No shit.[1]<p>"Apple. Your brand is being ruined by misplaced trust in a losing super-aggressive legal strategy."<p>I genuinely used to like Apple. I can actually remember regularly checking the website for the different gadgets I could buy. This was well before the Android v Apple "fan-boyism".<p>I switched off totally from the anti-consumerism that drives Apple. They make great devices that just work. I have no problems in borrowing an iPad for an hour, but they consistently take strategies beyond their products that have decremental effects to their customers and customers of other companies.<p>Who needs a third adapter for their phone (that will only work on iPhone5)? Who needs a different form factor for their SIM card so Apple can secure three year licencing deals with carriers? Who needs the walled garden of an App Store that prevents developers from releasing Apps that might cross over with iOS functionality... Who needs to write a book on Apple Software where the terms demand that they only distribute the book on Apple platforms[2]..<p>Put honestly, there is very little that Apple does that could be interpreted as being for the "better-ment" of people that aren't Apple customers. They take a "fuck"[1] everyone attitude that isn't a beneficiary of Apple stock.<p>I just think that this is a very toxic label for Apple to have against them.<p>Just to stress... I think Apple make great products, although I will never again contribute a single cent to anything that bears the Apple name. They have all but destroyed their brand that I once so sorely coveted (and this was a time not so long ago).<p>Who needs humility... Clearly, not Apple...<p><pre><code> [1] : I hate swearing. Apologies.
[2] : This got changed shortly after considerable backlash.
[9] : I need to stop writing so many "Apple" critical comments..
If you look through any of my last 50 comments I'd guess
perhaps 10 are Apple related. It's wrong of me that I consistently
only comment on Apple posts.</code></pre>
Watching this play out is hilarious. I'm not quite sure if it is schadenfreude, the morbid curiosity akin to that experienced from watching a snake eat a rabbit, or just the prospect of watching an 800lb. gorilla behave like a spoiled child, but I have a real feeling that Apple could end up fighting the UK court systems and losing, very, very hard.<p>I simply cannot believe that Apple's previous behaviour was sanctioned by its legal team. The idea of not just losing in court but then pissing the judge off...wow. There's a really childish part of me that hopes that Apple won't comply with this latest judgement just to see what the court does next. Monetary fines? Product bans? Executive jail time?<p>I believe that the best thing Apple can do now is fold, and grovel. However, I have no idea if they'll do that. I've said before in previous threads: the UK court system is much more invested in proving its own authority than Apple is invested in a silly argument with Samsung. And on that note, if you were Samsung, you'd likely be rolling in the aisles just about now.<p>EDIT: I see that they've complied. I see why, but I'm disappointed!
I did not know that Apple's paper advert had been pushed back so late. I have seen a photo of one that appeared in the Guardian about a week ago [0] which as a reader I would skim over given the lack of branding and its similarity to adverts that try to appear part of the newspaper copy, yet have that tell-tale 'Advertisement' header. (These are common to all newspapers in the UK, big and small - maybe elsewhere also.) Skipping over these is something that regular readers naturally do and I expect the design is intentional.<p>I am very interested to see what their Nov 16th ad will look like. Given that it must appear in magazines as well as broadsheets it may be that the mags require it to have some sort of branding/style so as to not make the magazine appear cheap, unlike the image linked.<p>[0]: <a href="http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/the-frontline-blog/2222112/apple-print-apology-to-samsung-hits-the-newsstands" rel="nofollow">http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/the-frontline-blog/2222112/apple-p...</a>
What a mess this is on both sides.<p>Apple has reacted poorly, but if I were British I would be a bit upset that my judges were wasting time on punishments like this. The point is to punish Apple, so just fine them and be over with it. The end result is the same, just without all this drama in the middle.<p>EDIT: I'm going to retract my opinion here because a few good points have been made and I shouldn't have spoken when I was not 100% informed on the matter. Sorry!
Poor copywriting. If the snark were written more precisely so that it couldn't be considered misleading, Apple would probably have been able to get the press points without being forced to put a large statement on their homepage disclaiming the previous one as "inaccurate".
I can't even tell what's going on any more. All of this notice-posting is meant to undo the "harm" Apple has caused by saying Samsung copied the iPad, right? But the court insists that it never even touched the question of whether Samsung copied the iPad. Yet the same court is upset about Apple suggesting that Samsung did copy the iPad.<p>So, to sum up:<p>- Apple said that Samsung copied the iPad;<p>- the court wants Apple punished for saying that;<p>- although the court never made any determination about whether Samsung copied the iPad;<p>- and Apple is still forbidden from saying that Samsung copied the iPad.<p>Nope, still confused.
Tim Cook, past-peak, Steve Jobs would never, bully, bullying, bullies, bullied, overpriced, one mouse button, luxury, ivory tower, arrogant, evil, marketing, finally.