xerox PARC Alto Workstation] Smalltalk has no Finder, and no need for one, really. Drag-and- drop file manipulation came from the Mac group, along with many other unique concepts: resources and dual-fork files for storing layout and international information apart from code; definition procedures; drag-and-drop system extension and configuration; types and creators for files; direct manipulation editing of document, disk, and application names; redundant typed data for the clipboard; multiple views of the file system; desk accessories; and control panels, among others. The [Apple] Lisa group invented some fundamental concepts as well: pull down menus, the imaging and windowing models based on QuickDraw, the clipboard, and cleanly internationalizable software… The Mac and Lisa designers had to invent their own architectures.”
In short, did Apple take Xerox PARC Alto computer Smalltalk and reverse engineered it to make a copy? No, besides compensating PARC for the demo (with pre-IPO Apple stock deal), Apple took the basic concepts demonstrated by PARC and invented the architecture that is now used by modern computers.
Apple Stole GUI from PARC Was the Reason Xerox Sued Apple
Myth:
Why else would Xerox sue Apple for $150 million for copyright infringement if Apple did not steal GUI from PARC?
Fact:
Anyone can make any claim in court. In this case, Xerox lost the case. The U.S. Federal court dismissed all of Xerox’s copyright claims seeking damages against Apple.
After Apple sued Microsoft and HP for copyright infringement of GUI elements that are similar to those used in Apple computers (look and feel lawsuits), Xerox accuses Apple of unlawfully using Xerox copyrights in its Macintosh and Lisa computers. Xerox’s new CEO wanted to get paid if Apple wins its copyright lawsuits. The lawsuit got more to do with Xerox got no royalties or financial earnings from Apple besides the Apple stock deal.
New York Times, March 24, 1990: “A Federal judge today dismissed almost all the closely watched copyright lawsuit filed by the Xerox Corporation against Apple Computer Inc. In what appears to be a sweeping victory for Apple, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco threw out five of the six counts in Xerox’s lawsuit, saying, in essence, that Xerox’s complaints were inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.”
Conclusion
Microsoft apologists, sorry to bust your bubble.
I. Did Apple stole GUI from Xerox? No. It was a pre-arranged technology / investment deal between Xerox and Apple.
II. Did Apple plagiarize the Xerox PARC Alto / Smalltalk GUI code and overall functionality? No, not only did Apple created its own architecture, Apple have invented various GUI technologies such as drag-and-drop file manipulation (that were later stolen by Microsoft).
III. Were the Xerox / PARC claims of being the original inventor of the Apple Mac GUI proven in court? No, U.S. Federal Court rejected Xerox claim of ownership of Apple GUI copyright.
Plenty of people fall for all kinds of pranks, scams, and urban legends, from rickrolls to Nigerian “royalty” emails, even Oprah got pwned (over 9000 wins).
If you still believe Apple stole GUI from Xerox PARC, I got a bridge to sell you.
Reference
1) How Xerox Forfeited the PC War [the motley fool]
2) Apple: The first 30 years [macworld]
3) Apple Inc. wiki [wikipedia] (note that this quote doesn’t have proper attribution on wiki, however it seems to be the most detailed explanation of the $1 million in pre-IPO Apple Stock investment deal)
4) Q&A with Bob Cringely, Triumph of the Nerds: Pg 15 [pbs]
5) On Xerox, Apple and Progress [folklore]
6) Xerox vs. Apple: Standard ‘Dashboard’ Is at Issue [new york times]
7) Most of Xerox’s Suit Against Apple Barred [new york times]
8 ) Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc. U.S. District Court 1990 [google scholar]
ok here is a question. are you trying to say that Apple has never copied a functionality or a design or a concept from another company? and all of their patents are original ideas with no existing product or service matching the functionality? also this.
also how would you feel if the company that launches a product that revolutionizes something but uses the legal system in such a way that they prevent anyone else from offering a similar service in the name of patent infringement? would you prefer a world with just one search engine, one mapping platform, one mobile carrier, one mobile phone company, one car company etc etc.
this was the basic philosophy of my above statement. i assume xerox parc analogy did not fit very well. but i am not going to accept that apple has never copied/replicated anything from an existing product/service/platform. as i have already said... just because you get a patent for something does not mean you invented it. it can easily mean that the patent system in that country is messed up.
you can post 100 pages of documents based on the legal shit that apple has been using for so long to target their rivals. the fact remains, they are behaving like thomas edison while pretending to claim that they are the tesla of this generation.
also how would you feel if the company that launches a product that revolutionizes something but uses the legal system in such a way that they prevent anyone else from offering a similar service in the name of patent infringement? would you prefer a world with just one search engine, one mapping platform, one mobile carrier, one mobile phone company, one car company etc etc.
this was the basic philosophy of my above statement. i assume xerox parc analogy did not fit very well. but i am not going to accept that apple has never copied/replicated anything from an existing product/service/platform. as i have already said... just because you get a patent for something does not mean you invented it. it can easily mean that the patent system in that country is messed up.
you can post 100 pages of documents based on the legal shit that apple has been using for so long to target their rivals. the fact remains, they are behaving like thomas edison while pretending to claim that they are the tesla of this generation.
Previously I have already mentioned that read that Tim Cook interview at D10. It has all the answers. Let me do some more copy/paste.
Kara: Let's talk about the patent wars. Is that a problem for innovation?
Cook: It's a pain in the ass. Is it a problem for innovation? From our point of view, it's important that Apple not be the developer for the world.
We don't want to put all of ourselves in a painting and have someone else put their signature on it. If you're an engineer, the worst thing is for you to put your life into something and have someone else rip it off and put their name on it. We just want people to invent their own stuff and not rip us off.
Walt: Other people are saying you're ripping them off too. People are suing you too.
Cook: The vast majority of those are on standards essential patents. Standards essential patents come with a responsible manner to license them. Like a patent to connect to a 3G data network -- there's no way to connect to the network without using this patent. The issue is that this is an economic argument -- no one should be able to get an injunction off a standards essential patent. The owner has a responsibility to license it in a fair, reasonable manner. When someone comes to you and asks for an obscene level of money from you. They're telling you they want to get an injunction against you and use the court system like that. In my view using it in a way not intended.
Walt: You're saying when you sue somebody, they've signed your painting and nobody else is suing you because you've signed their painting.
Cook: I don't want to put words in their mouth -- but Apple has not sued anyone over standards essential patents that we own. We view it as fundamentally wrong to do that. That was never the intention of that kind of patent. The intention is over payment.
The problem in this industry is that if you add up what everyone says the patents are worth, no one could be in the phone business! They'd be priced out. It's gotten crazy.
Some of this is maddening. It's a waste. It's a time suck. However, does it stop innovation? It's not going to stop us. But it's overhead that I wish didn't exist.
Kara: Let's talk about the patent wars. Is that a problem for innovation?
Cook: It's a pain in the ass. Is it a problem for innovation? From our point of view, it's important that Apple not be the developer for the world.
We don't want to put all of ourselves in a painting and have someone else put their signature on it. If you're an engineer, the worst thing is for you to put your life into something and have someone else rip it off and put their name on it. We just want people to invent their own stuff and not rip us off.
Walt: Other people are saying you're ripping them off too. People are suing you too.
Cook: The vast majority of those are on standards essential patents. Standards essential patents come with a responsible manner to license them. Like a patent to connect to a 3G data network -- there's no way to connect to the network without using this patent. The issue is that this is an economic argument -- no one should be able to get an injunction off a standards essential patent. The owner has a responsibility to license it in a fair, reasonable manner. When someone comes to you and asks for an obscene level of money from you. They're telling you they want to get an injunction against you and use the court system like that. In my view using it in a way not intended.
Walt: You're saying when you sue somebody, they've signed your painting and nobody else is suing you because you've signed their painting.
Cook: I don't want to put words in their mouth -- but Apple has not sued anyone over standards essential patents that we own. We view it as fundamentally wrong to do that. That was never the intention of that kind of patent. The intention is over payment.
The problem in this industry is that if you add up what everyone says the patents are worth, no one could be in the phone business! They'd be priced out. It's gotten crazy.
Some of this is maddening. It's a waste. It's a time suck. However, does it stop innovation? It's not going to stop us. But it's overhead that I wish didn't exist.
right. keep coming up with garbage that Apple continues to churns out while avoiding my questions. i am done with this thread.
talking about standard essential patents... i am going to highlight two simple examples.
apple sued for universal search on Galaxy nexus smartphone.
apple sued android phone manufacturers for slide to unlock feature.
both of these are not apple's inventions. they just got patents for them. both of these features have been available on PDAs and similar devices much before apple launched their iPhone. apple patented these things which any common man would assume as generic features on a touchscreen device / computing hardware. if these are not suing on the bases of standard essential patents than i have no idea what is. and no i am not going to post content from third party sources on their lawsuits related to designs of hardware and icons and what not. Apple iPhone is not a magical device. it is just an innovation over PDAs that existed long before iphone went on sale. look at the Palm devices from the 90s and 00s and you would see rectangular devices with rectangular touchscreens with icons.
https://imgur.com/R7GQU
talking about standard essential patents... i am going to highlight two simple examples.
apple sued for universal search on Galaxy nexus smartphone.
apple sued android phone manufacturers for slide to unlock feature.
both of these are not apple's inventions. they just got patents for them. both of these features have been available on PDAs and similar devices much before apple launched their iPhone. apple patented these things which any common man would assume as generic features on a touchscreen device / computing hardware. if these are not suing on the bases of standard essential patents than i have no idea what is. and no i am not going to post content from third party sources on their lawsuits related to designs of hardware and icons and what not. Apple iPhone is not a magical device. it is just an innovation over PDAs that existed long before iphone went on sale. look at the Palm devices from the 90s and 00s and you would see rectangular devices with rectangular touchscreens with icons.
https://imgur.com/R7GQU
