They'll do it to everyone they think they can get away with doing it to. They're a commercial enterprise; anything which means people buy their product instead of the competition's (including not giving consumers the choice) is fair game. Or are you startlingly naive enough to expect them all to 'play nice' with each other?


Given the rate non-iPad tablets are selling, they'll probably have enough to keep going until the next one comes out...

Jon

No, but I would think that a company would care about the its image. They are in the news a lot, and not always for the right reasons...

You really think 99% of the people wandering past the Apple shops and seeing the shiny things give a damn?

Jon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _computers

I think the Space Odyssey imagining from 1968s is particularly striking, because of the recreational use wirelessly playing a streaming video broadcast.

The GUI is a finger / icon based hierarchical menu system just like in TNG. The hardware is oblong with a glass front, just like in TNG. I'd love to know what specifics they're accusing everyone of. Next they'll be claiming they invented using "an icon resembling an envelope" to symbolise mail.

Apple doesn't have 99% market share in anything. Or do they?

Apple are merely being fantastically successful at this whole capitalism thing you love. They're very good at it. I thought you'd be applauding their performance.
They're merely using the tools available to them to secure their markets, an there's nothing to stop anyone else doing the same. This is ultimately the what business is all about, or would you rather have a more socialist approach where perhaps the market is evenly divided between the makers regardless of quality and features?
I'm not sure why you don't marvel at Apple's success. It's a product of the system you're in favour of.

Global cash reserves?
Ego?

There are many capitalist pigs I despise, but generally I agree with the fundamental capitalist principle of "survival of the fittest". It's realistic.

What I don't agree with is this patent absurdity. It's an unnatural business created by corrupting a system beyond it's good intentions into a giant legal leach sucking resources from beneficial enterprise.

Actually, last I read, they're not that far off that in the tablet market. Over 90% certainly. In any case I wasn't referring to specifically people who intend to buy tablets, I was referring to the population in general. The fact is that while a few people do care about the political machinations of these global corporations, the population as a whole simply don't. Their notions are much more functional. They look at a device and the only questions they ask are 'what can it do? Do I need to do what it does? Do I want it? Can I afford it?' What the company is doing at the rarified corporate level simply doesn't register.

Jon

Oh I'd agree patent law, particularly in the US, is a joke. However, the other end of the spectrum - say, China - is just as bad for other reasons. There doesn't appear to be a reasonable middle ground.
However, equally, can we blame a business for choosing to use the tools at it's disposal to extend it's profit and defend it's markets? If you don't defend what's (allegedly) yours, where do you draw the line?
An interesting debate, certainly.

I think that Apple have around 60% of the tablet market. I could be wrong but the rest have to fight over the last 40%. What ever the exact shares Apple will still take the vast majority of the profits. As for users they will decide if it will fit their needs and they are happy with the price. Beyond that what do they care?


---
- Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

^ This. ^

The reality is that at the point of sale, the general public just don't care about most stuff corporations do. Some stuff they do get irked about - like human rights and environmental damage - and I'd argue that's where Apple does care about its image. It tries to deal with those two aspects of its business with its own additional audits of its contractors and its focus on getting its products as "green" as possible. Whether you think those measures are effective or genuine is a different matter, I'm saying they're two areas where Apple thinks its image is at stake with customers.

But when it comes to obscure and arcane legal arguments about patents I doubt Apple could care less. Face it, the only people who get heated up about these sorts of things are tech geeks who probably wouldn't buy anything with an Apple logo on it anyway. The great swathes of the unwashed wouldn't know this case was even going on and even if they did, they probably wouldn't give it much more than a passing thought.

You may be right, it might be 90% of the profits from tablet sales rather than 90% of the unit sales.

Jon

Or to put it another way:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14485114

In this capitalism game, Apple seem to be doing very well. They make products that some may argue are under powered, under featured, or too simplistic, but:
a) They know how to market them
b) People want them, and will clearly meet their price points.

Discounting people here, who are more tech savvy and questioning about their purchases, I’d say that the majority of people buy the brands they hear about. Apple have a presence on many high streets now, and those places that don’t have an official Apple Store are now getting Apple Premier Dealerships, which look like Apple stores, but are run privately.

TBH I am not worried whether they make 10% 60% or 90% of the tablets on the market. But they will still be around in 5 years unlike some of the other manufacturers. I suspect that many will be gone in the same time frame.