Despite all evidence to the contrary, The New York Times's Joe Nocera apparently still thinks it is acceptable for him to keep writing about Apple (tip o' the antlers to Daring Fireball).
We've been over this, Joe. It's just not OK with us.
So they're at it again ...
Who's at it again? Cats and dogs? Romulans and Klingons? David Tennant Whovians and Matt Smith Whovians?
... Apple and Samsung, fighting over patents in a courtroom in San Jose, Calif.
Gosh, yeah, why would these competitors--one of which feels very strongly that the other has copied its designs--have patent fights? Can't we all get along? And allow one to continue to rip the other off?
Perhaps it is just coincidence that this latest trial coincides with the publication of a new book by Yukari Iwatani Kane, titled "Haunted Empire: Apple After Steve Jobs."
Is it coincidence that two things coincide?
The New York Times, ladies and gentlemen!
The coincidence is nonetheless telling.
Is Nocera not clear on what the meaning of "coincidence" is? Does the New York Times know this?
The Apple Kane chronicles in "Haunted Empire" is not the same company she used to cover as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, when Jobs was alive.
Well, when you change something in your mind and then cherry-pick information in order to try to prove your pre-determined conclusion, that will happen.
That Apple was fearless in its willingness to take risks and bring innovative products to market. This Apple, the post-Jobs Apple, has become risk-averse ...
There is no denying that, under Steve Jobs, Apple introduced an industry-changing product every quarter, something it no longer does.
No denying it unless you can read a calendar, which Kane and Nocera apparently can't.
Kane tracks down Clayton Christensen, the Harvard Business School professor and author of the famous business book "The Innovator's Dilemma."
Her investigative skills are unbelievable! How does she do it?!
Does Nocera think Christensen is on the run from the law or something?
Which brings me back to the litigation with Samsung--the company that is coming to market with products that are every bit as good as Apple's, and at a lower price to boot.
Let us just say that that is a matter of opinion.
Also, let's note once again the inherent double standard. Samsung releases phones that follow industry trends (read: Apple) and the Galaxy Gear, a device that's widely been panned. It's also had some bad quarterly results of late. But it's Apple that's doomed.
This never-ending litigation is yet another sign that Apple is becoming a spent force.
Another undeniable truth is that Apple was never involved in any kind of litigation when Steve Jobs was alive. And it's not like he was the one who was so adamant about the litigation, either.
Is there any part of this that makes sense? Even the margins seem stupid.
Every smartphone company is now armed to the teeth with patents, and the most sensible way to deal with the issue is to cross-license the patents.
Not to Steve Jobs it wasn't. You know, the guy whose death you think marked the end of Apple. The guy who said he'd spend his "last dying breath" fighting Android and Samsung. As John Gruber writes:
Nocera here has painted Apple into a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't scenario. He spends most of his column arguing that Apple is screwed because they're lost without Jobs. But now he's saying they're screwed because they're doing exactly what Jobs expressly told his biographer he wanted to do: fight Android handset makers--and by proxy, Google--tooth and nail in court.
Pity the Macalope, dear reader. He has reached a point where he's more excited by the coming of new Apple products because of the amount of crow that certain naysaying ninnies will have to eat, rather than the utility, style, and user experience such devices might offer.
Of course said ninnies won't tuck into their humble pie. They'll just say "The old Apple is back!" Because punditry means never having to say you're sorry.