or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM may top Google's $900M bid for Nortel patent 'treasure trove,' sources say
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM may top Google's $900M bid for Nortel patent 'treasure trove,' sources say - Page 2

post #41 of 120
The news that Google was showing Android handset prototypes as an example of what it could do date to 2006, a year before a picture of one leaked out and before the iPhone ever came to market.

There was no surprise that Google hoped to have a piece of the mobile market, and Steve Jobs wasn't blindsided by it either. Google happily shared details, even allowing it's engineers to be questioned and consulted by Apple's according to industry sources. Speculation on the plans for Android began almost as soon as Google bought the company in 2005, tho it was founded back in 2003, a full 4 years before the iPhone shipped. It didn't magically develop from the iPhone.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The main reason entities are "nice" about patents and don't sue unless it's to protect themselves, is because patent suits cost huge amounts of money and are very hard to win, not because of defensive/offensive strategy.

I agree with you. I don't see how that diminishes the differences between offensive/defensive lawsuits.

1) I agree that the only reason that companies (including Apple) don't file more "offensive" patent lawsuits is because it doesn't make financial sense. Like I have said repeatedly in this thread, if it did make financial sense, it would be illegal for the executives to not pursue it. So the fact that Google has not filed many offensive patent lawsuits, is meaningless as to whether they will or will not in the future. They will if it makes financial sense. Just like Apple will, if it makes financial sense for them.

2) The difference between the offensive/defensive lawsuits is that defensive lawsuits would not exist, if the offensive lawsuit had not been filed first. E.g., its highly unlikely Apple would have filed a patent lawsuit against Nokia if Nokia hadn't filed a lawsuit against, precisely because of the reason you mention, i.e., winning a lawsuit against Nokia would cost far more than the settlement they would have won. On the other hand, now that Nokia has filed a lawsuit against them, filing the defensive lawsuit means Apple would have a stronger hand to play in settlement negotiations.

Now, I agree that the moral difference between them is little to none, in my mind (primarily because I don't find filing a patent lawsuit immoral, in the first place, unlike many others). That being said, there is certainly a strategic distinction between the two.
post #43 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

I think its amazing that people still try to deny this.

This was the Dec 2007, Google Android prototype...

http://gizmodo.com/#!334909/google-a...pe-in-the-wild

Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to better match the market leader before, have they?

When Google bought android, Smartphones were business oriented devices and the king of the crop were blackberries/WINMO handsets. (First prototype) Then the iPhone was released and it opened a whole new market for smartphones. Suddenly people were buying devices for the "Cool" factor more than ever before and Apple demonstrated that touch screen's gave some serious advantages in the mobile space.

Then, like EVERY OTHER COMPANY in the HISTORY of corporate competition, Google looked at what their competitors were doing and tried to find how they could take their product (android) and try to match this new market force. Since android wasn't out yet, Google could afford to reconfigure their OS without having to worry about an installed base or backwards compatibility. Blackberry, Palm, and Windows ALL did similar reboots to make their devices more "everyday" consumer friendly. Other new OS's, like MeeGo, also adopted this consumer friendly approach.

Again, this is the NATURE of competition. Your competitor does something that makes them money and starts luring customers, and you do something to try and swing the scales back into your favor.

If the iPhone flopped because customers preferred physical keyboards like on a blackberry, what do you think would happen? Apple would release a physical keyboard phone next year instead of a 3g model of a touchscreen only device. Again, that's competition.

And before you say that Apple never listens to market forces, look at the iphone4 launch.

Remember this ad?
http://youtu.be/GnaAQwGcBks

Look at what the pointed out:
-No physical keyboard = iOS4 allows for iDevices to connect to bluetooth keyboards
-No Multitasking = iOS4 allows for multitasking of third party applications
-No 5 Megapixel Camera-Iphone 4 ads a 5 Megapixel shooter.
-No Customization = iOS4 allows for Folders and Wallpapers
-No Widgets = Apple hasn't implemented this one yet, but no doubt when they do they'll call it magical
-No Open Development = Apple finally officially endorsed applications that were not written natively in iOS, aka Epic games using Unreal Engine. They also allow cross compilers (with stipulations)
-No Camera Flash = iPhone 4 adds a camera
-No swappable Battery = Apple didn't change their stance here, but what they DID do is release a phone and made a point to showcase how much longer their battery lasted.


I'm NOT saying that apple made any changes because of a teaser ad. In fact, I'm sure they didn't. But those are all things that Reviewers and users were pointing out to apple well before and after that commercial aired. Another common issue (screen resolution) was also taken care of by the iPhone4.

I'm not knocking Apple for making those changes. They're what Any company worth their real estate would do. Assessing your competition and making changes to compete with them (or surpass them) is what every company does.

What company would say: Well, Apple was the first one to make a Consumer Smartphone viable, I guess we'll have to just focus on business devices."

Blackberry tried that. And look at how far they've fallen? (and they're now rebooting with QNX)
post #44 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Jessi, it's not clear at all that Google "stole" multi-touch from Apple. It was more a "line in the sand" drawn by Steve Jobs.

IMO Mr. Jobs was more upset over Google entering the smartphone business at any level. Apple and Google had numerous meetings over Android and it's ongoing development, both before and after the iPhone design was completed. News accounts indicate Apple knew what Google was doing with it, while at the same time Google reportedly felt they had to do what was necessary to prevent their business from being beholden to the goodwill of other market forces, primarily Microsoft at that time. Multi-touch was one feature that Steve Jobs probably felt defined the iPhone user experience.

Unfortunately Apple may have no grounds to claim it's theirs to begin with. Elan, a Taiwanese company, appears to have actually patented that very feature 10 years earlier. And Apple was certain to have been aware of that when they filed their own patent application. In 2006 Synaptics had already been served notice that use of some multi-touch features allegedly violated Elam's patent. And what claim Apple may imagine they hold to other parts of multi-touch may actually be owned by the University of Delaware. Apple's patent was largely dependent on the work of two employees, who had done much of the work in conjunction with the University when they were students there.

True, somebody might have attempted to "steal" the idea behind multi-touch and claim it as their own. But it wasn't Google.

Apple didn't patent multi-touch screens, just their pinch to zoom gesture or the screen scrolling straight as opposed to not (prior art exists for that).

They themselves are being sued for double touch on the patent for double click.
post #45 of 120
It seems to me that RIM is in the process of going downhill and fast. At least if they bought $900 million worth of patents, they'd have something to sell off when bankruptcy hits. The trouble is I fear they would just use it to litigate and take a Microsoft approach to technology. That is, not being forward thinking anymore, but running scared and suing anyone with a dime.
post #46 of 120
Since RIM is dead in the water with its latest offerings, it's going after the "national treasure" so it can liquidate it's capital assets and hire Paul Allen so RIM wil become the continent's leading patent troll.

RIM = Really Interested in Moolah.
post #47 of 120
How sad is it that companies can survive on and waste money on "ideas" which do not even fit the proper definition of property. What monumental waste of productivity and time. The world would be a better place without IP.

Now RIM gets to live on through the purchasing of "ideas" instead of innovating.
post #48 of 120
Cross-licensing with RIM or whoever wins the patent portfolio may be just as well as owning them outright. Apple's legal staff would need to double in size just to enforce licensing from offenders.

I'd actually like to see someone like Cisco, Juniper Networks, or F5 grab these patents.
post #49 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

I think its amazing that people still try to deny this.

This was the Dec 2007, Google Android prototype...

http://gizmodo.com/#!334909/google-a...pe-in-the-wild

What if the form factor still made it to production LOL

http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US...EN?localeId=33
post #50 of 120


Hell, why didn't Steve tell 'em "that's a brilliant design. You should go all out with it"
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

You're right, companies do change, but Google has been a voice against Patent litigation for quite awhile,

Sure - just as Google was all in favor of Open software - until it suited their purposes to act otherwise.

And just as Google is in favor of intellectual property rights - until it suits their purposes to act as if copyrights don't exist.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #52 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

What RIMM has, just like GOOG, is identity crisis. Instead of trying to make their business phones better, RIMM is trying to get market shares in the consumer market, which IMO is the wrong move....

Except people only want to carry one phone. They don't want a cumbersome business issued phone and a fun easy to use personal phone. That's just too much stuff to keep track of. That's why businesses opened up to the iPhone. Their employees wanted them and when given a choice tend to choose them over other phones.

I don't think there is a market for 'business' and 'consumer' phones anymore. People want one phone that can do everything. Meet their needs for business as well as personal life.
post #53 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eideard View Post

So, no one here ever thought there may be tax and business advantages from one Canadian corporation buying another?

What tax and business advantages? How would it be any different from a US company buying a Canadian company (or vice versa)?
post #54 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

You're right, companies do change, but Google has been a voice against Patent litigation for quite awhile, and Larry Page even moreso than Schmidt.

And this isn't a "Closed V Open" debate. There are very closed companies, with huge patent portfolios (IBM) that rarely, if ever go after others with lawsuits.

So yes, while they CAN change, there is no way for you to know that they will, and so all we can do is go off of what they're saying now, and what they've done historically.

Ah, the Google/Android astroturfer is back.

But, let's look at reality: Google is one of the most, self-serving, dishonest, deceptive, unscrupulous companies that the tech industry has ever seen. And yes, that is saying a lot, but it's entirely true. As others have pointed out, the reason Google has been a voice against patent litigation is that they have no patent portfolio to speak of. They don't need to "change" to become dangerous, they already are a dangerous, outlaw company. So, no, the world would not be a better place if Google had more patents in its quiver.

So, yes, your line is total bullshit. But, I applaud your chutzpa in trying to pass off such brazen misinformation.
post #55 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Ah, the Google/Android astroturfer is back.

But, let's look at reality: Google is one of the most, self-serving, dishonest, deceptive, unscrupulous companies that the tech industry has ever seen. And yes, that is saying a lot, but it's entirely true. As others have pointed out, the reason Google has been a voice against patent litigation is that they have no patent portfolio to speak of. They don't need to "change" to become dangerous, they already are a dangerous, outlaw company. So, no, the world would not be a better place if Google had more patents in its quiver.

So, yes, your line is total bullshit. But, I applaud your chutzpa in trying to pass off such brazen misinformation.

And again, you make wild claims while providing no evidence. Why is it that you bother replying again?

Oh right, Troll.
post #56 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sure - just as Google was all in favor of Open software - until it suited their purposes to act otherwise.

And just as Google is in favor of intellectual property rights - until it suits their purposes to act as if copyrights don't exist.

It is still open, as in, they're still releasing the software. The problem is that they allowed a product to launch (Xoom) before the software was finalized for an AOSP build. And yes, that is a problem when it comes to claiming to be "open" But they're not "changing their stance" on what they're doing. They rushed this build to market and it bit them in the ass. Now, if they delay Ice Cream AOSP (or whatever they call it) then we have a problem.

And there's a pretty big difference between "IP" like code, or music, or apps, and "IP" like Apple's "Using a touch screen to unlock a touch screen" patent.
post #57 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

And there's a pretty big difference between "IP" like code, or music, or apps, and "IP" like Apple's "Using a touch screen to unlock a touch screen" patent.

It would be helpful if you bothered to learn something about a topic before commenting on it.

Apple's patent involves a very specific action to a very specific screen function. Before Apple did it, who had the sliding "slide to unlock" function like Apple's?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #58 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It would be helpful if you bothered to learn something about a topic before commenting on it.

Apple's patent involves a very specific action to a very specific screen function. Before Apple did it, who had the sliding "slide to unlock" function like Apple's?

No, it's actually not a "Very specific action" They're claiming the entire process of unlocking the touch screen by interacting with the touch screen, save for a simple tap, or using a password (both listed as references)

This is the patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=7,657,849


It's Not just for the "Slide to unlock" option. Apple left the wording vague enough to cover all methods of touch screen unlock, and they named several phones in the lawsuit that used different methods of unlock. And even if it was a "specific" method they were suing for, then the only phones they could name in the lawsuit would be (possibly) those built using AOSP Android 2.0 or higher. Which they didn't.
post #59 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to copy the market leader before, have they?

There. Fixed it for you. And I agree with this wholeheartedly . Uncreative companies always copied. Always does and always will.
post #60 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

But, let's look at reality: Google is one of the most, self-serving, dishonest, deceptive, unscrupulous companies that the tech industry has ever seen.

Careful. You might break his heart.
post #61 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to better match the market leader before, have they?......

And before you say that Apple never listens to market forces, look at the iphone4 launch.

..... etc etc

This is blather. No one said that Apple never listens to market forces. You're just making it up -- just like Google, in this business -- as you go along.....
post #62 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This is blather. No one said that Apple never listens to market forces. You're just making it up -- just like Google, in this business -- as you go along.....

With multiple people in this thread implying that apple is always the innovating the market and never the one changing to the market. I'd say my point is justified.

All companies adapt to the strategies and moves of their competitors. That's what I'm saying.
post #63 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What tax and business advantages? How would it be any different from a US company buying a Canadian company (or vice versa)?

Transaction cost obviously. We're talking about $900 mil here.
post #64 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

And again, you make wild claims while providing no evidence. Why is it that you bother replying again?

Mostly just to call you out as an astroturfer, which in itself is a deceitful, dishonest activity on the part of both the company and the individual engaged in it.

Wild claims? Think Google isn't an outlaw company? Then explain to us why they are engaged in wholesale lawbreaking in the illegal Google Books Program, and why, even after it's been established that their behavior is illegal, and even after they tried to essentially bribe their way out of it, ineffectually, they continue to constantly commit illegal acts because they believe they can simply strongarm authors and buy their way out of trouble for a few pieces of silver.

If open is so good, what's up with Honeycomb? Google's in violation of the GPL and talking out of both sides of their mouth. And while we're on the subject, Google provides all sorts of software to people that's based on GPL code but never provides us with the source code as required by the licenses. This is a company we should trust? This is a company whose very basis is deceit.

Google is a company that will do whatever it wants because it believes itself above the law. Sometimes I think the people inside Google believe they are actually following the "Do no evil" propaganda. They are Google, they do no evil, so, if Google does it, it isn't evil.
post #65 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

All companies adapt to the strategies and moves of their competitors. That's what I'm saying.

Now you aren't even being honest about what you're saying. What you said was that Google was different, that we should just trust them, that they would use these patents for good, not evil. Now you are saying that they would do whatever any other company would with these patents, that the patents are no better off being owned by Google than any other company. You contradict yourself

Seems you are weaving your own web of lies and deceit.
post #66 of 120
anonymouse, you might get some insight from a read thru this:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=122355
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #67 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

With multiple people in this thread implying that apple is always the innovating the market and never the one changing to the market. I'd say my point is justified.

Who said that Apple is ALWAY the innovator and never changed to adopt market standards?

You know you've lost when you have to make up silly straw man arguments. Or, at least, an intelligent person would realize that.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #68 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

No, it's actually not a "Very specific action" They're claiming the entire process of unlocking the touch screen by interacting with the touch screen, save for a simple tap, or using a password (both listed as references)

This is the patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=7,657,849


It's Not just for the "Slide to unlock" option. Apple left the wording vague enough to cover all methods of touch screen unlock, and they named several phones in the lawsuit that used different methods of unlock. And even if it was a "specific" method they were suing for, then the only phones they could name in the lawsuit would be (possibly) those built using AOSP Android 2.0 or higher. Which they didn't.

First, you really shouldn't be commenting on patents if you don't understand how they're written.

The 'general' stuff you're talking about is mostly in the prior art - which Apple is required to provide. The part that Apple can enforce is only in the claims. The independent claims related to 'swipe to open' are #1, 6, 8, and 11 (the rest are for the device itself).

Feel free to show any phones which used a swipe to open that falls under those claims before Apple applied for the patent.

As for the rest, timing is a problem. If the lawsuit was prepared before Android 2.0 came out, then they could hardly use Android 2.0 phones as an example, right? They would have plenty of time to introduce them into evidence later.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #69 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by fila97 View Post

Transaction cost obviously. We're talking about $900 mil here.

What transaction cost? There's nothing 'obvious' about the difference that will have to be incurred by a US buyer vs a Canadian buyer of a Canadian company.

Btw, taxes are not the same as transaction costs. So I still don't understand what you meant there.
post #70 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

With multiple people in this thread implying that apple is always the innovating the market and never the one changing to the market. I'd say my point is justified.

All companies adapt to the strategies and moves of their competitors. That's what I'm saying.

There are times that Apple innovates, and there are times it follows.

Any reasonable person would have to admit, however, that in the past decade, the balance has quite distinctly shifted in favor of the former. That's the main sentiment I see expressed on this board.

I think Google did have some fabulous innovations in the past, but can you point to one home-grown idea that has become a revenue or profit blockbuster for the company lately?
post #71 of 120
http://www.pcworld.com/article/20933...s_of_2010.html

And don't ignore Google Labs. http://www.networkworld.com/communit...ts-google-labs

Google has a business plan that's much harder to understand than Apple's. You can hold an iPad in your hand. Google eschews physical products for virtual. They're making crazy profits by doing things that, on the surface, may not make sense to most of us.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20933...s_of_2010.html

And don't ignore Google Labs. http://www.networkworld.com/communit...ts-google-labs

Google has a business plan that's much harder to understand than Apple's. You can hold an iPad in your hand. Google eschews physical products for virtual. They're making crazy profits by doing things that, on the surface, may not make sense to most of us.

These are things that may or may not pan out. Every company does these types of things, but stays quiet about them.

None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google. The unfortunate truth is, 97% of its revenue comes from advertising (refer to latest quarterly report), and this is an unfortunate trap that Google does not know how to get out of. At this point, and at risk of exaggeration, their strategy reeks of desperation.
post #73 of 120
I'm surprised you presume to know how much revenue Google makes from each of it's innovations and products. Claiming "None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google." sounds like you're stating a fact based on some source. Unless you can offer one, should we assume it's just your opinion?

And what's "unfortunate" about 80% gross profit and 30%+ net. Over $2 billion in profit just this past quarter. I wish I was so unfortunate.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 120
What should worry RIM (but so far doesn't appear to) is the many surveys of Blackberry owners who want to jump ship to the iPhone or Android. THAT is their biggest problem and they are dropping the ball. I don't dislike RIM at all, their headquarters is just down the highway form me and they employ my nephew. I just think that they're focussing in the wrong area.

The Playbook might sell okay with some of the Blackberry faithful, but I don't see it as being huge hit for them, I just don't. I certainly don't see it attracting people away from iOS devices or Android. I think the sleeper here might be HP. Palm was doing some pretty good work when they were scooped up by HP and they've been pretty quite lately.
post #75 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sure - just as Google was all in favor of Open software - until it suited their purposes to act otherwise.

And just as Google is in favor of intellectual property rights - until it suits their purposes to act as if copyrights don't exist.

It will be fascinating to see if the Google culture / mindset changes post Eric.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #76 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20933...s_of_2010.html

And don't ignore Google Labs. http://www.networkworld.com/communit...ts-google-labs

Google has a business plan that's much harder to understand than Apple's. You can hold an iPad in your hand. Google eschews physical products for virtual. They're making crazy profits by doing things that, on the surface, may not make sense to most of us.

True enough. Talking of that, I'd like to be able to opt out if I wish. a plug in from the ClicktoFlash folks called ClicktoGoogle. I know there are many plug ins but nothing quite so simplistic yet powerful.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #77 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm surprised you presume to know how much revenue Google makes from each of it's innovations and products. Claiming "None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google." sounds like you're stating a fact based on some source. Unless you can offer one, should we assume it's just your opinion?

And what's "unfortunate" about 80% gross profit and 30%+ net. Over $2 billion in profit just this past quarter. I wish I was so unfortunate.

I told you: (i) that 97% of their revenue is from advertising; (ii) exactly where I got that information.

But since you appear to have had trouble figuring that out, here you go: http://investor.google.com/earnings/..._earnings.html Look at the last two tables, all the way at the bottom of the page.
post #78 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I told you: (i) that 97% of their revenue is from advertising; (ii) exactly where I got that information.

But since you appear to have had trouble figuring that out, here you go: http://investor.google.com/earnings/..._earnings.html Look at the last two tables, all the way at the bottom of the page.

Wrong answer.

Let me ask a few different questions. What $ value would you put on Facetime? How about Garage Band? What portion of Apple's revenue can be attributed to those applications? Does anyone buy an iPad because of those? If so, what percentage? For that matter, what would Apple's revenue from iPhones and iPad's be without an AppStore? If you can answer those questions, then you might be able to understand the answer to what value Google's innovations have for Google's bottom line.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #79 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Wrong answer.

Let me ask a few different questions. What $ value would you put on Facetime? How about Garage Band? What portion of Apple's revenue can be attributed to those applications? Does anyone buy an iPad because of those? If so, what percentage? For that matter, what would Apple's revenue from iPhones and iPad's be without an AppStore? If you can answer those questions, then you might be able to understand the answer to what value Google's innovations have for Google's bottom line.

Lol. Wrong analysis on your part, with a silly comparison of a company that gets pretty much all its revenues from selling its own stuff, versus one that gets its revenue from eyeballs that it (hopefully) directs to other people's sites so they can (hopefully) sell more of their stuff.

Google has three main ad-placement products --search, YouTube and Gmail -- for own revenue (about two-thirds), and gets an additional one-third from third-party sites. If you are convinced that some 'super cool' Googe labs experiments (most of which are pr, and don't necessarily pan out: case in point, Google TV) like Google Body and Google Self-Driving car are comparable to iTunes, iLife, and the App Store in terms of the ecosystem it creates for Apple's hardware sales, I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Incidentally, here's Google's biggest nightmare, and one for which they have no answer despite repeated tries (hence their panic): ad dollars migrating en masse to Facebook, Twitter et. al.

How about you give me an example one Google Labs product that will help solve this problem for them?
post #80 of 120
Apple should let RIM buy the Nortel patents for 900+ million, then Apple can buy RIM and it's patents for 600 million in about 2 years.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • RIM may top Google's $900M bid for Nortel patent 'treasure trove,' sources say
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM may top Google's $900M bid for Nortel patent 'treasure trove,' sources say