Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Beef With Nokia Gets Intense, All Withings Products Pulled From Online Store (recode.net)

In less than a week after Nokia sued Apple for patent infringement in courts around the world, saying that Apple has refused to license its patents, Apple has pulled all Withings products from its stores. Earlier this year, Nokia bought Withings, which makes Wi-Fi scales and other digital health and fitness gear.

58 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    Wanna bet on who wins this particular game of Mutually Assured Destruction?

    1. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lawyers.

    2. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Last time Samsung won, but Apple got bailed out by Obama. Which has the unfortunate side-effect of encouraging companies to play chicken in the game of MAD because they might get a last-minute reprieve even after they've lost.

    3. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by lucm · · Score: 1

      IBM. I'm sure they have some lurking submarine that covers what both Apple and Nokia are doing.

      IBM will outlive both companies. They are not sexy, but they spend a fortune on R&D and they don't chase yesterday's trends. They reinvented themselves a few times over the decades, their problems of late is nothing they can't handle.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      Hhhmmm, let's see: Over the last 10 years, IBM has spent more on share buybacks than R&D. I wish I had more faith in their long-term prospects, but this knid of malarkey does not bode well.

    5. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by lucm · · Score: 1

      Over the last 3 years, Apple has spent 87 billions on buyback and about 16 billions on R&D. During the same time, IBM has spent 28 billions on buyback and 14 billions on R&D. And Apple has twice IBM revenue.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Holi · · Score: 2

      Your R&D claims do not match reality.
      The top 20 in R&D Spending for 2016:
      1 Volkswagen
      2 Samsung
      3 Amazon
      4 Alphabet
      5 Intel Co
      6 Microsoft
      7 Roche
      8 Novartis
      9 Johnson & Johnson
      10 Toyota
      11 Apple
      12 Pfizer
      13 General
      14 Merck
      15 Ford
      16 Daimler
      17 Cisco
      18 AstraZeneca
      19 Bristol-Myers Squibb
      20 Oracle United States


      Sorry to say IBM is not on the list.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    7. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by lucm · · Score: 1

      Your number are wrong, and they are also suspicious because unless you got some amazing insider network it's not possible to have numbers for 2016 as the last quarter ends in 5 days and none of those companies have released them yet.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    8. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      That would be a global spend and in some countries financial year is the calender year and in other countries July to June is the financial year (it makes far more sense as that accounting period avoid the holiday season) and other countries allow a nominated financial year (this makes sense because it spread tax returns over the whole year spreading the work load).

      Now due to major tax benefits for shuffling off admin cost to research or paid executive holiday bonuses as research or consultancy fees charading as research or any other lie they can come up with to cheat taxes, means the number is also likely to be complete and utter bullshit.

      How good is Nokia case, well, filed in Texas the land of corrupt patent judges ie shite. At least Apple will be costing them money from day 1 and it will be years until Nokia sees a cent. Not that I favour Apple over Nokia but it always seems to be shit once the use Texas courts, what a reputation. Texas the state of bullshit patent trolls, be proud Texans, yours courts are seem as the scum of the world and favoured by trolls.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:Long ago in a galaxy far far away: Patent Wars by Keruo · · Score: 1

      Just like Nokia keeps reinventing itself few times over the decades too. Nokia was founded 45 years before IBM so it's not a new player really.

      --
      There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
  2. Can't you see? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can't you see how courageous Apple is to do this? *cough*

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Seriously, the "courageous" meme is already super old. Try and be original.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    2. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Try and be original.

      A sentiment better communicated to Apple's C-levels.

    3. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      It already has been a million times over but maybe you don't pay attention to tech news.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    4. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Purposefully excluding features and making stuff as thin as possible (even over the objections of your more loyal customers, most of whom at this point would just prefer a better battery) doesn't really count as innovation, sorry.

      Speaking as someone who paid $300 to import a Sharp Zaurus in 2006 and later owned a N900, I can tell you that the iPhone in particular was not revolutionary. It was a massively overpriced, under-spec'ed phone lacking major features (3G and MMS), but Apple was smart enough to use that extra money (along with the kickbacks from their exclusive AT&T deal) to put a capacitive screen on it and some UI glitter and that was enough to convince people like you that they were geniuses that had done something truly original. A little while later they did the same damn thing with their app marketplace, even though it sucked until competition from Android forced them to loosen the rules.

      Copy the competition, make some 'stylistic' changes that either don't matter or are actively harmful to the UX (thinness), charge an obscene price to reinforce it as a premium thing, pump out advertisements, pretend like you invented it, and ride the synergistic waves as the economies of scale kick in and developers flock to your platform. That was Job's main scheme on his return to Apple, and it worked brilliantly. Occasionally, they buy up some good patents or companies that have made good original stuff (NeXT was a decent move), but that's about it. They're not innovators. Never have been... at least, not in the past quarter-century.

    5. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you're agreeing with me in which case, no, I don't read a lot of tech news when it comes to Apple. But it's hard to avoid.

    6. Re:Can't you see? by hideki.adam · · Score: 1

      Aye, I remember when the iPhone came out

      I was quite surprised to see Apple inventing the smartphone when I'd been using an HP Jornada PocketPC phone for some time at that point which was cheaper and could do far more than the iphone of the time,

    7. Re:Can't you see? by Holi · · Score: 1

      You mean they did not pull actual products from their physical stores?

      While some of us should probably wait to see what the outcome is, others should probably refrain from making comments that prove they have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    8. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Whatever dude. If you can't see how Apple completely changed the cellphone industry and what people expect from phones, there's not hope for you. Enjoy your pos Zaurus.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    9. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      They "changed" it because they had an ultra-loyal fanbase that would scream endlessly about their products (primarily iPods in those days) to non-techies to the point where they could simply charge 2x for a middling product. Android was right around the corner, Apple or no Apple, and Nokia was obviously going to put Maemo on a phone (it was out on PDA devices prior to the iPhone 1) just as soon as they figured the battery life out (little did they realize that people would simply adjust to the reality of charging their phones nightly, or even multiple times per day if under heavy use. In those days, reviewers would complain if you could "only" get a few days' worth of standby time.) But Apple preempted them both with a shittier and more expensive product and thereby convinced people like you they invented it.

      The N900 was superior to the iPhone 1 in pretty much every way. (As was the G1.) It's a huge pity Nokia played such a conservative game with Maemo, but then again they never had the power to leverage the Apple Tax or command such over the top hype so they might not have been able to pull it off regardless.

      If you aren't wiling to discuss specific technologies, be they capacitive screens or MMS or 3G, then I'm pretty sure you're the one there is no hope for. Keep swallowing that blue pill. After all, if it's popular it must be innovative.

    10. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      lol...you realize that the reason there's "always on internet" for cellphones is because of Apple, right?

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    11. Re:Can't you see? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Seriously, the "courageous" meme is already super old. Try and be original.

      Seriously, telling people that memes are "already super old" is super old. Try and be creative (since you can't be original).

      PS- all your memes are belong to us.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Uh, what? I had internet in 2006 and it was EDGE speed, just like the iPhone 1. I don't know what you mean by always-on. You could leave apps running and they would stay connected and the 'EDGE' logo would stay on screen as long as you were within range of a tower. Not sure what you call it, but I call that always-on.

    13. Re:Can't you see? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      ROFL...yeah, you had that if you were willing to pay a shitload of money for it. The prices for online access were outrageous. Keep in mind AT&T had to do massive system upgrades to support the iPhone. Why? Because the internet on the cellphone up till that point was a fucking joke. Please don't try and deny it.

      Also, the iPhone had Wifi. Suck on that.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    14. Re:Can't you see? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      ROFL...yeah, you had that if you were willing to pay a shitload of money for it.

      As I recall, T-Mobile had a perfectly usable option that was a $6 add-on. YEAH ROFL SO EXPENSIVE!!!! Granted, one generally didn't use it to stream video (I don't think the iPhone 1 had a Youtube app at launch, either... and Youtube was only like a year old at that point), but it was snappy enough.

      Keep in mind AT&T had to do massive system upgrades to support the iPhone.

      Not for bandwidth they didn't. Their routing may have sucked, I don't know. As far as I can recall, the real problems didn't pop up until the iPhone 3G finally came out.

      Because the internet on the cellphone up till that point was a fucking joke.

      As I just pointed out, streaming video was still a fairly new thing when the iPhone 1 came out. The internet went through a pretty massive change in the late 00s, but I hate to break it to you... it turns out Apple didn't actually invent Netflix or Youtube or Hulu.

      Also, the iPhone had Wifi. Suck on that.

      And you think this is even remotely revolutionary because?

      You should really take a step back and listen to yourself; just imagine a BMW fan talked the way you did about Apple. I don't have a problem complementing Apple when they do good. OS X was a decent OS. Objective-C is a good language (if a little immature in the early years). Capacitive screens would be superior to resistive if only they would work on higher quality plastic ones. Magnetic cables are amazing.

      But Apple didn't develop any of those things in-house. They (wisely) purchased them. Apple is not an innovator to any remarkable degree; they are primarily a marketing powerhouse. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

  3. Apple's Beef With Nokia Gets Intense by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

    But at least Nokia is not chicken.

    --
    slashdot: A failed experiment.
  4. Abuse of position by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And if this isn't abuse of Apples position, demonstrating exactly why Apples walled garden should be illegal, what is?

    And no, I don't care that Apple doesnt have "a monopoly", this is anti-competitive and Apple shouldn't be allowed to do it

    1. Re:Abuse of position by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Please demonstrate where I mentioned "antitrust law"...

      Why can't we have a discussion on abuse of position without twats like you snarking in and saying "it has nothing to do with antitrust, so Apple is fine".

      Abuse of position and anti-competitive behaviour DOES NOT require violation of antitrust law. Apple doing this is wrong, and something should be done about it.

    2. Re:Abuse of position by gravewax · · Score: 1

      apple owned apple store is completely and totally operated under anti-trust laws. no idea if they have breached any of those here but being apple owned and operated doesn't excuse them from the requirement to not engage in anti competitive behaviour.

    3. Re:Abuse of position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      apple owned apple store is completely and totally operated under anti-trust laws.

      The question is, should companies selling apps be at the whims and mercy of one or two companies (like Apple and Google)? It is abuse of position because only two companies control access of apps to mobile platforms. It would be great if multiple retailers had something similar to App store and Google Play and were allowed to sell apps to the consumer.

    4. Re:Abuse of position by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since when is a store a walled garden? If Amazon or Walmart stopped selling Withings products would you be complaining?

      Only the physical products are no longer available through the Apple Store and their physical locations. You can still get the applications in the App Store which you normally associate with the walled garden.

      I don't agree with Apple's business practice but please try to get your facts right.

    5. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      apple owned apple store is completely and totally operated under anti-trust laws. no idea if they have breached any of those here but being apple owned and operated doesn't excuse them from the requirement to not engage in anti competitive behaviour.

      I don't think you understand that Term of Art.

    6. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      "If Amazon or Walmart stopped selling Withings products would you be complaining?"

      I don't know if he would, but I would.

      The fact they have been selling them means people want to buy them. The items being removed is against the consumer's interest, by definition.

      What's left is just the question of where exactly on the spectrum of bad for the consumer (i.e. me, you, and him) the decision lies.

      So a corporation MUST sell EVERYTHING you think it should sell, or be "Operating against the consumer's interest"?

      Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaa!

      You REALLY need to get out of your Mom's Basement, comrade!

    7. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      learn the law moron, simply owning and operating something doesn't mean you can't abuse your market position. Ask MS how that went for them.

      As soon as Apple has close to 100% of ANY market, THEN you MIGHT have a point.

    8. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      This can be viewed as retaliation,

      No it can't. Sorry, moron.

    9. Re: Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Nope. Two things: 1) Apple has a monopoly on apps on iPhones, which have a dominant market position.. This puts them into anti-trust territory, though they've bought an exemption to that legislation. 2) I forget the legal term, but responding maliciously to hurt a company in revenge for filing a suit is illegal and very easy to demonstrate to a judge.

      You are sadly mistaken on how Antitrust Law works.

      Do some studying, or STFU.

    10. Re:Abuse of position by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Abuse of position and anti-competitive behaviour DOES NOT require violation of antitrust law. Apple doing this is wrong, and something should be done about it.

      Last year, Amazon stopped selling the Apple TV because "it doesn't support Amazon Video". Except Amazon refused to write an app for the Apple TV (it exists for iPhones and iPads, but not AppleTV).

      So perhaps we should sanction Amazon too?

      It's just a crappy IoT thing that Apple stopped selling. I'm sure you can find it at Best Buy if you really really really needed it.Just because Apple refuses to sell you one, doesn't mean you can't find it at Best Buy, or Amazon or any other place that sells the things.

      It would be anti-trust if Apple removed the apps from the App Store, or recinded the "Made for iPhone" branding so it no longer worked.

    11. Re:Abuse of position by Holi · · Score: 1

      "It would be anti-trust if Apple removed the apps from the App Store,"

      or removed products from their physical stores?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    12. Re:Abuse of position by gravewax · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work that way. There is a significant barrier of entry in order to be able to compete with google or apple app stores and hence the legal onus is on them to ensure they are not misbehaving, it is not good enough to say someone could just start their own.

    13. Re:Abuse of position by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work that way. There is a significant barrier of entry in order to be able to compete with google or apple app stores and hence the legal onus is on them to ensure they are not misbehaving, it is not good enough to say someone could just start their own.

      Sorry. It works EXACTLY that way in a free market.

      Apple started with two guys in a garage, financed by the $1500 sale of a VW Microbus.

      Google started with (IIRC) two guys in a dorm-room. One at least was a fairly poor Student from Russia, maybe both.

      What's YOUR excuse? As I said, the OS has already been written for you. You can call up Qualcomm and Samsung and buy all the special-purpose silicon, RF stuff and touchscreen hardware you need. They will also provide you with reference designs and pre-built drivers for the radio, display and network stuff. You can contract a design firm to do the chassis, etc.You can contract Foxconn or TSMC to build the things.

      So, all that's left is... Profit!

  5. Nah, just replaced! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    All the Withings products have been replaced by Withoutings.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Nah, just replaced! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for unixisc to come along and write it as w/ings.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Re:Apple removes by MichaelJ · · Score: 2

    I have a Withings scale and use the Withings Health Mate iOS app to control it. I just checked and Health Mate is still available in the iOS App Store. They may have pulled the scale or other "physical" products out of the Apple Store (online and/or brick and mortar) but do not appear to have done anything with the iOS App Store.

    --

    Michael J.
    Root, God, what is difference?
  7. Re:Intense? by coastwalker · · Score: 1

    As intense as one carnivore taking a bite out of another carnivore. It is just what they do, so no big deal really unless you enjoy watching one animal fighting with another. It is a bit monotonous IMHO, lots of noise, teeth and claws basically. Still it sells news outlets pontificating on the likely outcome, will the bear eat the lion or vice versa?

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  8. And nothing of value was lost by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    I have a Withings scale and it's not that great. It's nice that it uploads the data but it isn't that accurate. I had an old, basic digital scale that only measured weight and it was far more consistent than the Withings.

  9. Re:Intense? by lucm · · Score: 2

    Are you trying to be smug by association?

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  10. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by lucm · · Score: 2

    Nobody can save Apple. They have 16,000 software engineers and they keep releasing the same 3-4 buggy products with little or no innovation. What are all those people doing all day? Moving buttons around in iTunes? It's like a DMV of epic proportions. Entitlement, bureaucracy and total lack of accountability.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  11. Re:Carrier and phone manufacturer app stores by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Some carriers and some phone manufacturers have their own app stores. I don't think any consumers really want to use them though. Steam has branched out to beyond games as well.

  12. Apple is a real patent bully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they rely entirely on their size to avoid paying patents that they definitely owe to companies that do REAL innovation.

  13. Time to move on by lucm · · Score: 2

    IBM has converted way more American jobs into offshore ones than Apple has.

    First, that comparison makes no sense because Apple doesn't have a professional service division, which is the one that for the most part got outsourced at IBM. Also Apple could hardly convert American jobs into offshore ones since the bulk of their operations is *already* handled by Chinese cheap labor.

    But that's besides the point. IBM basically invented professional services and IT outsourcing; they did that at a time when it was economically viable, and now that offshore firms are eating away at this market they're moving on. From a strategic perspective it makes sense; skilled labor is dirt cheap and it's now the norm, not the exception, for a large company to use offshore IT workers via one of the big European slave runners (E&Y, Deloitte, PwC, Cap Gemini, etc). Profit margin is gone, it's now a volume game and that's usually the moment IBM walks away from a business segment.

    IBM is not cool and not sexy but they're a sound business that consistently adapts to new market conditions. I'd rather drink a tall glass of bleach than work for them, but they're definitely a blue chip stock. Just in 2016 for ytd return they're over 20%, while Apple (10%) is below S&P 500 (13%).

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  14. Re: Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    Tim Cook seems to believe he is the smartest guy around - his performance indicates otherwise.

    While his performance is sub-par his bank account is quite healthy. This disconnect is quite common for CEOs sadly.

  15. Nokia made a mistake by mysidia · · Score: 1

    They should have spun off a patent troll division and assigned their rights.

    You cannot sue large companies for patent infringement while you are a practicing entity that has a Technology product or service

    THE OTHER COMPANIES WILL RETALLIATE AGAINST YOU.

    Either by filing their own Patent lawsuits Or by interfering with your marketing or your business.........
    OH yeah, And if you or a company you own partners with them to sell your products, then it's really dumb to sue them.

  16. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Nobody can save Apple. They have 16,000 software engineers and they keep releasing the same 3-4 buggy products with little or no innovation. What are all those people doing all day? Moving buttons around in iTunes? It's like a DMV of epic proportions. Entitlement, bureaucracy and total lack of accountability.

    You are free not to purchase their products. I'm sure they will survive.

  17. crybaby by SuperDre · · Score: 2

    This is typical behaviour of a crybaby which Apple is.. If you use the patents, pay for it, Apple sue's other companies for using it and expects them to pay, so why not do it yourself..

  18. Re:Carrier and phone manufacturer app stores by Holi · · Score: 1

    Name me one that works on the iPhone.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  19. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by lucm · · Score: 1

    Your username is the equivalent of a teenage girl putting posters of a boys band on her wall, except you're stuck with it

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  20. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Your username is the equivalent of a teenage girl putting posters of a boys band on her wall, except you're stuck with it

    My, what a fact-filled and erudite post. I am so enlightened. Do you have a newsletter I might subscribe to?

  21. Re:Tim Cook = the antithesis of a leader. by lucm · · Score: 1

    actually his username is a pretty funny steve jobs joke that you're too stupid to understand. to make the random comparison you made... you have a lack of original content so you came up with or heard the bland joke about the posters and then tried looking for a post where it would remotely fit. guess what - it didn't. the rest of us see something and make a funny joke on the spot and on topic.

    your username on the other hand I'm guessing is a joke that no one bothers to understand, since you're just an annoying little pest here who does not have anything interesting or funny to say. yet you keep trying and trying for some reason, just lke a real boy. sorry bud, you're much too ugly to be a real boy. that's why you're not funny - you don't have a chance to practice social things.

    Do you feel better now that you took that load off your chest? I tried to read it all but I lost you when you started talking about posters, I have no idea who you are talking about, but don't let that stop you. If you're posting confused rants here it means you're reading Slashdot and this is a lot better than doing something harmful like drugs or kiddie porn. Keep it up, pal!
     

    --
    lucm, indeed.