I mean, I remember a lot of the "Apple is at 90$ a share now, it will go down soon" crowd in the '06 in the Yahoo Finance forum posts and I'd love to see them now and sincerely ask them what were they thinking or why did they reach that conclusion back then.

I'm completely serious. This kind of "its the beginning of the end" prophecies are easy to make because you can always say "wait a little bit longer, it will happen" but other than anecdotal evidence, i don't know what prompt you to say "s soon as you have to sue your competition to remain competitive - you're done". Is this a real thing? No company has remained afloat and well after suing a rival?

Is there no way that Apple might be both suing and at the same time innovating in some other way or on any other markets? Does it have to be one or the other?

A few factors lead to my understanding of this situation changing.

1: Mobile saturation - only thing left is more of the same and virtual/augmented reality.

2: Absolute domination of Android and the continual manufacturing dominance of Samsung

3: The move towards commoditizing most consumer electronics thanks to work done by Google and other hardware manufacturers. The iPad was insanely cool when it came out - not so cool when everyone else looks the exact same as you do.

4: Domination of the living room by both Sony and Microsoft - leaving Apple little room for entry.

5: CPU underutilisation - people don't really need to upgrade their computers anymore.

In terms of percentages of devices in pockets, I believe Android (including all versions) as an OS is doing better than iOS as an OS.

In terms of physical smart phones, I think Apple's phones are in more pockets than any other specific manufacture with their name on the box.

In terms of raw profit in the smartphone industry, Apple dominates.

In terms of people using smartphones like smartphones (downloading apps and using them, actually browsing the internet) instead of like dumbphones (phone calls / txting etc), I believe iOS still dominates (more people use Mobile Safari than they use Android Browser et al).

Manufacturing dominance is an interesting one. Lots of parts for iPhones are made by Samsung, but does that mean Samsung controls iPhone sales? Could Samaung halt iPhone production if they wanted too, or could Apple just go to someone else (with a ramp-up delay presumably).

(I own a Samsung android phone and am happy with it, in case this post comes off pro apple and people wonder about my "allegiances" [because apparently everyone must have one])

Yes, but luxury brands almost never drive any particular market. A lot of the app business these days is about getting an app in front of users as part of some larger business plan and in that world it's the number of eyeballs that count. Once Apple loses that battle then their developer mindshare is going to slide.

Nice little constraint there - Samsung has made the most phones by far.

> raw profit in the smartphone industry, Apple dominates.

Profit really isn't everything and is only important so long as you have a monopoly - afterwards it's all about volume baby! Apple has lost their monopoly on mobile.

> iOS still dominates.

Nope - Android has more activations, downloads and usage than iOS.

I own a Galaxy Nexus.

How is the outcome of this particular case affecting your reasoning in any way?

They doubled down.

So instead I sold at 660 instead of ~600 and got my answer.

AAPL will at least pop briefly in a few hours, seems like you have no problem making a profit on the back of a company you have a ethical disagreement with, can you justify your behavior to not riding the AAPL train further?

Your prediction is on equally magical ground.

Good luck and have fun.

I don't think its that black and white but suggesting the lawsuit, and not the lawsuit outcome, is somehow responsible for a company's lack-of-success is silly.

In the meantime iOS is looking increasingly long in the tooth and nobody at Apple seems to be willing to take the kinds of chances that won them their success in this market in the first place. It's a classic innovator's dilemma, raising up a new king and then casting him down.

Remember the funeral of classic Mac OS?

All will be dead in time.

You honestly think that is why they lost?

They lost because the stopped trying to compete - and just ran off to "Mommy" government screaming "Microsoft took my toy!" instead of fighting back.

And I didn't sell on outcome - this was a relatively short case - I was just waiting for the market to increase my exit price - 660 - from 600 (http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL).

What evidence do you have that they've stopped competing? Anyway, maybe you should have waited until the new iPhone and iPad come out before selling your stock.

Disney rocks not because of Mickey Mouse - it rocks because of Pixar.

Google rocks not because of PageRank - but because of pushing the edge of search and AI.

Tesla rocks not because of the Roadster - but because of the cars yet to come.

What you've done in the past means nothing in intellectual pursuits - it's what you are going to do that matters.

The only places Apple can enter now are to continue trying to grow PC market share and Virtual Reality. Google does both better.

I didn't actively buy Nokia or Motorola for this very reason.

Google acquired Motorola to defend against Apple and Microsoft. They are doing so admirably.

No argument there. The argument is that you see initiating a lawsuit as a sign that a company is not innovating.

A lawsuit and a company's ability to innovate are independent variables.

You seem to be of the opinion that you can't sue and also innovate. This is obviously false. The engineers arnt being pulled from projects to work on the lawsuit.

Also "open systems" always win ? Linux would like a word with you.

Success always comes before the fall - Apple can either stabilise or fall. They will fall.

Linux won - Android is Linux. Consumer electronics are Linux. Servers are Linux. Everything runs on Linux. Microsoft is done.

Google wins. I own Google now.

Linux was winning before Google arrived, and Google still would've won had they used BSD instead. Nobody cares what OS is running underneath google.com

I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. If a company isn't growing, it's "done".

I realize that isn't quite what you mean, but then you shouldn't write it. The mindset is actively destructive.

The current capitalist system revolves around rich people making more money because they are rich - that only works if they invest in companies that can return a [quick] profit.

It is very sad.

Mature companies are like bonds - I don't invest in them because they don't generate enough capital in return for the risks taken.

This is old and beaten ground though, which you are no doubt familiar with. I'll refrain from treading it again.