back to article Cook's 'values' memo shows Apple has lost its soul

On the one year anniversary of his appointment as Apple CEO, Tim Cook must be partying especially hard in light of Friday's verdict against Samsung. But if his memo to staff about the verdict is anything to go by, in winning the case Apple has lost its soul. The memo, leaked to 9to5Mac, shows Cook is in no mood to play nice with …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anyone who views Apple as anything but another evil company needs their head examined.

Granted, they make pretty gadgets that idiots can use, but virtually everything they do is copied from elsewhere.

156
17
Big Brother

Apple are another amoral company

But are Samsung or Google really any better?

Evil is probably going too far for any of them but I don't trust either of them to look out for my interests except when it aligns with theirs.

36
11

Yup, they've stolen nearly everything and accrued a massive patent library that is also vague they use to bludgeon the same companies they steal off.

Cook is no different from Jobs barring the fact he is "technically" alive, but equally soul missing as the messiah.

58
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: Apple are another amoral company

Well, lets ask what huge risks Samsung has ever taken in the market? none I can think of.

iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk. Both paid off. Samsung just rode the wave created by them.

We need people releasing new things, not simply copying.

35
93
Anonymous Coward

Bullshit. Apple have a long history in mobile devices that started in 1987 with the development of the Apple Newton. It finally appeared in 1993, about two years before Windows CE appeared. PSION also have a long history, eventually becoming Symbian.

So I don't see how you can accuse Apple of being just another Johnny-come-lately.

Microsoft, Apple and Symbian/Nokia have been around for decades and have spent a lot of time developing technology. It is Google that has appeared from nowhere and stole or purchased technology from others.

24
70
Meh

@St3n

"Anyone who views Apple as anything but another evil company needs their head examined."

Apple joined Sony on my no-buy list long before this happened.

87
7
WTF?

Re: @St3n

But Samsung are OK?

8
8

Re: @St3n

I'm sure they'll be able to dry their tears. With $100 bills probably.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Victory or Defeat?

Being magnanimous in victory or defeat is a much better personal trait than being triumphalist.

29
2
Thumb Down

Re: Apple are another amoral company

"We need people releasing new things, not simply copying."

You tell me, where did Apple get the gui (GMT too) from for Lisa?

38
3

Really?

You're telling me that the iPhone design was stolen from Windows Mobile? Really? Maybe Windows CE? Symbian? Come on. When the iPhone launched people said it would never catch on because it lacked X, Y and Z. They missed the point: the only advantage Symbian had now was that its age had let it accumulate features. Five years later and Symbian is dead.

Arguably the least interesting feature of OS X is the most obviously copied: the bonkers menu-bar not attached to application blunder carried over from Xerox which has confused people since before I was born.

The triumph of OS X has been its rapid iteration and improvement and introducing APIs and programming structures for animation, graphics and sound processing far faster than Microsoft did. Consider: Apple released four versions of OS X while Microsoft were struggling to create Vista, scooped most of its features, and Apple users saw OS X get faster on the same hardware (assuming they upgraded their graphics cards, admittedly) through much of that period.

16
10

Re: Really?

Just to clarify:

a) That checklist idea was also what I thought-so I got this at the time as wrong as anyone else...

b) I agree that many of those Symbian features are/were critical for many businesses and proprietary apps; I'm thinking about the consumer perspective here. The iPhone was just a lot better for most consumers than a Symbian phone from the point of view of UI, browser design and screen size, even the day it launched.

2
3
Silver badge

Re: Apple are another amoral company

"But are Samsung or Google really any better?"

Google is in a class of its own.

I have no particular animus against Samsung, and in spite of having supported Apple's actions in defending their products I do not like Apple at all and don't use their products. In fact, I resent having to defend Apple.

But Google is much, much worse than any other major tech company. Witness the money they made by financing the sale of controlled and counterfeit medicines by means of their AdWords program. They financed the sites conducting these drug sales for years, in spite of any number of warnings, including a letter from Joseph Califono, Secretary for Health And Human Services for President Jimmy Carter. Eventually they agreed to disgorge $500,000,000 in return for a federal non-prosecution agreement. They finance mail-order brides and other human-trafficking sites. Need I even add that they make money by financing pirate sites enabling the theft of content and software? Don't forget the "Google Books Affair" by which they hoped to be able to strip copyright protection from whatever books they wanted. Google has suborned institutions such as Harvard and Stanford by managing to enlist academics there to lobby for Google's legislative agendas in return for large donations of Google money. And their legislative agenda, which favors expropriating content creators for the benefit of people who are *already* billionaires, can only be described as "fascist". Their invasions of the privacy of the users of Google services, and constant surveillance of anyone who uses the internet, should be well-known to everyone who frequents this site.

And yet how many people here ignore all this, yet foam at the mouth because Apple is enforcing their rights against Samsung and Android - because Android is another of Google's ploys to increase its advertising revenue. And since Google gives these people free content - by stealing it or enabling others to steal it from the people who create that content - they think Google is good, and will not see that Google is simply the image, writ large, of the avaricious, sociopathic kleptomaniacs who run it.

Google is in a class of its own.

30
32
Bronze badge

by comparison

Sony is not an angel either, they however never thought of suing Apple for the same thing Apple sued Samsung. So even Sony is a white furry lamb compared to the today's "hero". Google might not be an angel either, it appears to be an angel in comparison to Apple, it has never used its patents as an assault weapon. Now it is also engaged and hopefully would hurt the Cooked crooks dearly. I tell ya, Microsoft even looks greyish and more naive in contrast.

The very though that Apple, Microsoft or Oracle are constantly busy inventing new stuff is insane. Cook and his comrades belong in some mental institution.

32
4
Bronze badge

@Turtle

Come on, you don't have to explain us anything, Florian.

4
8
Bronze badge
Holmes

Crooks cooking the rules of the game

Actually, I would say that Samsung is less evil because they don't do much lobbying in America. Yes, the rules of the business game as encoded into American law require companies to become evil just to survive, but you aren't seriously evil until you join in the bribery.

Did you know that Google has now become the leading lobbyist among high tech companies? That's what all the recent reports have said. I'm not sure how evil Apple is now, though Microsoft used to be a leader in spending on lobbyists--but I think Google is making the play to become the most evil of now.

Let me clarify that most businesspeople are fine, upstanding folks. They just want to compete on a fair basis. Unfortunately, the rules of the competition are written by the most cheaply bribed professional politicians working for the LEAST ethical businessmen. It's legal bribery, but the result is such travesties as this anti-freedom ruling.

Patent law was intended to encourage innovation and more choices and more freedom. You want meaningful and unconstrained choice? You want real freedom? NOT if Apple has anything to say about it.

15
5
Silver badge

@eulampios: Re: @Turtle

"Come on, you don't have to explain us anything, Florian."

Apparently I do.

3
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.

Errm not quite. iPod was not a risk. Many many MP3 players existed before, just that those companies didn't have huge marketing budgets. Ipod copied, and then used a huge marketing budget. Just like iPhone copies, and iPad too. Such phones existed before, as did tablets. Without the huge marketing budget. Copy copy copy. There's a pattern there.

36
7

Evil?

"Anyone who views Apple as anything but another evil company needs their head examined."

Certainly, it's another company, with shareholders and the objective of making a profit, but so are ALL companies.

The companies that are evil are those patent trolls that never invent or make anything of their own but just buy up obscure patents and then make a living by blackmailing companies who can't afford to defend an expensive lawsuit, whether or not there's any merit in the claims.

Apple isn't remotely like that. First, they clearly do invent their own stuff, and manufacturer it, so are using patents in the way they're intended. They're the victm of infinitely more patent claims from people who see a big fat cash cow, and just see dollar signs lighting up in front of their eyes, than they are the aggressor.

8
16
Bronze badge

Re: Apple are another amoral company

You got an inadvertent + from me when I intended to hit the reply key.

Okay, consider these:

1. Nobody copied Ford

2. Nobody copied German rocketry

3. Nobody copied submarines

4. Nobody tried to surpass Sputnik

5. Nobody copied the first skyscraper

6. Nobody copied toothbrushes

7. Washing machines remained roller/hand-crank affairs

8. On and on and on.

Apple created the iPhone. So what? They should know that nothing lasts forever, not even a mimiced phone.

29
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Apple are another amoral company

I guess you either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. When you operate in a country that has the First Amendment, not restricting freedom of speech is a prudent default.

2
1

Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.

OK...

Sony made MP3 players before Apple. Sony Ericsson and Nokia made smartphones before Apple. Compaq, HP and various other manufacturers made tablets before Apple.

Are you seriously suggesting that none of those firms have large marketing budgets? Are you suggesting that Microsoft (who would arguably have profited from the first gen tablets had they not failed) don't have a large marketing budget.

I think the main reason a lot of consumers go for Apple gear is that in general, it works.

10
13
Silver badge

Actually in 1993

Actually in 1993 you could already get "Windows for Pen Computing" which was a huge hype back then.

Plus, Alan Kay, who worked for Apple during the 1980s already conceptualized tablet PCs in the 1970s when he worked for Xerox.

Well actually there is not to much to a portable device. The difficult stuff is in the baseband, and nobody talks about that. On the service processor you just run an operating system kernel (today usually the same running on PCs) and some crappy UI nobody wants but has to endure anyhow. There are 1970s experimental systems with better UIs than what we have now.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.

The iPod might have been the most riskiest of those products... Apple didn't yet have that highly religious cult following back then. The iPhone and the iPad came out at a time where Apple could have as well released sheets of cardboard and nobody would have minded.

5
6
FAIL

Apple purchased all their touchscreen tech when they bought Fingerworks. Stop with the misinformation.

10
1
FAIL

Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.

No, people buy these Apple products because they are fashion accessories, and its cool to have a little apple logo on things. Not because they´re better. Is an Ipod really better than a generic MP3 player is the sound any better (hint they almost all use the same chips inside)?

It´s exactly the same with Nike sports wear, Rayban sunglasses, D&G handbags etc. etc. etc.

The sheep will always buy something that other sheep deem to be cool.

21
8
Silver badge

Re: Apple are another amoral company

<cough> ford copied benz and the US arms industry <cough>

grins, ducks and runs away

3
5
Stop

Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.

'People buy these apple products because they are fashion accessories' - that's a rather sweeping gereralisation. I bought a MacBook pro last year, I'd spent a few months beforehand running a dual boot Hackintosh / Windows setup and found that I was hardly using the Windows side at all, because I found the OS quicker, more responsive and usable than Windows on the same hardware. Seeing the developer preview of Windows 8 also swung it for me. I assure you that fashion was the last thing on my mind when I bought it.

7
9

really?

you know, Apple got their start making blue boxes, and after being roughed up one night, Steve Jobs decided it would be more fun and profitable to make a computer. first out of the box was a bare board machine. second was nothing less than the all-in-one computer, although the monitor screen and tape drive did not fit in the case. with 16 pure colors and a few more dithered ones.

that provided the financial muscle and industry acceptance to get a view inside Xerox PARC, and the Lisa and Macintosh.

they weren't all just copy, unless you consider using Chuck Peddle's 6502 processor copying.

4
8

The evil here is the fuckwit USPTO.

If software patents were outlawed, these companies would ***gasp*** have to play on a level playing field.

15
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Apple are another amoral company

What risk did Apple take? Looking at the R&D expenditure of both companies tell a totally different story. Samsung R&D + Capex exceeds $40 Billion annually whereas apple does not even top $10 Billion. If you think that Samsung annual $40 billion expenditure isn't a risk at all, how do you explain OLED, A5 Chips and many other technologies in the market. Their research in technology can and should never be discounted.

11
0
Bronze badge
Headmaster

Re: "iPhone design was stolen from Windows Mobile"

Actually the iPhone's design was most directly stolen from the LG Prada.

Meanwhile, Apple stole the iPad design from Roger Fidler of Knight Ridder. This was no coincidence, since apparently the two companies' labs were only "separated by a wall" at the time, and Knight Ridder had been collaborating with Apple on providing content for the ill-fated Newton.

13
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Jobs was just a hustler

Tim Cook is his apprentice.

3
1
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: Apple are another amoral company

You have said that far more eloquently than I might have.

Google is frightening and the people running it even more so.

3
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Apple are another amoral company

They are a business which makes money by selling various products.

The only people they should care about are paying customers - they have no obligation to care about anything else and why should they?

Where the problem lies here, has little to do with morals but everything to do with patents.

Cook claims Samsung are stifling innovation, but the reality is *all* tech companies are stifling it by taking out patents on the most tenuous of grounds.

It means nobody but the wealthiest of companies can afford to enter the market with electronic devices, due to the royalties on numerous patents.

Given the fact that Apple started in a garage, do you think it's now possible this could happen again?

Highly doubtful, because every conceivable aspect of building high tech devices - lets just call them computers - has been patented or is being patented.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re The Menu Bar

I'm a PC user, but I like the OSX's menu bar- it is always in the same place, and you can't overshoot it with the cursor if you mouse doesn't like the surface it's sat on. You can only use one application's menu bar at a time, so I have never gained any utility from being able to see the menu bars on running applications that I'm not focused on- they just take up space. The clock, battery, WLAN signal and volume controls are always visible in OSX, without having to summon the taskbar as you do in Windows. The Windows 7 taskbar is a PITA, since it will often unhide itself for a variety reasons, obscuring any status bars or tools that sit at the bottom of a maximised application window, until such a time as you have dismissed the reason (usually Java Update wanting attention) the taskbar intruded on your work in the first place. Oh, and the OSX menu is not a 'Ribbon'.

2
2
FAIL

Re: Apple are another amoral company

well thats what you get for being a pioneer, you have to spend all the money and develop something which doesn't exist only to find once people know your idea works they'll make copies.

this has happened since the dawn of time WITH EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF ANYTHING THAT HUMANS CAN BUILD.

why all of a sudden should the rules change just because it's apple?

if apple are unhappy, stop being the pioneer and let somebody else go forward...but don't blame people for wanting a piece of the pie and use tactics aimed at stopping what has happened since the dawn of our species just because you don't appreciate it.

steve jobs is on the record as saying that apple uses the "good artists copy, great artists steal" mantra. Well, thats great, it's what people have always done, so it's good they have that value so close to heart.

but that works both ways....not just in favour of apple, sometimes it works in favour of the other guy too.

10
4
FAIL

Re: "iPhone design was stolen from Windows Mobile" by Homer 1

So Apple researched, designed, prototyped, engineered, tooled, tested and certified a smartphone in less than 28 days? Right.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Apple are another amoral company

samsung have only themselves and google to blame. Apple rightly lost their idiotic look and feel suit, but won on patent infringement for clearly defined (bounceback and pinch to zoom are not vague) non essential patents. They are nice to have but not essential to making a phone so there is no legal requirement to allow access to them.

Apple and MS cross license patents because they both have valuable non essential patents each other wants. The way forward is simple, google and its android partners need to invest more in developing features people want that will drive Apple back to the table. I'm really shocked that google didn't have more patents to whack Apple with tbh.

The judgement was far more sensible than I expected it to be. I thought Apple would finally win a ridiculous look and feel (that we copied from elsewhere) suit. The judgement was high, but sometimes when you hold onto bad cards too long it costs you dearly.

I hope this leads to more innovation and development. I'm slowly beginning to like Android, playing with 4.0 is much nicer than 2.3! Google has the potential to out develop Apple, but it needs to sit down with htc, lg, samsung etc and say liten, just because their isn't a license fee doesn't mean it's a free lunch.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Apple are another amoral company

You do know that Samsung develop things don't you? New hardware etc and are doing a lot of R&D with graphene. They also build a lot of things in their own fabrication plants..... Investing another $4Billion into a fab plant in Texas is a risk isn't it?

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Apple are another amoral company

"bounceback and pinch to zoom are not vague"

No, but they are both pretty obvious/trivial. Pinch to zoom is a no-brainer once you have multi-touch. Bounce back isn't an idea worthy of being defended by the US military and in any case is just an imitation of a real-world thing so it fails pretty well every test that's supposed to be in place for patentability.

Apple are scumbags trying to grab control of progress and nothing could be worse for the sort of real innovation that the world needs.

6
0

You are right, Apple, Microsoft and lots of others have worked very hard to create technology.

however.

A RECTANGLE WITH ROUNDED CORNERS IS NOT TECHNOLOGY!!!!!!!!!

No matter how many beeeeeelions any jury gives them......... dimwitt....

2
2

Re: Really?

Moron... the triumph of OSX was that it`s a GUI they built on top of BSD UNIX.

Apple didn`t even CREATE the core of their `triumphant`OS...

And now they have the gull to gloat over winning over a billion dollars because they patented... a Rectangle with rounded corners...

This entire thing is beyond retarded...

2
2
WTF?

Re: Really?

And OSX under the glossy exterior is FreeBSD.

Just because FreeBSD has an open license doesn't mean Apple didn't take it and use it.

And that glossy exterior? Xerox PARC, my friends. Thats where it all began.

This is the thing. Cook can't morally stand on the shoulders of giants (eg Dennis Ritchie) to gain success then write emails to staff crowing about how using someone else's stuff is bad. Apple was built on using other people's stuff.

6
2

Re: Evil?

"they clearly do invent their own stuff"

OSX--BSD Unix

Appli OS -- Xerox

IPhone/IPad -- StarTrek

Rectangle with rounded corners... SONY

Sure... apple invented everyting...

3
3

Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.

You are kidding, right?

I think you'll find releasing any product onto any market is a risk, a calculated risk probably, but a risk nonetheless.

The ipod didn't copy anything, it did the same basic function (play music) but as a whole package did it in a better way than the competition.

The iPhone included many features that smartphones already did, but did them better in most cases and wrapped it up in a sexy shell. Did you use a Windows phone pre-iphone? I sure did, I had quite a few, my favourite being the HTC Universal, great for typing on the move. But they were clunky and not very user friendly for anyone who wasn't a techie. What Apple did was make the user experience so much better and easier that even my nan could use it.

How many tablet computers were around before the iPad? Loads

Were they any good? No

They were laptops without the keyboard, with the some OS as laptops so they were clunky too and the user experience was awful.

If these Apple devices are just copies why did the industry suddenly decide to start releasing tablets for the masses and phones with capacitive screens and no physical keyboard until AFTER apple did? Because Apple led the way in user experience.

4
3
WTF?

Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.

Why the down votes? I made an informed decision and switched OS based on a practical evaluation. Surely as this is a tech site, nobody here chose an OS because it was fashionable? Maybe the down-voters just didn't like my choice. Any down-voters care to comment?

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Exactly

"Apple bought their touch screen technolgy from FingerWorks"

Exactly - they went out, found the best technology and they bought it. Whereas Samsung (or more accurately Google) just copied it.

Apple are innovators, but they innovate at the level of the product not the underlying technology. No, they didn't invent the GUI, but they recognised its value, headhunted the engineers who did invent it, and created an affordable product to bring it out of the lab and onto people's desks. No they didn't invent the smartphone but they created the first one that really worked (and I say that as as N95 owner at that time). And no they didn't invent the tablet, but they created the first one people actually wanted to use (and it wasn't like lots of others hadn't tried and failed)

I get the impression that much of the bile directed at Apple comes from engineers who cannot accept that anything other than technology should determine a product's success. They find Apple's success bewildering and threatening to their world view. They blame the users, who clearly must be stupid to want products with fewer features, just because they are easier to use. I suspect it was exactly this world view that brought us the N95. Packed with features but clumsy, sluggish and ugly. The iPhone made it look like a dinosaur. Yet even now, as Nokia implodes, these people still can't accept that their could possibly have been anything innovative about the iPhone because it had no features that didn't already exist in some other product. It's true. It didn't. But a really good engineer would recognise that there is more to it than cramming features into a box.

4
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.

It was since it was a device that was Mac only until the second generation which limited its possible market share, didn't have USB mass storage, was at a fairly early stage of the MP3 market. Ripping CDs to MP3 was not legal in many countries.

The reliability of the hard disks in the players was unproven. Apple products weren't in many homes in the EU, they had no shops.

It was a very stripped down simple MP3 player compared to many others around. There was even lawsuits against other MP3 players by the RIAA a few years earlier.

0
0
Gold badge

Re: iPhone was a big risk, iPad was a big risk.

Exactly right. 2001 was a whole different era to the late 2000s. If you wanted a MK1 iPod you had to buy a Mac too since it wouldn't sync with Windows. It was Firewire based with Windows software.

It was their first consumer electronic product since the Apple Newton in 1993.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums