Mr. President, if you're attacking the FBI, you're losing

[T]he litigation between Qualcomm and Apple/Intel ... is weird. What makes it weird is that Intel appears to think that by helping Apple drive down Qualcomm prices, it will gain an advantage, but since its only value is as a lower cost, lower performing, alternative to Qualcomm's modems, the result would be more aggressively priced better alternatives to Intel's offerings from Qualcomm/Broadcom, wiping Intel out of the market. On paper, this is a lose/lose for Intel and even for Apple. The lower prices would flow to Apple competitors as well, lowering the price of competing phones. So, Apple would not get a lasting benefit either.

Apple's move to vertical integration with processors could end up killing the iPhone, and the benefit just doesn't warrant the risk.

With phones moving to technologies such as Apple Pay, an unwillingness to assure security could create a Target-like exposure that wipes Apple out of the market.

The cause of [Apple v. Qualcomm] appears to be an effort by Apple to pressure Qualcomm into providing a unique discount, largely because Apple has run into an innovation wall, is under increased competition from firms like Samsung, and has moved to a massive cost reduction strategy. (I've never known this to end well, as it causes suppliers to create unreliable components and outright fail.)

John Sculley ruined Apple and he ruined it by bringing a set of values to the top of Apple which were corrupt and corrupted some of the top people who were there, drove out some of the ones who were not corruptible, and brought in more corrupt ones and paid themselves collectively tens of millions of dollars and cared more about their own glory and wealth than they did about what built Apple in the first place — which was making great computers for people to use.

We as a security company are not able to develop true endpoint security for iOS. That will mean disaster for Apple. … when it happens it will be the worst-case scenario because there will be no protection. The Apple SDK won't let us do it.

Apple's emphasis on short term greed instead of long-term investment will end up hurting the company and its shareholders and customers over the long haul. … What Apple does not seem to understand … is the fate that almost all niche platform providers eventually succumb to — gradual loss of influence, power, and profitability, followed by irrelevance.

Jobs regularly misses appointments. This is so well-known as to be almost a running joke. It's not funny, hurts Apple's image when he does it to outsiders, and wastes our time and energy when it is done to another employee.

Honor without intelligence is a disaster. Honor could lose the war.

[Apple] needs the support of the U.S. government in the way that BlackBerry has the support of the Canadian government. If not, it needs to think about moving phone leadership and operations to a country that will supply it with that defensive support. If it doesn't do this soon, it will eventually have its phones compromised and that could be the end of much of Apple's iPhone business.

Apple is becoming the JC Penney of tech. I think that there is a sense that the company is in a tailspin, and it doesn't seem to matter what they do right now. … Whatever product that is coming out in September is a clear loser. We haven't seen it yet, but it is a loser.

Samsung did to Apple what Apple did to Microsoft, skewering its devoted users and reputation, only better. ... There is a way for Apple to fight back, but the company no longer has that skill, and apparently doesn't know where to get it, either.

What this advertising boycott is going to do is, it is going to kill the company [...] And the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company