or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by freckledbruh

See, I personally don't think it would matter if Apple came out with a cheaper iPhone or not in that hypothetical case. When the poster stated that, I responded a few pages ago that such a cost would tack on an extra $50 million to produce just 1 million phones. OEMs simply couldn't afford that type of investment based on their current profits/losses.
I've read enough of your posts (which I personally enjoy and find insightful) to know that you know that the license would not be $50. My post was referring to the person saying that $50 per phone for handset makers wouldn't matter and I think I can safely say that you'd agree that yes it would matter a great deal. Nobody is buying WP7 or WebOS in droves NOW, but if Android's costs got that hight, it wouldn't matter if consumers had been buying the competition before...
I definitely agree with this. Nobody's getting carried out in handcuffs for this.
Hope I don't get banned for replying to this but I totally just spit out gulp of beer.
Lol, ok. I've got a bit of insomnia so I'll throw this question out to hopefully get a response. Cloudgazer is stating that Oracle's patents are definitely still up in the air which technically is true, BUT the judge (who most likely has a background in IP law and maybe even experience on either/both jobs of counsel) is clearly telling Google that they most likely will lose one or more points in their case and should try to settle for a reasonable amount. Wouldn't the...
I'm glad you took it that way because that was my intention. If a "feature" causes problems in your workflow, then by all means disable or choose something else. Everybody has their own individual needs.
I haven't read ANY article that eludes that WP7 costs handset manufacturers $50+ per handset. In fact, B&N said that Microsoft demanded $15-20 per Nook which is TWICE the licensing cost of WP7 which means they are looking for $7.50-10 per device. $50 per phone/device for Android is waaay more money and as I said before, if the hardware companies are already losing money every quarter, why would they actually pay so much more just to run Google's OS?
And that's why that post about "$50 bucks? So what?" is absurd. Even with that ASP chart, why in the world would handset makers (most of which are losing money every quarter) buy into android at that price when every one of them could get another OS for much less? Android isn't driving customers as much as it is a more purvasive alternative with little "stickiness" thus far (look at Android's tablet sales for partial evidence). If the cost gets too high due to lawsuits...
What kind of contracts take up over a gig of space?? Are they for people's souls?
I'm not so sure Oracle cares if Google can engineer around them or not. Sure, it would affect future money through continued licensing, but it doesn't absolve for any past infringement. Oracle wanted $6 billion and Google wanted $0 in damages. That's a whole of wiggle room and if Google is found to have infringed willfully then Oracle could get triple damages. If you split the difference of each company's claim of damages, that's $3 billion meaning could be on the hook...
New Posts  All Forums: