or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google plotted to give Motorola early advantage over other Android licensees
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google plotted to give Motorola early advantage over other Android licensees - Page 2

post #41 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

What's with the 'tude, dude? I was simply offering a reason stated by a writer. I didn't say it was right. In fact, my "um" was actually me questioning whether or not that was such a great prize. Take a Valium.

As an old fart, I don't really like the word "dude"...

But, here, it fits... Carry on bruh!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #42 of 139
Owning the Ecosystem is a direct result of Chairman Schmidt sitting in on Apple Board meetings.

That's a complete verbatim copy of Apple's strategy. I got a kick out of the internal ``app store'' reference.
post #43 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Actually, these latest revelations could work to Google's advantage.

It may raise antitrust issues that prevent the Google/MMI merger...

It may be that Google can, thus, abandon its ill-conceived $12 Billion purchase without having to pay the $3.5 Billion guarantee it gave MMI.

...We really, really, wanted to buy you -- but they just wouldn't let us...

It will be interesting to see if the market reacts -- MMI has been hovering near the Google Offering price during a week or so of down tech stocks.

First, it has not been established that the $12 B purchase is a bad move. Aside from the billions of dollars in tax savings from the deal, Google can sell of a number of divisions that it doesn't want and use others to feed its voracious appetite for consumers' personal information. When the dust settles, this could actually end up as a good deal for Google (I'm not saying that it will, but that the outcome is not clear at this point).

Second, unless you've seen the terms of the agreement, you don't know that a DOJ objection would save Google the breakup fee. These fees are sometimes set to take effect when the deal doesn't go through for ANY reason.
"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 #44 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post

So Google has been lying all along?

Such poor behavior for a once admired Google.

Not really, as mentioned by the guy above your post, google has always had a favorite developer for each major release of android. Its always been either moto or htc or samsung. I dunno, this is not that revolutionary, since it does not concern the future of moto, only the past. There is no need for google to piss off partners like samsung and htc when they are happily at work increwasing googles advertising empire.

I think moto will be a volume low end manufacturer if anything, to free up the koreans and taiwanese to focus on high end.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #45 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hard to say. As I first said, whether I agreed with him or not didn't matter, I felt he was an unbiased source and one that I could trust to report the facts as they were, good or bad, for Google or Apple or anyone else. The tone of some of his recent blogs has changed my opinion.

Well, he gets paid to have opinions, not be an unbiased journalist. His opinions and the tenor of his articles has pretty much mirrored the released series of court documents he reviews as part of his paid job. He gets paid to be an investment advisor with a specialty in IP issues. If he isn't very good at it he doesn't get clients, or even calls from significant potential clients. As more info becomes concrete via published evidence and court filings, that eliminates much of the early "it could go either way depending on..." and replaces it with a reasonable set of facts and other information that can support a reasoned opinion.

So if you don't like the opinion he has come to after looking much of the source documents for months, you don't have to like him. But it takes quite the blinders to not see that Google's case is turning into a real biotch to get away from without losing their asses.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #46 of 139
When this story broke, I knew there would be a stupid post like this up on AI before too long. Can't let the facts get in the way of a good flame fest, right Daniel?

1-Google developing android in private is NOT new. This is how it's always been done and they've NEVER tried hiding this fact. They broke tradition with Honeycomb, but AI has no basis for commenting on that.

2-The Verizon/Google deal was USING THE EXAMPLE OF THE DROID/XOOM. These companies had early access to code because they were building flagship devices. You know, like HTC had with 2.1 for the Nexus one and Samsung had for 2.3 and the Nexus S. Again, not new, revolutionary or controversial.

For how much this site loves to talk about Android, maybe they should spend some time educating their writers ABOUT android so they can avoid making horrible miss steps like this in the future. Both of these "shockers" were known from the original G1, reinforced every time they came out with a new OS version.

Further Commentary: http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the...sses-the-mark/

(and I know they're doing this because they want to sell ad space, it's just sad that so many people here are buying into this FUD)
post #47 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Well, he gets paid to have opinions, not be an unbiased journalist. His opinions and the tenor of his articles has pretty much mirrored the released series of court documents he reviews as part of his paid job. He gets paid to be an investment advisor with a specialty in IP issues. If he isn't very good at it he doesn't get clients, or even calls from significant potential clients. As more info becomes concrete via published evidence and court filings, that eliminates much of the early "it could go either way depending on..." and replaces it with a reasonable set of facts and other information that can support a reasoned opinion.

So if you don't like the opinion he has come to after looking much of the source documents for months, you don't have to like him. But it takes quite the blinders to not see that Google's case is turning into a real biotch to get away from without losing their asses.

Because it's not turning into that? Big company lawsuits NEVER turn into that. Furthermore, Florian has a tendency to ignore any judgements that get passed down that go against oracle. (for a list of those, check out Groklaw)

and Florian get's paid because he's a windbag and will never miss a moment to talk about something. He's also taking the populist position of bashing the "big guy" and choosing which judgement's he covers to paint them in a worst light possible. In short, he gets paid to paint a narrative, not to analyze the data. If he DID look at the data, he'd know that second comment was about FLAGSHIPS, which is obvious from the writing.
post #48 of 139
Google is giving preferential treatment. If they dont offer the same access, within the same requirements to all customers, that is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.

Offering preference to one vendor, even a subsidiary that they buy, over it's competitors is monopolistic and, thus, illegal if Google does that.
post #49 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

I get the impression he is calling them like he sees them. When a hundred mile an hour fastball comes directly in the strike zone an unbiased umpire might well say "STRIIIIIIKE" instead of "strike". The various emails that have been uncovered in court being the fastball.

It's on a fastball if it's unexpected. these "shockers" are things known since the G1. He called them a SHOCKER to make sure more people quoted him because they're too lazy to look it up themselves.
post #50 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

Google is giving preferential treatment. That is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.

1) It's not illegal

2) All android OEM's already know about this, and HAVE known about this since (most likely) before they even signed up to MAKE android devices.
post #51 of 139
reality can not be bias
post #52 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by blursd View Post

I'm confused ... what are you referencing? I don't see the word Shepherd anywhere in the article, nor in any of the comments.

"Sheppard" can be a correct spelling if it's referring to a name. If you're talking about the dog breed(s) or the profession then it is spelled "Shepherd," but I don't know it makes you a genius for pointing it out. All it really does is make you come off as a dick ... like you've never made a spelling or grammar mistake in your life.

agreed
post #53 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

Google is giving preferential treatment. If they dont offer the same access, within the same requirements to all customers, that is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.

Offering preference to one vendor, even a subsidiary that they buy, over it's competitors is monopolistic and, thus, illegal if Google does that.

You're not getting it.

Google chooses "Flagship" devices to showcase the new version and android. Since they DO NOT make devices on their own, this means working with one of the manufacturers to develop a new device that shows off all the new software features with appropriate hardware. These manufacturers are selected using a bidding process that they ALL have the option to participate in.

Once a manufacturer is selected, they work with Google to build the device, necessitating that they have access to the code before it's posted publicly because they're also the error testers for it. With the exception of honeycomb, every other version of code was released publicly (called AOSP) typically within a weak of the device announcement.

Here's a brief example:
Android 1.5/1.6=G1 by HTC
Android 2.0 = Droid by Motorola
Android 2.1/2.2= Nexus One by HTC
Android 2.3= Nexus S by Samsung
Android 3.0= Xoom by Motorola
Android 4.0= ?


It should be worth noting that beyond that SINGLE lead device, it doesn't seem that this "early access" helps a manufacturer update existing devices (or new ones) any faster. IN fact, with 2.2, some of the First phones to launch with it (Froyo) were from LG, a company that has yet to GET a "flagship" device. Motorola devices were some of the first to get upgraded to 2.2 even though it was an HTC device (nexus one) that showed it off. With Gingerbread everyone is struggling to update devices, samsung most of all, even though they had the software FIRST.

With Honeycomb, the only "unreleased" version, the update path gets even murkier. Even though the Xoom is the flagship, it's only the verizon version that seems to have an advantage with the updates. The Asus Transformer seems to get updates a lot faster than the wifi xoom.

Again, this is NOTHING NEW. FOSS patents knew this, but he also knew that making it seem like it was something he "discovered" would mean more people writing about him, and that people like DED were looking for ANYTHING to put Google in a negative light so they wouldn't question it. (note his Title choice for this article)
post #54 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

it's fascinating to watch the twisted rationalizations of the Fandroids to this smoking gun power point slide.

What smoking gun? That Google is going to give preferential treatment to companies that don't screw with Android to the point of basically turning it into a different OS? To keep it from the fragmentation that could destroy Android? Certainly a smoking gun

Seriously, what about all the twisted interpretation coming from Apple zealots like Dilger? I mean even the article's title is such BS hyperbole. "Google plotted..." ??? Um, even a casual reader would easily understand that Motorola was just being used as an example.

P.S., before you try to disparage me by calling me a fandroid, I don't own an Android device or an iOS device for that matter. I just have a brain and the ability to use it.
post #55 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

WTF.

This is the kind of article that spawns a lot of "AI has sure gone downhill since..." sentiments. "FOSS Patents" did an excellent job explaining what's troubling about these documents. Then Dilger turns around and does this hatchet job.

Please, in the RSS feed, would you guys start listing the author? Many of the AI writers are quite good. Others, I'd like to skip.



Jog on then, because I quite like it.
post #56 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Further Commentary: http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the...sses-the-mark/

The comments following the TechCrunch article are particularly informative. An excellent explanation is made concerning the "9 lines of code" allegedly copied.

Thanks!
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Beige View Post

So Google has been lying all along?

Such poor behavior for a once admired Google.

Google was telling the truth! Buying Motorola Mobility won't change how they treat other hardware makers since they're already screwing them!
post #58 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

\. . . big type again. . .

Type envy ?? ...
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #59 of 139
Whether the author of this article can be perceived has slanting the article and having pro-Apple agenda is up to the reader, but is there much wrong with that kind of action from a site called APPLEinsider? I mean really....
post #60 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corporate View Post

Whether the author of this article can be perceived has slanting the article and having pro-Apple agenda is up to the reader, but is there much wrong with that kind of action from a site called APPLEinsider? I mean really....

Actually yes. Because you'd think a site called "AppleInsider" would write about Apple and if they wrote about something NOT apple, they would actually spend some time getting to know the subject matter before editorializing it.

And having a title that starts with "Google Plotted" leaves NOTHING up to the reader.
post #61 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

What smoking gun? That Google is going to give preferential treatment to companies that don't screw with Android to the point of basically turning it into a different OS? To keep it from the fragmentation that could destroy Android? Certainly a smoking gun

Seriously, what about all the twisted interpretation coming from Apple zealots like Dilger? I mean even the article's title is such BS hyperbole. "Google plotted..." ??? Um, even a casual reader would easily understand that Motorola was just being used as an example.

P.S., before you try to disparage me by calling me a fandroid, I don't own an Android device or an iOS device for that matter. I just have a brain and the ability to use it.

ok, you're not a fandroid. but you are a sucker. "open" doesn't really mean "open." it means "open" only when Google is in control. and the "open handset alliance" isn't a level playing field. it's tilted toward/away whoever Googles decides to play favorites with - or punish - to its own advantage. except from now on, of course, it just means Motorola.

pul-leeze. go jump in that boat.
post #62 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

ok, you're not a fandroid. but you are a sucker. "open" doesn't really mean "open." it means "open" only when Google is in control. and the "open handset alliance" isn't a level playing field. it's tilted toward/away whoever Googles decides to play favorites with - or punish - to its own advantage. except from now on, of course, it just means Motorola.

pul-leeze. go jump in that boat.

It doesn't just mean motorola. Not only does this go against history and Google's stated intentions but it would COMPLETELY ruin their business model. The goal of android is to get Google services infront of as many eyeballs as possible. Closing android would not only REDUCE eyeballs but would give a HUGE boost to Bing.

The "Flagship" device manufacturer is deciding via a bidding process that the manufacturers participate in.
post #63 of 139
It appears that those who is trying (desperately) to defend Googles obvious evil-ish tactics here also resorts to old dirty tricks.

Most of them are attacking Florian Mueller. Please guys, he is just a messenger. Attack what he says here, not him. If his logic is flawed, point them out. Like it or not, he has a reputation and well respected in mainstream media as well. It will not do any good to say he is not a lawyer when some other guy is. Not having a law degree doesn't discredit well thought out logic which makes sense. Not that Mueller logic always makes sense, but he is more logical than most others.

Secondly, many are claiming that this is common knowledge or nothing new. Please, go back and re-read the comments when most people pointed out that the Google -Motorola deal will put other Android makers in a delicate situation. No, this memo is not about Nexus, Xoom only. It discusses how Google will benefit if they gave Android away. It is general policies. No, in a sense you are right. Now Google will have Nexus every 3 months with Moto having access to the early preview in the new features of Android. Does that help other Android makers?

Thirdly, Apple is closed and that is their policy. Apple never claims that they are open. They never claimed to be open but in reality doing the exact opposite. More importantly, Apple do not gave/license the OS to other hardware manufacturers. So there is no question of preferential treatment to it's partners.

Being "Closed" proves to be better more often than not. Being Open doesn't automatically makes it better. For example, the "Open Office" is trailing the closed "MS Office" in all aspects.
post #64 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsun Zu View Post

It appears that those who is trying (desperately) to defend Googles obvious evil-ish tactics here also resorts to old dirty tricks.

Most of them are attacking Florian Mueller. Please guys, he is just a messenger. Attack what he says here, not him. If his logic is flawed, point them out. Like it or not, he has a reputation and well respected in mainstream media as well. It will not do any good to say he is not a lawyer when some other guy is. Not having a law degree doesn't discredit well thought out logic which makes sense. Not that Mueller logic always makes sense, but he is more logical than most others.

I did point out the flaws. Several times with several examples. But there is NO WAY he could not know this because of how long he's covered this debacle. THAT'S why people are attacking him. Along with his SEO Optimized headline, it's clear he crafted this as FUD to increase pageviews.

Don't tell me I didn't address the logic when I clearly did. If you didn't see my post when you made yours, then next time read the comments before critiquing them.

Quote:
Secondly, many are claiming that this is common knowledge or nothing new. Please, go back and re-read the comments when most people pointed out that the Google -Motorola deal will put other Android makers in a delicate situation. No, this memo is not about Nexus, Xoom only. It discusses how Google will benefit if they gave Android away. It is general policies. No, in a sense you are right. Now Google will have Nexus every 3 months with Moto having access to the early preview in the new features of Android. Does that help other Android makers?

You have nothing to back up those assertions and furthermore they undermine google's ENTIRE revenue model. Google switching Android to closed source model makes NO sense, gives an INSANE advantage to a direct competitor all for a highly unlikely to succeed assumption that they can magically build a brand and ecosystem to compete with apple just by making the phones on their own. NO ONE who looks at Google's financials would ever seriously consider this option

The fact that so many people were "Tossing" it around just proves how little people actually thing about stuff before they publish it.

Google switching to an "exclusive" model makes about as much sense as Verizon getting out of telecommunications and becoming a hardware/software manufacturer. Google will NOT close android off to just motorola. This goes against the REASON Android exists, as well as the profitability of the platform.

Quote:
Thirdly, Apple is closed and that is their policy. Apple never claims that they are open. They never claimed to be open but in reality doing the exact opposite. More importantly, Apple do not gave/license the OS to other hardware manufacturers. So there is no question of preferential treatment to it's partners.

Being "Closed" proves to be better more often than not. Being Open doesn't automatically makes it better. For example, the "Open Office" is trailing the closed "MS Office" in all aspects.

Nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Irrelevant.
post #65 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

It doesn't just mean motorola. Not only does this go against history and Google's stated intentions but it would COMPLETELY ruin their business model. The goal of android is to get Google services infront of as many eyeballs as possible. Closing android would not only REDUCE eyeballs but would give a HUGE boost to Bing.

The "Flagship" device manufacturer is deciding via a bidding process that the manufacturers participate in.

How do you know that is Google's intent? mind-reading? what we do know - in their own words from the court docs - is: "lead device concept: Give early access to the software to partners who build and distribute devices to our specification (ie, Motorola and Verizon). They get a non-contractual time to market advantage and in return they align to our standard." do you know the meaning of "ie."? it means "that is, Motorola and Verizon." literally. and this is before Google OWNS Motorola.

and how would selling the first-use advantage of introducing new versions of Android to the highest bidder possibly be the same as "open"? i guess in the way any auction is open to whoever will pay the most going home with the goods.

i'm sorry, but you guys remind me of the people who defended Nixon to the bitter end no matter how the evidence of his Watergate guilt kept piling up.
post #66 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

How do you know that is Google's intent? mind-reading? what we do know - in their own words from the court docs - is: "lead device concept: Give early access to the software to partners who build and distribute devices to our specification (ie, Motorola and Verizon). They get a non-contractual time to market advantage and in return they align to our standard." do you know the meaning of "ie."? it means "that is, Motorola and Verizon." literally. and this is before Google OWNS Motorola.

and how would selling the first-use advantage of introducing new versions of Android to the highest bidder possibly be the same as "open"? i guess in the way any auction is open to whoever will pay the most going home with the goods.

i'm sorry, but you guys remind me of the people who defended Nixon to the bitter end no matter how the evidence of his Watergate guilt kept piling up.

Because HTC and Samsung BOTH also had "pre-release" access to android OS versions.

I don't have to read their mind, all that's required is that you're not BLIND.

Furthermore, over 90% of Googles Revenue (and all their real profit) comes from Ads. This means they need eyeballs. Closing off Android would mean HTC and Samsung would use WP7 which not only REDUCES eyeballs but makes their competitors a lot stronger. They've stated for YEARS that the future is mobile, so doing something that only STRENGTHENS your direct competitor while pissing off former allies makes no sense.

EDIT: I know what ie means, I also know that it is COMMONLY used instead of saying "for example" or "EG" . I'm aware this is the improper use of IE but that doesn't stop people from doing it. Google is a company of engineer's not Latin majors. If they meant the LITERAL use of IE, then the Nexus One, Nexus S and HTC G1 would ALL need to be Motorola devices that were released on Verizon. Furthermore, Verizon Motorola phones are generally updated NO faster than other manufacturers and NONE of them are updated before the code goes AOSP, or even anywhere close.

And not ONCE did I mention Open in this discussion. But if you want to go that route, there is more than one argument for "open" and what it means in the context of Android. I'm not discussing that here since it's pointless to do so on AI.
post #67 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Um, even a casual reader would easily understand that Motorola was just being used as an example.

Do you believe, Google will give Samsung (or anybody else) the early access that they will be giving Motorola now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

What smoking gun? That Google is going to give preferential treatment to companies that don't screw with Android to the point of basically turning it into a different OS?

Read these two links (Rubins Tweet from Androidme, and AllThingsDs explanation) which explains how Android works. It is consistent with the Google Document posted in the article. It says that Google will make source code available after innovation/finalization is completed. Companies are free to do things after this point. What will be considered "screwing with Android" and what will not is sole discretion Google and this is the dangerous part. Can you show me the "Standards" Google is talking about here? So, how do you know that Google will decide that you screwed their "open" OS when you feel you did not. How do you defend yourself from Google's wrath. It is not happening today, but with the Motorola deal is a very probable thing.
post #68 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsun Zu View Post

Do you believe, Google will give Samsung (or anybody else) the early access that they will be giving Motorola now?

Yes. Because it is in their best interest FINANCIALLY to do so (or at least for there to be the potential to do so. Samsung still needs to win the bid). Giving early access to Motorola only HARMS google.

Quote:
Read these two links (Rubins Tweet from Androidme, and AllThingsDs explanation) which explains how Android works. It is consistent with the Google Document posted in the article. It says that Google will make source code available after innovation/finalization is completed. Companies are free to do things after this point. What will be considered "screwing with Android" and what will not is sole discretion Google and this is the dangerous part. Can you show me the "Standards" Google is talking about here? So, how do you know that Google will decide that you screwed their "open" OS when you feel you did not. How do you defend yourself from Google's wrath. It is not happening today, but with the Motorola deal is a very probable thing.

The "standards" were outlined earlier. If you were following the case you'd be familiar with them. If you're not. might I suggest a search engine of your choice. What companies decide to do with Android after it goes AOSP is their business, as Google has CLEARLY stated. The only control Google has is over Gapps/Market access and that "featured" product line.
post #69 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsun Zu View Post

What will be considered "screwing with Android" and what will not is sole discretion Google and this is the dangerous part. Can you show me the "Standards" Google is talking about here?

http://static.googleusercontent.com/...-2.3.3-cdd.pdf

Don't meet those requirements? Your Android version will be struck down.

Some more info: http://source.android.com/compatibility/cts-intro.html
http://source.android.com/compatibil...velopment.html
post #70 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Because HTC and Samsung BOTH also had "pre-release" access to android OS versions.

The word to watch here is "Had". It is Past Tense and we are talking about Future Tense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Furthermore, over 90% of Googles Revenue (and all their real profit) comes from Ads.

Does it occur to you that Google may be trying to have some more revenue streams. For a very long time, Google is relying on a single revenue stream and that can be dangerous. You need to diversify your business to reduce risk. That's basic business sense.

[/QUOTE]And not ONCE did I mention Open.[/QUOTE]

And nowhere I mentioned you. The points I mentioned about Open vs Close is because some people was trying to justify Google's actions because they are "Open". I merely pointed out that.
post #71 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsun Zu View Post

The word to watch here is "Had". It is Past Tense and we are talking about Future Tense.

No, you're insinuating something and providing ZERO evidence for justifying that POV when ALL company statements, and financial data contradicts it.

Why would google DESTROY their current income stream, piss off current partners and send them all over to their DIRECT competitor just to make a grab at a totally unknown market (for them)

Quote:

Does it occur to you that Google may be trying to have some more revenue streams. For a very long time, Google is relying on a single revenue stream and that can be dangerous. You need to diversify your business to reduce risk. That's basic business sense.

Diversifying IS a good thing, which they can do with Motorola WITHOUT closing it off or giving it special status.

But you DON'T take your VERY profitable business model and crap all over it to try and create a new business model in a field where you have NO experience. This is also basic business sense.

ALL Google needs to do to differentiate their Motorola phones from others is the following:
-Keep them Stock (at least flagship devices) and fight against bloat.
-Aggressively update them.

They can do BOTH even if the Motorola team NEVER gets access to a flagship device and Google intentionally limits Motorola's access to ONLY when they get it AOSP. Just looking at version upgrade paths for manufacturers would show you that.

In fact, that COULD be a reason Google bought motorola. By having a line where people knew the team kept it upgraded, it pressures other manufacturers to treat upgrades seriously (they currently don't, but they're learning) Again. ALL of this could be done by Motorola BEFORE the buyout, and Google could do it ALL even if they make Motorola the "black sheep" to keep others from complaining.

Quote:

And nowhere I mentioned you. The points I mentioned about Open vs Close is because some people was trying to justify Google's actions because they are "Open". I merely pointed out that.

People weren't using the open justification here for their flagship design. In fact, the people talking about "open" the most were people using it AGAINST Google.
post #72 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Because HTC and Samsung BOTH also had "pre-release" access to android OS versions.

I don't have to read their mind, all that's required is that you're not BLIND.

Furthermore, over 90% of Googles Revenue (and all their real profit) comes from Ads. This means they need eyeballs. Closing off Android would mean HTC and Samsung would use WP7 which not only REDUCES eyeballs but makes their competitors a lot stronger. They've stated for YEARS that the future is mobile, so doing something that only STRENGTHENS your direct competitor while pissing off former allies makes no sense.

EDIT: I know what ie means, I also know that it is COMMONLY used instead of saying "for example" or "EG" . I'm aware this is the improper use of IE but that doesn't stop people from doing it. Google is a company of engineer's not Latin majors. If they meant the LITERAL use of IE, then the Nexus One, Nexus S and HTC G1 would ALL need to be Motorola devices that were released on Verizon. Furthermore, Verizon Motorola phones are generally updated NO faster than other manufacturers and NONE of them are updated before the code goes AOSP, or even anywhere close.

And not ONCE did I mention Open in this discussion. But if you want to go that route, there is more than one argument for "open" and what it means in the context of Android. I'm not discussing that here since it's pointless to do so on AI.

so your defense is, at that moment in time when this slide was created, "IE" either:

- was a typo/sloppy writing, because those managers who approved it were engineers who can't speak Latin (ok, you really mean, are sloppy writers despite their pay grade and responsibilities - don't ask them to read a contract!),

- or meant whoever was offering the most to Google at that moment - and since that can change, from time to time, it's as good as "open"? even once Google will OWN Motorola.

the reason that slide is so damning is because it was strictly for internal consumption. Google never imagined it would become public somehow. so i realize they said EXACTLY what they really think - now and then. you don't. i have an internal memo to cite, you have PR.

the rest of your point is your projection of how Google should think if they are smart. well, i would agree that would be smart from one point of view - until they doubled-down on hardware sales by buying Motorola "for the patents." yeah sure, $12 billion for a modest group of patents. forget the smartphone revenues! don't need 'em!

for your projection to prove true, Google will have to treat their own subsidiary Motorola just as bad as they treat every other OEM - sometimes, freeze them out of the latest software for a while. sorry, but if Moto is in the red some quarter - and they have been recently - that just ain't gonna happen. like they said in the Godfather, "it's business." or even more apt, "it's family" too.
post #73 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

http://static.googleusercontent.com/...-2.3.3-cdd.pdf

Don't meet those requirements? Your Android version will be struck down.

Some more info: http://source.android.com/compatibility/cts-intro.html
http://source.android.com/compatibil...velopment.html

Thanks for the link. Good thing. I should have done the searching myself.

Unfortunately, this is not going to solve the problem. It is one thing to be not being able to enter a party and a completely different thing to be treated a 2nd class citizen. The problem here is that meeting the requirements here will not automatically ensure the preferential treatment we are talking. Google may or may not abuse this, but the option is there.

Let's hope Google respects its supporters and fans and refrain from doing something stupid. And they should not have this kind of vague policy which only hurts them.
post #74 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

so your defense is, at that moment in time when this slide was created, "IE" either:

- was a typo/sloppy writing, because those managers who approved it were engineers who can't speak Latin (ok, you really mean, are sloppy writers despite their pay grade and responsibilities - don't ask them to read a contract!),

- or meant whoever was offering the most to Google at that moment - and since that can change, from time to time, it's as good as "open"? even once Google will OWN Motorola.

the reason that slide is so damning is because it was strictly for internal consumption. Google never imagined it would become public somehow. so i realize they said EXACTLY what they really think - now and then. you don't. i have an internal memo to cite, you have PR.

the rest of your point is your projection of how Google should think if they are smart. well, i would agree that would be smart from one point of view - until they doubled-down on hardware sales by buying Motorola "for the patents." yeah sure, $12 billion for a modest group of patents. forget the smartphone revenues! don't need 'em!

for your projection to prove true, Google will have to treat their own subsidiary Motorola just as bad as they treat every other OEM - sometimes, freeze them out of the latest software for a while. sorry, but if Moto is in the red some quarter - and they have been recently - that just ain't gonna happen. like they said in the Godfather, "it's business." or even more apt, "it's family" too.

No, my defense is that IE is COMMONLY used to mean EG and how the ENTIRETY of the Android OS Version history backs up evidence that they were using Verizon/Motorola as an EXAMPLE and not as the "as in" Since it was for INTERNAL consumption, it meant it was made BY engineers FOR engineers. Most of the time spell check is pretty low on the list, especially when you're talking about something that's already a common misconception. I'm not citing PR. I'm citing PRACTICE of the company, and this little thing called "Common Sense." Unless you're telling me you've never misused a word, EVER.

They were also rather clear that they didn't just buy Motorola for the patents. But to know this you'd actually need to get your news from a source that wasn't AI.

And when has Google frozen a specific manufacturer out of an OS version for awhile? EVERY version but HC is AOSP and YOU can download and compile it yourself if you want.

As for Honeycomb, the following companies have it:
Motorola
Samsung
HTC
Asus
Acer
Vizio
Archos
etc.

Doesn't seem like they are limiting access for any manufacturers, it's just no AOSP (which is a problem, but it's most likely a distinction you're incapable of understanding). And stop throwing around Open. I am NOT using that in my argument here. This has nothing to do with open, this has nothing to do with closed. This has to do with people convienently forgetting history to try and justify a phantom point.
post #75 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsun Zu View Post

Thanks for the link. Good thing. I should have done the searching myself.

Unfortunately, this is not going to solve the problem. It is one thing to be not being able to enter a party and a completely different thing to be treated a 2nd class citizen. The problem here is that meeting the requirements here will not automatically ensure the preferential treatment we are talking. Google may or may not abuse this, but the option is there.

Let's hope Google respects its supporters and fans and refrain from doing something stupid. And they should not have this kind of vague policy which only hurts them.

They don't have to respect supporters or fans. They just need to have a desire to make money.

And it's NOT a vague policy. It's just something that's vague to you. HTC, Samsung, etc all know a heck of a lot more than what's posted on a website.
post #76 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

No, you're insinuating something and providing ZERO evidence for justifying that POV when ALL company statements, and financial data contradicts it.

Why would google DESTROY their current income stream, piss off current partners and send them all over to their DIRECT competitor just to make a grab at a totally unknown market (for them)


Diversifying IS a good thing, which they can do with Motorola WITHOUT closing it off or giving it special status.

But you DON'T take your VERY profitable business model and crap all over it to try and create a new business model in a field where you have NO experience. This is also basic business sense.

ALL Google needs to do to differentiate their Motorola phones from others is the following:
-Keep them Stock (at least flagship devices) and fight against bloat.
-Aggressively update them.

They can do BOTH even if the Motorola team NEVER gets access to a flagship device and Google intentionally limits Motorola's access to ONLY when they get it AOSP. Just looking at version upgrade paths for manufacturers would show you that.

In fact, that COULD be a reason Google bought motorola. By having a line where people knew the team kept it upgraded, it pressures other manufacturers to treat upgrades seriously (they currently don't, but they're learning) Again. ALL of this could be done by Motorola BEFORE the buyout, and Google could do it ALL even if they make Motorola the "black sheep" to keep others from complaining.



People weren't using the open justification here for their flagship design. In fact, the people talking about "open" the most were people using it AGAINST Google.


I am not insinuating anything. All I am saying is that it is possible to do something wrong with the policy as written in the internal document. There is no question of providing evidence. Google may or may not make the mistake of abusing the policy. Google is not evil but they are no Saint that they can't do any wrong. Your persistent claim that Google will not do anything wrong (or make any mistake) is really funny. Aren't they humans who always makes mistakes? Didn't they failed previously?
post #77 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

No, my defense is that IE is COMMONLY used to mean EG and how the ENTIRETY of the Android OS Version history backs up evidence that they were using Verizon/Motorola as an EXAMPLE and not as the "as in" Since it was for INTERNAL consumption, it meant it was made BY engineers FOR engineers. Most of the time spell check is pretty low on the list, especially when you're talking about something that's already a common misconception. I'm not citing PR. I'm citing PRACTICE of the company, and this little thing called "Common Sense." Unless you're telling me you've never misused a word, EVER.

They were also rather clear that they didn't just buy Motorola for the patents. But to know this you'd actually need to get your news from a source that wasn't AI.

And when has Google frozen a specific manufacturer out of an OS version for awhile? EVERY version but HC is AOSP and YOU can download and compile it yourself if you want.

As for Honeycomb, the following companies have it:
Motorola
Samsung
HTC
Asus
Acer
Vizio
Archos
etc.

Doesn't seem like they are limiting access for any manufacturers, it's just no AOSP (which is a problem, but it's most likely a distinction you're incapable of understanding). And stop throwing around Open. I am NOT using that in my argument here. This has nothing to do with open, this has nothing to do with closed. This has to do with people convienently forgetting history to try and justify a phantom point.

look, i'm sorry, but now you're just making sh*t up to pretend it doesn't mean simply what it says. they're engineers! (like you could possibly know who the authors really were). their English composition skills are poor! (let's stereotype engineers as grammer-challenged). like i said, you remind me of the bitter-end Nixon defenders. as i wrote way back earlier, it will be fun to see the contortions the Google-aid drinkers go through to explain this away. bottom's up! you can have the last word tonight, i'm going to bed.
post #78 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsun Zu View Post

I am not insinuating anything. All I am saying is that it is possible to do something wrong with the policy as written in the internal document. There is no question of providing evidence. Google may or may not make the mistake of abusing the policy. Google is not evil but they are no Saint that they can't do any wrong. Your persistent claim that Google will not do anything wrong (or make any mistake) is really funny. Aren't they humans who always makes mistakes? Didn't they failed previously?

And that internal document is only referencing a policy that is most likely detailed elseware. You don't link back to everything with internal documents. There is an assumption of knowledge.

I'm not saying google is incapable of wrong. I've NEVER put that forward. What I said is that Google didn't get to be one of the most powerful companies in the world today by being stupid. Google can make mistakes, but destroying their (current) ONLY source of revenue, the thing that their ENTIRE ecosystem is based around isn't just making a mistake, that's committing corporate suicide.
post #79 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

look, i'm sorry, but now you're just making sh*t up to pretend it doesn't mean simply what it says. they're engineers! (like you could possibly know who the authors really were). their English composition skills are poor! (let's stereotype engineers as grammer-challenged). like i said, you remind me of the bitter-end Nixon defenders. as i wrote way back earlier, it will be fun to see the contortions the Google-aid drinkers go through to explain this away. bottom's up! you can have the last word tonight, i'm going to bed.

Yes, let's ignore the over FOUR YEARS of device history, upgrade path history, etc. all because of a PAIR of letters in a SINGLE leaked document.

My argument doesn't depend on their grammar skills, or the fact that they are engineers. it depends on that history (which you continue to conveniently forget to address).

oh, and grammer-challenged should be Grammar

See, if you can make a mistake (and you happen to know what IE means) I'm pretty sure others can as well.


HTC had code early
Samsung had code early
ALL of them SUCK at updating their phones and getting the code early seems to have NO bearing on who will update their devices first (past that SINGLE flagship device, a device that, with the exception of the Droid, typically isn't a commercial success)

You're the one making shit up. You're saying that a strict interpretation of the meaning of a pair of words negates over four years of reality, ie verifiable, physical, evidence.
post #80 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm3 View Post

Typical opinionated slanted story from Daniel. How about just the facts without such a pro-Apple agenda?

What do you expect, dm3. It is what it is. An Apple discussion site.

Sheesh, you trolls. But then I have fun posting on Droid sites, too.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google plotted to give Motorola early advantage over other Android licensees
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google plotted to give Motorola early advantage over other Android licensees