Google plotted to give Motorola early advantage over other Android licensees - Page 3

Originally Posted by mhikl

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.

Originally Posted by mhikl

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.

Originally Posted by Bsginc

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.

Originally Posted by Menno

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.

Originally Posted by Menno

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..

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

Originally Posted by jragosta

No, it's not. There is absolutely nothing in the antitrust laws that requires what you're suggesting.



Why would you think that past history (when Google didn't own Motorola) would determine the future (when Google does own Motorola)? Circumstances have changed drastically, so there's no a priori reason to think that the behavior won't change.



No, let's take the history with a grain of salt because Google just spent $12.5 B to become a hardware manufacturer. Those documents merely show that Google is not above playing favorites.

Originally Posted by Alfiejr

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.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Actually, Google's financial statements support what he says. Google has spent at least $20B so far on Android (purchase of Android and Motorola, development costs and legal fees). That cost is only going to get higher since 1) Motorola has been posting losses for a couple of years and those losses are now Google's unless it turns Motorola around (gee, I wonder how it will do that), 2) continued development (I doubt after ICS Google is going to say Android is perfect so we don't need to do more work).

Google now refuses to break out revenue it receives from mobile (much less Android) but the last time anyone from Google made a statement about it, it was $1B in a year. So even if those revenues grow, it will still take about 15 years just to recoup its costs and even that is dependent on Google: 1) stopping the hemorrhage at Motorola and 2) winning or negotiating its current lawsuits.

Originally Posted by Menno

And mobile is continuing to grow. There's this thing called "investing in a new market." look it up sometime.

All you've stated does nothing to counter the fact that Google's primary source of income is ads. and that ANDROID was pushed out to make sure that users would continue using their service. In fact, other court documents (via TIMN) point out that they were concerned with everyone choosing Microsoft OS which would lock them out of the market since those phones would have another search engine (becoming Bing)

Saying "I don't trust reality and I'm going to assume a company will do a full 180 on everything, burning bridges as they go" isn't a valid argument if all you have to back it up is "they wanna be like apple!"

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

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.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

First off, there is no need to be rude to me since I treat everyone on this website with respect.

Secondly, the rate of mobile growth doesn't equate to the same rate of growth in advertising revenue. Its "investing in a new market" is fine until it has over invested which it is beginning to look that is the case. Sure, Google could be like Microsoft when it poured money in the Xbox, but even in that case it is debatable on whether or not Microsoft has recouped its money back AND Microsoft didn't BUY a company with 19,000 workers and revenue losses each and every quarter.

As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?

Originally Posted by Jetz

Apologies. Didn't mean to come off as directed at you. But I really do dislike Florian Mueller. And I really dislike the fact that the media accord him far more credibility than he's due, even though there are far more knowledgeable folks out there.

Originally Posted by Menno

I don't intend to be rude, but it's frustrating saying the same thing dozens of times and to have it ignored.

Microsoft started making a profit on the xbox. And they lost over $100 per device on the xbox (minimum) which is a MUCH higher investment than Google is taking with Android.

No, companies are putting Bing on their devices, you're right. That proves the point of why this entire article is FUD since it is VERIZON (one of the listed parties) putting Bing on there, and there is no way you can call that following Google's wishes with the platform, meaning (as I've been saying)

The point of Android was to keep another company from locking Google out of mobile internet services. Apple is using Google for now, but what happens if Microsoft paid them a ton of money and they switched to Bing? or how blackberry switched to Bing.. Google was at the mercy of these other companies. So they released their own OS with Google a native part of the software. Sure, companies could replace it if they wanted, but it was highly unlikely that ALL of them would do so, which gave Google some breathing room.

Google was ALREADY locked out of china. It was a pretty big deal when it happened. Furthermore when google was IN china in full force, they made little headway against Baidu. If Baidu didn't take android and fork it, they would make their own OS instead. Either way wouldn't benefit Google.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

I work in media and unfortunately the pundit that has the most access gets the most ink (warranted or not). Hopefully when some of these cases wind down, writers will take the time for more in depth articles which usually don't require such tight deadlines.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

I'm not ignoring you. I just have a different opinion (from a business standpoint). I do agree that the article itself is overblown and stating something that was already known. As far as the fear of Apple ditching Google for Bing if handed cash, I seriously doubt it since the whole reason Apple partnered with Google was to take Microsoft down a few pegs. Also, since things are quite contentious now, why hasn't Apple done that now?

Originally Posted by Menno

Because Bing turned out to suck and is highly unpopular with most users. It would take a lot of cash for Apple to switch to bing, or Microsoft spending a lot of time making the search useful (it preferences general information websites when you search for location specific data for example). I don't see either of those happening, at least short term. Microsoft is too busy trying to strong arm manufacturers into picking up WP7 to spend that kind of money to improve the service or pay APPLE.

I'm excited to see what Mango brings, and I REALLY want to try it out, but that doesn't mean it will be a commercial success. If they can't get WP7 to take off soon(ish) we might see that Apple deal.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

See, this is where there is a disconnect. If Bing sucks/Ed so much that Apple wouldn't use them, then why would Google be afraid of being bumped off? So afraid that it had to make its own competing OS. Apple isn't like other handset makers. Microsoft can't bribe them to use its services like it can with HTC and others. That's why I question the type of investments Google is making in this market.

Originally Posted by Menno

Circumstances haven't changed drastically. Insisting that they do and that Google's going to completely change how they make money by first DESTROYING their primary form of revenue before establishing a second doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Sorry, but there's no point in arguing with someone who can sit there with a straight face and claim that nothing is different now that Google spent $12.5 BILLION to buy their own cell phone manufacturer. You are clearly so far out of touch with reality that no amount of discussion is going to bring you into the real world.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?

More broadly speaking, Apple fans always think that Google set out to compete with the iPhone. As a former Symbian user, I disagree. Android has far more similarities to Symbian than it does to iOS. The only reason most Apple fans don't see this, is that so few of them used Symbian before iOS (I'd bet a lot of people went straight from a RAZR to an iPhone). And the goal seems to be to get to where Symbian was in its heydays, when it was more than just an extension of Nokia. If you see where Android is going now, I think that's an accurate portrayal of Andy Rubin's goal.

Originally Posted by Jetz

One thing to keep in mind too, about Florian Mueller, is that the guy refuses to answer if he's being funded by Microsoft or their subsidiaries.

http://techrights.org/2010/08/06/rec...n-groklaw-ibm/

Meanwhile, their critics have certainly answered any questions about their biases:

http://www.zdnet.com/news/letter-to-...nection/134733

And yet the media continues to quote this MS troll.

And he never admits he's wrong. He's now spinning this story as "it's not about the Nexus line" after being called out on his flawed analysis. And he's wrong again. He's failing to acknowledge that the Nexus line specifically gives an OEM the "time-to-market advantage" that he goes on and on about. What does he think made HTC the fifth-largest smartphone OEM in the world? According to Mueller, the G1 and the Nexus One had nothing to do with how fast devices like the HTC Desire came to market.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

I'm an Apple fan and I don't think that. In fact, I agree with Menno that Google launched Android to insure that Google got as many eyeballs as possible in the mobile market. What I disagree with is whether or not its current strategy is wise. As for the 550,000 per day activations, it hasn't helped Google that much as far as revenue is concerned.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

I'm a bit disappointed. Google may have legal problems, perhaps even serious ones, but I can't tell from reading his blog. It doesn't appear I can trust FossPatents for an honest take on them anymore. Maybe I never could, but didn't have eyes open enough to notice.

Originally Posted by Hiro

Wow, another person who doesn't agree with you that you publicly disparage. Maybe where there's smoke and raging flames there's fire? Rather than a conspiracy to create something you personally don't agree with?

Originally Posted by Hiro

Mueller is a free-lance paid consultant, he blogs as a form of advertising his services.

Originally Posted by Hiro

He's not an unbiased journalist or anything of the sort, so quit trying to compare him to one.

Originally Posted by Hiro

He is upfront about his business and why he blogs, and even blogged a couple times about that in the last few weeks. Is it unusual that a consultant does not comment on a client? Not at all, so just make the assumption that one of his clients is MS. If it isn't it is up to him to state otherwise, but it doesn't really change anything either way because you're just creating a red herring argument out of it.

Originally Posted by Hiro

Having read his blog for a little over a year, I find your understanding of his posts which you cite snippets from quite contextually out in left field. Maybe you should read with less axe and grinder? What you are saying he says and what I take from what he writes are definitely of two different universes.

Originally Posted by Menno

1)
Most android sites don't post Apple specific news, or if they do they at least try to read up on the topic to give intelligent commentary.

Originally Posted by Steven N.

GrokLaw does a very good job on contractual law but everyone that writes for them have such a distaste for the concept of Intelectual Property, it is biased the other way.

Originally Posted by Jetz

For sure.

However, they can't beat for proper factual legal analysis. And they are also quite explicit and clear on when they are editorializing and when they are discussing legal arguments and facts.

That's the difference.

Just compare articles on Oracle v. Google at groklaw and fosspatents. And decide for yourself, who's more accurate and reasonable.

Originally Posted by Jetz

I don't think the two facts are mutually exclusive. To me Android is a lot more like Symbian than iOS. To anybody who has used a Symbian phone this is blatantly obvious. Just sheer comfort level makes this point intuitive. A symbian user will feel far more familiar with Android than with iOS.

But I too agree that Google launched Android to make sure that their services retained or acquired as many eyeballs as possible. That's documented in all that's come out during the Oracle suit. They were far more concerned about Microsoft than they were about Apple. Which is why all this hate by Apple fans for Google is nonsensical. It's not like Google has stopped supporting iOS. Some of the best and most popular applications on iOS are made (or provisioned ie maps) by Google. And I've made this viewpoint too, all along.

Google had no choice. They could not leave themselves at the mercy of Apple. Just look at how Apple has acted with some Google apps (Google Voice is a great example). And then there's the fact that Apple's interests simply don't align with Google. Google needs hardware to be as cheap and as widely distributed as possible. Apple on the other hands, wants high profits margins and will occassionally sign carrier exclusives to keep those margins. Neither philosophy is wrong. They are just different models of business, more appropriate to their industry (Google as an advertiser and software provider, and Apple as a hardware OEM.).

Unfortunately for Google however, Apple was not willling to increase marketshare rapidly (ensuring that Google could ride Apple to the top in the mobile internet space). And with Symbian collapsing, and the likelihood of Blackberry following suit (and RIM aligned with MS), and WebOS being another Apple like vertically integrated platform, the platform that was likely to emerge as being the new Symbian would have been Windows Mobile/Phone. People forget how much traction Windows Mobile had not too long ago. And devices like the HTC Touch Diamond were actually reasonably (in non-Apple terms) popular. Google would have been largely locked out of the mobile space if OEMs like HTC, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, etc. had decided to stick to Windows Mobile. In that landscape, backing Android was a really good decision.

As for revenue...we'll never know. Unless Google itself provides data that's broken out. Andy Rubin has said Android breaks even. So be it. The more relevant question to ask is what would have happened to Google if they hadn't launched Android? What would Google have lost, had it not pursued Android and Microsoft had moved in to dominate this space? Android is quite sensible to me, as a defensive play. It's ensured that Google's services (from Search to Maps to email) remain relevant in the mobile space. If they haven't made any money, at the very minimum, they've ensured that they haven't lost many customers to their rivals (Microsoft not Apple) either

Originally Posted by Steven N.

Actually, many do. They also have posters users using terms like iToy, iTards, iCrap and dozen other derogatory terms to refer Apple products and users.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

On an Android enthusiast site? Which one and is there a link to the insulting posts? I've never seen one. I'll be one of the first ones to jump in support of the insulted party. Ad hominums are not only a failure of logic, but of common courtesy and respect.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

I don't think some of the anger is unwarranted. A lot of Android fans called Apple fascists among other things and some fans feel that Google took a lot from Apple for its OS (I'm on the fence on that until these pesky lawsuits have cleared).

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

On an Android enthusiast site? Which one and is there a link to the insulting posts? I've never seen one. I'll be one of the first ones to jump in support of the insulted party. Ad hominums are not only a failure of logic, but of common courtesy and respect.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

The Google Voice app situation happened AFTER relations got sour.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

I don't see any indication that Apple wanted to horn in on Google's business in any way...

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

...and in fact was relying on them to help make a unique customer experience.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Remember that the first iPhone had web apps only for third parties EXCEPT Google.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Apple had a "store" for those web apps, but Google does the web much better than Apple so it could have easily capitalized on this.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

As for gaining marketshare rapidly, just because something is quick doesn't mean it is smart. Because Google apparently wanted the moon at lightspeed, it now has taken on quite a bit of risk with an unclear pay off.

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

Now to address the revenue situation, Andy may have stated that it had broke even in the past but certainly isn't the case now. Google spent nearly two years of profit and 1/3 of its cash reserves recently in the name of Android. That's not profit from mobile but profit from EVERYTHING. Before this purchase, Schmidt said that he hoped to get $10 per handet in revenues from advertising. I bet that goal has increased by quite a bit now that they have put up a fortune. IMO, the sensible thing would have been to focus on its services to sell to OEMs and carriers and let them duke it out with whatever they had to offer.

Originally Posted by island hermit

You're kidding, right?!!

If I go to Apple forum sites I rarely, if ever, see jabs at Android... same goes for Android forum sites.

BUT...

If I go to Android rumour/news sites similar to AI then anyone blessing Apple better run for the hills.

Example:

http://androidandme.com/2011/09/news...mber/#comments

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Wow. My apologies then. That's the first time I've seen that type of venom posted on Android-centric sites, tho I really don't spend much time around them. No excuse for it, and I plan to keep my word and chime in before the day is over.

Originally Posted by Jetz

The comments are there. That said, I have to say that from my readings on the interwebs, there seems to be a much more visceral hatred of Google from Apple fans than the other way around, once you get past the 15 year old fanboys. And some of that hatred is just weirdly broad. There's a lot of Apple fans now swearing by Bing just because they dislike Google. That's irrational.

Conversely, a lot of Android fans (even if it's begrudgingly) will willingly acknowledge the many strengths of Apple's business models and Apple's products. I, for one (though I dunno if I'm a pure Android fan since I love and use many Apple products too and the only Android I have is my phone), think the iPhone 4 (never really liked the iPhone before it) is one amazing piece of kit. And I've always suggested to friends that a perfect phone would look like a camera. I was quite pleased to see the iPhone 4 looking like an old Leica.

And then I often find this kind of justification. Some 12 year old pre-pubescent boy called Apple fascists on an Android fan site (though I've yet to see that word used), so therefore my visceral dislike of anything and everything Google is justified.



I would say it's one of the incidents that contributed to poor relations between the companies.



Nor did anybody say Apple did. However, as I suggested, Google wasn't worried about Apple (who at the time was aiming for 1% of the smartphone market). They were worried about Microsoft. Keep in mind, these were years, when MS was actually growing its market share and Symbian was dominating. And RIM had struck deals with MS.



And Google has delivered. To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of Navigation (which may well be more Apple than Google), they haven't really held back anything from iOS have they? Indeed, a lot of Google's apps are better on iOS than they are on Android.



Indeed. And that shows you that they were committed to iOS, even if they were planning theyir own OS.



But that's not Google's goal. That's my point. It wasn't enough for Google to do well on iOS. To ensure that their core business is protected, they had to do well across the mobile space. And Apple was going to grow too slowly for that.



Sure. But what other way was there? Apple fans insist that Google should have essentially bet their business on Apple's success. But think back to 2007 and Apple hoping 1% marketshare. If you were Google, would you have bet your company's future on that. Moreover, would have bet on a company that has a history of being happy with small marketshare, when the very future of your company depends on that platform maximizing marketshare? Think of it from Google's perspective. Not that of an Apple fan.

They are (even today) deathly afraid of Microsoft. Not Apple. Apple to them is something of a frenemy at worst. As long as Apple allows Google's services on their platform, Google has scant to worry about the competition between Android and iOS. But Google is worried that Microsoft could gain marketshare and essentially kill off Google as the world moves towards a mobile-centric future.



This is a bit presumptuous. You are rolling in Motorola before the deal is even complete and before Google has done anything with it? I think it's disingenous to suggest that all of a sudden they've spent $20 billion on Android. Android is still a separate operating unit of Google. And they are still breaking even (or profitable) on their own. And MMI will still be run as a separate entity. Heck, for all we know Google may keep the patents and spin the manufacturing side off the day after the deal concludes. Then, will they have spent $20 billion?

Moreover, again, you are looking at it from the perpsective of an Apple fan. What if they did this not so much to protect Android as much as they did this to say prevent MS from getting another leg up. Imagine Nokia or MS itself buying Motorola and what that would have done to Google's interest.

But even if they have allegedly spent $20 billion to protect Android. That's small potatoes compared to the consequences of MS dominating the mobile space down the road and effectively using that dominance to kill off Google. They don't want to be another Netscape.

Originally Posted by Steven N.

Actually, many do. They also have posters users using terms like iToy, iTards, iCrap and dozen other derogatory terms to refer Apple products and users.

Originally Posted by monstrosity

reality can not be bias

Originally Posted by freckledbruh

I don't think some of the anger is unwarranted. A lot of Android fans called Apple fascists among other things and some fans feel that Google took a lot from Apple for its OS (I'm on the fence on that until these pesky lawsuits have cleared).

The Google Voice app situation happened AFTER relations got sour. I don't see any indication that Apple wanted to horn in on Google's business in any way and in fact was relying on them to help make a unique customer experience. Remember that the first iPhone had web apps only for third parties EXCEPT Google. Apple had a "store" for those web apps, but Google does the web much better than Apple so it could have easily capitalized on this. As for gaining marketshare rapidly, just because something is quick doesn't mean it is smart. Because Google apparently wanted the moon at lightspeed, it now has taken on quite a bit of risk with an unclear pay off.

Now to address the revenue situation, Andy may have stated that it had broke even in the past but certainly isn't the case now. Google spent nearly two years of profit and 1/3 of its cash reserves recently in the name of Android. That's not profit from mobile but profit from EVERYTHING. Before this purchase, Schmidt said that he hoped to get $10 per handet in revenues from advertising. I bet that goal has increased by quite a bit now that they have put up a fortune. IMO, the sensible thing would have been to focus on its services to sell to OEMs and carriers and let them duke it out with whatever they had to offer.

Originally Posted by island hermit

You're kidding, right?!!

If I go to Apple forum sites I rarely, if ever, see jabs at Android... same goes for Android forum sites.

BUT...

If I go to Android rumour/news sites similar to AI then anyone blessing Apple better run for the hills.

Example:

http://androidandme.com/2011/09/news...mber/#comments