Apple simply gave up on Sun, seen as a losing bet, and abandoned Java too.
1) Check the crowd reaction when Ellison is announced as part of the new board https://youtu.be/PEHNrqPkefI?t=11m40s
Apple only bet on Java, because the hype wave was still going strong and they were quite unsure how well the Mac developer community would be willing to embrace Objective-C.
So for a while they kept both languages on the platform to see which one would get the uptake.
When they saw that the developers had no issues with Objective-C, the decision was clear.
https://www.recode.net/2017/9/1/16236506/tech-amazon-apple-g...
And yet both companies' business strategies are primarily known for those things, and both companies spend more of their money on those things relative to R&D than their competitors.
> what would a 'heavy investment in litigation' even look like
Like this: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/23/steve-job...
The fact that Jobs would even threaten such a thing shows how similar he is to Ellison. The only reason he backed down was that Palm would have taken Apple to the cleaners in the countersuits.
I don't think they are and really, it's the thing I'm asking you to defend which I don't think you can do very well by just repeating it.
As to the other thing, ok, Apple was involved in a lawsuit? Lots of big companies are involved in lawsuits. What you are saying is that Apple and Oracle's business strategies are marketing and suing people and that they are known for this. That doesn't sound right at all.
The reason I repeated what I said is that you keep repeating what I said incorrectly, even after I emphasized the part that you left out. The key phrase is relative to R&D.
> As to the other thing, ok, Apple was involved in a lawsuit?
Is that what you got out of it? The (maybe too subtle) point is that Apple is so quick to litigate that it even threatened to bring lawsuits against another company for not participating in its illegal wage suppression agreement. Jobs would rather spend money on lawyers than on poaching engineers away from competitors or paying his own engineers enough to stay.
Great. And what's the evidence for this?
Apple is so quick to litigate
Again, lots of big companies are litigious. The salary-fixing thing involved a veritable who-is-who of big SV companies. Good thing? No. But Apple doesn't stand out more or less than the rest with its badness. Your claim isn't that Apple did some lame thing but that Apple and Oracle make that bad thing a central part of their business strategy.
Yet not a single one of them threatened to sue other companies to enforce the agreement except Apple.
As far as marketing, find another tech company that does https://www.cultofmac.com/255618/how-apples-blacklist-manipu... and https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-prs-dirty-little-secret/. It brings to mind Ellison's retaliation against the University of Wisconsin for publishing database benchmarks (https://danluu.com/anon-benchmark/). In Jobs's and Ellison's eyes, it's better to force the press not say anything bad about your product than to actually produce a good product.
It's interesting that you're only asking for evidence about Apple and not about Oracle. My hypothesis as to why is that their press policy works.