Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by pclark | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

pclark

I think it's bullshit that Apple did this for money.

View on HN

Why? Because Apple already has all the money it will ever need. Think again.

You think Apple cares about a measly $1b?

Think about it, the company itself is worth 600+ billion dollars.

They did this more out of principal and to defend their products than anything else.

They didn't it to get $1b from Samsung. They did it to stop anybody else to compete with the iPhone, and so be able to make even more money.

Of course Apple wants to protect their revenue. But they focus their litigation efforts on companies that, in Apple's view, try to sell devices by making the look and feel imitate that of the ios. Microsoft also competes with the iPhone, but I doubt Apple will sue them as vigarous as Samsung, because Microsoft developed, again in Apple's view, an original take on the smartphone concept.

Or, possibly, they just focus on suing companies that are successfully competing with them?

By the way, I have no problem with Apple suing to defend the look and feel that characterize their brand. It's the obvious patents that worry me.

I think that is at the core of this issue: Apple feels Samsung copied the iPhone experience, without any effort or even vision on Samsung's side on how to create this experience. Blind copying so to say. So Apple wants to sue them on look and feel, but they can't; what I remember from the Microsoft-Apple litigation about look and feel is that it turned out that look and feel is almost impossible to patent and defend. That is my explanation on why Apple is now suing over their obvious patents, because they cannot sue over look and feel.

Why would the company be worth $600b? I haven't seen them do anything that I can't buy from another company cheaper, or in some cases, years before Apple "invented" it (ex: the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market).

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but what is it that Apple can actually sell me that no one else can?

That's the magic of investment! It may not be worth that much to you, personally, but the shareholders beg to differ.

> the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market

I'm sorry but you just flipped your own bozo bit.

To answer your question: a sturdy, forged aluminum computer with a powerful unix-like OS with the most polished interfaces around and the greatest collection of software of all systems? With a 200dpi+ display? With wireless, seamless, video/audio streaming to other devices? Bluetooth 4? The best multitouch trackpad? The only decent power cord on earth?

Don't forget the cute minimalistic bitten apple and the fact that they are #1 in product placement.

None of those are particularly interesting to me... not at double the product cost. Maybe I'm just in the minority and don't get it.

I can see how Facebook could loose its value in a couple years, but Apple, no way. They can market and sell stuff with a great profit margin.

You're forgetting the impact this will have on it's stock, already reaching records highs since the decision was announced. So if you think it a "measly $1b" you're horribly mistaken. How about a "measly" tens of billions in overall stock growth over the next months?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com