5by5 | The Critical Path #52: The Art of Making Money

With Horace criss-crossing the globe on various secret missions, Moisés Chiullan, host of Screen Time, fills in for Dan this week. In this episode, Horace follows up on last week’s predictions now that the Apple v. Samsung verdict has been finalized … or has it? Horace and Moisés also dig into the algebra needed to decode how many tablet units which manufacturers have sold, and what that means for Amazon’s Kindle Fire in particular.

via 5by5 | The Critical Path #52: The Art of Making Money.

  • tommy

    I’m glad you’re facing up to your trial outcome predictions made in a previous podcast, which, when listening to them after the verdict sounded completely, utterly, absolutely, wrong. It sounds like you’re trying to weazel out of those prior comments a bit by saying it’s not over and other qualifications…

    It was very important for Apple to establish its points in that trial, which are utterly obvious. I’m very surprised that you are so down on Apple’s chances and its right to defend its innovation in these cases. You’re also confusing the verdict in Japan with the San Jose trial, they are utterly different and unrelated. A win for Samsung in Japan was no win — it was an acqutital. And a very narrow claim.
    About Samsung changing its ways, and stopping its copying, which you suggest may be happening, and require top down direction from management, you must be dreaming. We may see window dressing and minimal acomodation, if anything. Same for Gurgle, a company with a very poor record of respecting IP and copyright.
    I also don’t understand why you feel this is a Deus Ex Machina attempt by Apple. It’s in fact Apple asserting itself — not asking for a rescue. It’s proactive, not passive. Your point that Apple needs to continue innovating is I’m sure something ingrained in Apple’s culture (which you have said so many times yourself) and seems unrelated to the legal outcomes which you try to tie its future innovation to — winning IP protection does not lead to complacency and lack of innovation.
    And I don’t understand why you site Microsoft’s legal case as a precedent for Apple. Apple thinks outside the box. Microsoft is all about putting customers in the box, and keeping them there. Their cultures are utterly different. The results of any legal verdicts on company behaviors will be different, too.
    I’m a big fan of your analytical views of markets and strategy and disruption, but I think you are blocked somehow in your perceptions of these essential legal drives by Apple to establish the truth and stop infringing behavior.

    • As I said, I would be happy to be wrong on this, but experience tells me that it’s not over. I did not ever consider this to be a Deus Ex Machina by Apple. I’m only cautioning that it’s a troublesome approach that should not be relied upon. So far it seems that it’s being used effectively and correctly by Apple. Think of it not as me whispering “beware the ides of March” but “Sic transit gloria mundi”

    • Steve Gorton

      Tommy, the process is still in play and I am reminded of Chou En Lai response to the question what he thought the historic impact of the French Revolution: “It’s too soon to tell”. Don’t be hasty and rush to comment. The fuller consequences of Polaroid v Kodak took 25 years to play out.

  • Jony

    Horace brother, how about them q4 predictions?