or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FTC investigating Google, Motorola over FRAND patent abuse
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FTC investigating Google, Motorola over FRAND patent abuse - Page 2

post #41 of 92
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

 

Assuming he's not lying to the world, and there's absolutely no evidence he is (unless you have the smoking gun) why would the activation numbers not be painting a reasonably accurate picture of actual end-user purchases?

 

Riddle me this, then:

 

If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?

 

Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?

Or is it that their counting methodology is off?

post #42 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't think there is any ambiguity in Apple's numbers simply because there aren't any iPhones lying around on shelves. That's partly because of the way they run the company and partly due to demand.

Google on the other hand, has a history of making false and misleading statements, and even outright lying (think, street view data collection, where they outright lied to regulators). Their numbers are also suspect to those of us in the US because, on the street, Android phones simply don't outnumber iPhones, and, obviously not to the degree they should, if the numbers are valid. Also, web site acces numbers simply don't support Googles number. So, if they are valid, it means that Google is counting a bunch of probably not-so-smartphones being sold... where? Whatever the reason, Google's numbers seem a little fishy when combined with what should be corroborating evidence, evidence which doesn't corroborate. The fact that they have a history of dishonesty, combined with the lack of corroborating evidence casts a good bit of doubt on a) how real the numbers are and b) whether, if they are real, they are even relevant to anyone.

And, none of that even touches on what we know about GG, which makes everything he says somewhat less than entirely credible.

There's no ambiguity but the phrase used was exact methodology which we will never know unless they actually issue their accounting methods.

We know that Apple registers a sale with, say, Wal-Mart when they make a transaction for 1000 iPads but it will could sit in a warehouse for a few days, then get divided up for different stores, than shipped to the stores, then sold which could be some time. Now this isn't time to collect dust or become obsolete or anything so dramatic as we see with other vendors but it's still a time frame between Apple registering this item as sold and when it's actually in an end user's hand.

All this above board and standard. It would silly for anyone to suggest that Apple can't register a sale until Wal-Mart gets back to Apple with actual sell through numbers. Other vendors don't have the same pull as Apple because they don't have the same mind share so they have to work out different deal with retailers. A company like Wal-Mart can say "We'll sell your product but if we can't move it you have to agree to take it back at cost." This is infamous channel stuffing that quarter-to-quarter execs seem to think is a viable business strategy.

Back to Google. Are there numbers accurate? I don't know but I do know that when I compared stated growth rates from their previous activation statements they were accurate. The question still remains exactly how they are registering an activation. Rubin has clearly stated. "For those wondering, we count each device only once (i.e., we don't count re-sold devices), and "activations" means you go into a store, buy a device [and] put it on the network by subscribing to a wireless service." and while I think that's the truth it's certainly not the whole truth... not by a long shot. When they start to note Android in their quarterly reports and SEC filings we'll get close to it but we'll still not ever get an exact methodology.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #43 of 92

BrerTech, Android 3.x wasn't used in any official Google Android handsets, so it's share of those would be zero. ICS only started appearing on some small number of new shipping handsets (other than the Galaxy Nexus) only a couple of months ago so that share would also be fairly small compared to those previously sold (and still shipping) with 2.x versions of Android, the handset OS version that preceded ICS.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrerTech View Post

Riddle me this, then:

If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?

Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?
Or is it that their counting methodology is off?

The answer is squarely that most Android-based devices are sold with older versions of the OS. Google's own distribution breakdown is very clear about that.


Because Android has so many activations and yet still registers below iOS on analytic sites I think it's safe to say that most are not used as smartphones or at least used often as smartphones.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #45 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

BrerTech, Android 3.x wasn't used in any official Google Android handsets, so it's share of those would be zero. ICS only started appearing on some small number of new shipping handsets (other than the Galaxy Nexus) only a couple of months ago so that share would also be fairly small compared to those previously sold (and still shipping) with 2.x versions of Android, the handset OS version that preceded ICS.

No Android-based device shipped with Honeycomb? I don't think that's accurate.

Regardless, the whole Honeycomb fiasco is just embarrassing. They had to close source their "open" OS!

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #46 of 92

One of the growing list of reasons I hate Google.

 

Essential patents must be licensed at fair market prices. They can not be used to extort innovative companies into licensing non-essential patents.

post #47 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

Given the choice of believing an officer of a large publicly-traded corporation, and believing a guy who cannot seem to understand clear, declarative sentences, never gives support to his bizarre contentions, and never admits to the slightest little error, I'll choose the former.

 

Not that I really want to jump in on this childish back and forth, but ...

 

Rubin has been caught out and out lying a few times, and from the interviews with him that I have seen, anyone can tell he is a bit of a jerk who is not above twisting the truth around on a regular basis even when he isn't outright lying.  

 

One doesn't gain some kind of angelic status merely by being hired by some company.  I don't know what the facts are on Google's public statements about the methodology for it's activations number, but people are quite right not to simply take Rubin at his word.  He's just not trustworthy.  


Edited by Gazoobee - 6/30/12 at 6:13pm
post #48 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


No Android-based device shipped with Honeycomb? I don't think that's accurate.
Regardless, the whole Honeycomb fiasco is just embarrassing. They had to close source their "open" OS!

I didn't say no device shipped with Honeycomb 3.x, as is was a tablet-specific version. I said no handset did which is completely accurate AFAIK. Considering the number of reported Android tablet sales from last year I wouldn't expect Android 3.x devices to have but the tiniest OS share.


Edited by Gatorguy - 6/30/12 at 11:35am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I didn't say no device shipped with Honeycomb 3.x, as is was a tablet-specific version. I said no handset did which is completely accurate. Considering the number of reported Android tablet sales from last year I wouldn't expect Android 3.x devices to have but the tiniest OS share.

Ah, see this is where you should have clarified in your post that is was designed for tablets and perhaps even noted that it was a failure thus removing any ambiguity and doubt about your post. 1wink.gif

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #50 of 92

Sorry about that. I thought I mentioned that 3.x was tablet-specific in the earlier post. My bad. Thanks for bringing it up then.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm just as surprised that Apple's smartphone marketshare isn't higher than it is. They have a first mover advantage, great design, excellent vertical integration with their other products, incredibly effective marketing, smart and experienced management, and total control of their product from OS thru to the product design, thru manufacturing and thru the distribution channels.

 

That Google has been able to roll out their somewhat fractured OS thru multiple manufacturers and hardware combinations while still maintaining some semblance of an integrated ecosystem and in only about three years take more than half the smartphone market share is the bigger surprise IMO. Three years ago I figured Apple would be the one closer to that position today (tho not half of the market), as probably a lot of others did.

 

Android got a good toe-hold in the market during the period that the iPhone was only available via AT&T in the U.S.. Verizon, for example, needed a reasonable knockoff to sell to stem the flow of users to AT&T, and did a credible job of pushing the Android version of an iPhone. While Apple did a great job of exceeding the 5% of the market they were aiming at, I think the acceptance of the iPhone exceeded everyone's wildest dreams. Before Apple could even think of expanding their distribution they had to gear up production to do so (the AT&T contract not-withstanding). Even today, Apple is barely keeping up with demand... the worldwide market is a hungry monster. 

 

The final factor, in my opinion, is that the market for iPhone-like products was under-realized. Early in the history of mainframe computers it was once thought that the world wide need for such computers was "six total." I don't know what Apple was projecting prior to 2007, but the smart phone market has revealed itself to be multiple times what anyone guessed.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #52 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Sorry about that. I thought I mentioned that 3.x was tablet-specific in the earlier post. My bad. Thanks for bringing it up then.

Perhaps you did. I tend to "goldfish" my replies to specific posts without regard for previous comments.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #53 of 92

Maybe we could leave the activation numbers debate for another thread and talk about Motorola, Google and what it all portends.

 

I'm struck that this news comes hard on the heels of Google's announcement of a flagship tablet built by Asus.  What does that tell you about how well they regard the hardware expertise of the company they just bought?  OK, you say, it was never for Moto's manufacturing or hardware design chops, it's all about the software patents (although since this is Google, we have to ritualistically intone that such patents would merely be "defensive", in that Google is run by open Unicorns made of free puppies).

 

But if the FRAND thing gets ugly (and in the midst of an FTC investigation is there any doubt that if Google/Moto try to push any further shenanigans on that count it would get pretty ugly?) you have to start to wonder what Google is going to get out of the deal.  Does Moto have non-FRAND patents in their portfolio such that competitors would hesitate to sue for fear of reprisal?  And how does Google deploy those patents, anyway?  For all intents and purposes, Apple's Android competitor at this point is Samsung.  Does Google give Samsung the patent rights so they can fight Apple more successfully?  Clearly, Apple isn't in the least put off by whatever counter-calims Samsung might make, so I can't see where patents via Google is going to slow the pace of Apple's litigation, and it doesn't appear to me that "I'm rubber and you're glue" is a super effective defense against same.  That is, I don't see where a given Apple claim against Samsung gets tossed out just because Samsung goes with a counter claim, which they're going to do regardless of whether Google slips them some more ammo.

 

So can anyone describe what the upside of the Moto acquisition is, exactly?   Honest question, since I'm not well versed enough in these matters to feel like I can see every angle. But it looks to me like it was a sort of lunge at grabbing a backstop that really didn't make any sense, and seems to make ever less sense as times goes on.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So can anyone describe what the upside of the Moto acquisition is, exactly?   Honest question, since I'm not well versed enough in these matters to feel like I can see every angle. But it looks to me like it was a sort of lunge at grabbing a backstop that really didn't make any sense, and seems to make ever less sense as times goes on.

 

Motorola was threatening to sue other Android OEM's

 

If Apple and Microsoft agreed to Motorola's extortionate, unreasonable demands, the income stream is over $8 billion a year, based on 2.25% of final product cost rather than the industry standard based on the cost of the component that actually uses the patent.

 

Google got taken like rubes at a carnival in the world's greatest shell game.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #55 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

On the contrary. This has been a great week for Google product launches and announcements. That said, it's also been a great week for Apple's legal teams.

The lying legal team?

696
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #56 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You have perfectly valid points (except that your quoted 1% was of total mobile phone sales, not the smaller smartphone segment. They already had their 1% of total mobile phone share by 2008 too), but Android's fast rise to 50%+ share couldn't have been predicted even three years ago, and for me personally that's the bigger surprise. 

Of course it could have been predicted. Just not by analysts like Gartner.

Most of the OEMs who are building and selling all these Android phones were heavy hitters for years. They have always built and sold loads of phones. They have distribution networks in place. They have deals with carriers. When Android came along, big surprise, they started putting Android on their phones, and still built and sold loads of phones. New guys also came along and put Android on their phones.

Android is merely the default or status quo OS for any OEM to put on their phone. How is any of this a surprise? It's not Android coming from nowhere and competing with Windows or something else... these OEMs building hundreds if not thousands of different phones merely dropped whatever they used before for Android, duh. They had to, because the iPhone redefined smart phones.

However, iOS did in fact come from nowhere, with one phone and limited distribution, both in number of countries and number of carriers. What can be said is that Android wouldn't have done nearly so well if it had continued to look like Blackberry and Windows and hadn't suddenly started to look and act like iOS. When the iPhone redefined the smartphone Android was able to adapt to that. Hence the death of RIM and the question mark over the future of Nokia and MS in the smartphone space.

And how is Apple, at this point, supposed to get more than 30 or so percent of the smart phone market? Think about it. It's a large and growing market and Apple, one company, can't make that many phones! Apple is making as many phones as it can... and selling them ALL. And working to make even more even faster!

So, here we go again, comparing one company with one phone to 20 OEMs with hundreds of phones in every shop all over the world. Plus these hundreds of phones Android comes installed on include feature phones of all kinds, not just smart phones; while iOS is obviously on only 'high-end' smartphones. OF COURSE "Android" has 50% share, it better. No surprise there, whatsoever.

How about this for surprises that we wouldn't have predicted : most mobile web browsing is done on iOS devices; most apps are downloaded for iOS devices; most iOS devices are on latest version of OS; most money made by developers is on iOS platform; most mobile revenue made by Google on is on iOS platform...
Edited by krabbelen - 7/1/12 at 12:37am
post #57 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The lying legal team?
 
<insert irrelevant picture with no bearing>

 

here

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #58 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

here

That's almost as good as this
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Motorola was threatening to sue other Android OEM's

 

If Apple and Microsoft agreed to Motorola's extortionate, unreasonable demands, the income stream is over $8 billion a year, based on 2.25% of final product cost rather than the industry standard based on the cost of the component that actually uses the patent.

 

Google got taken like rubes at a carnival in the world's greatest shell game.

 

Especially since they are about to be slapped down hard for their abuse of FRAND patents, both in the US and Europe.

 

But, all of this is merely symptomatic of a larger problem, that Google is essentially an outlaw company. I suppose there's a certain glamour in that if your one of the many mindless pro-Google geeks who don't know how to think rationally about real issues, but what it really means is that Google is a company that believes it has a right to ignore the rules, ignore the law, and ignore any promises they've made to users of their services, and that includes people using, say, Google Search, and those buying ads on it.

 

What that means is that Google's privacy policy, for example, isn't worth the bandwidth required to download it. What it actually says is meaningless, because, since they feel unbound by rules, they'll do whatever they want with the data they collect, whenever they want to. When it suits their purposes, they'll screw people paying per click for ads, because they think they can. Giving your word doesn't mean anything at Google, it's just a tool to be tossed aside when it becomes inconvenient.

post #60 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The lying legal team?

Aspect ratios being different doesn't give Samsung a free pass. Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the actual tablets apart when the judge held them up. Why not just post that photo of the Samsung picture frame again, but only from the front?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #61 of 92

I don't know why people find 1,000,000 activations a day so unbelievable. Since the 4S came out Apple has been averaging 603,000 iDevices per day for 6 months straight for Q1 and Q2 2012 (up to Mar 2012). Soon we'll have Q3 results which will include the new iPad and we'll see if the pace was sustained.

 

That's 600,000 a day from one company vs 1,000,000 a day for dozens of companies. Even more impressive when you consider Apple doesn't compete in the low-end market.

post #62 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

Or perhaps, not so amazing.

Well according to the people in the other thread, Google sees patents differently than Apple.  This must be it.  Maybe they purchased Motorola Mobility (a company that has actually never made a profit (ever)) so they can put all of their patents in the public domain.

 

Why do they need them at all?  It is only evil Apple running around abusing patents.  Google is good and pure.  They just want to share with everyone.  Larry Paige called me a few minutes ago and asked if I need any 3G patents.

post #63 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The lying legal team?
696
 
Pretty sure the rest of the world learned that image was from a Samsung ad...  Perhaps they were the ones trying to be misleading?
post #64 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrerTech View Post

 

Riddle me this, then:

 

If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?

 

Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?

Or is it that their counting methodology is off?

They are mostly (not all) cheapy phones not being used as smartphone. That is also why their share of mobile web is so low and why google makes more mobile ad dollars off of iOS users than Android users.

post #65 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrerTech View Post

 

Riddle me this, then:

 

If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?

 

Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?

Or is it that their counting methodology is off?

Bingo.

 

Few Android phones are used as smartphones. They're just throw-away replacements for their earlier throw-away cell phones that had buttons.

 

I've checked data on my servers every few months, and Android devices barely register enough to be considered statistically significant when you count all the desktop/laptops. If you remove the desktops and laptops so you only see mobile devices, you get somewhere between 20 and 40% Android, with most of them still running a 2.2 or 2.3 OS. In comparison nearly all the iOS devices are the current OS version when checked.

 

Android is hell to develop for, that's Google's fault for not going native to begin with. Unfortunately, this poor engineering seems to be a problem with Google that started when they bought doubleclick, and has been snowballing into worse and worse bad engineering efforts. With buying Motorola I only expect this bad engineering to creep into their products, not that I'd ever willingly buy a Motorola product, as the V60 and RAZR's were all extremely poor designs. 

 

Google only does things better when their version costs nothing, and the competition costs money. Physical hardware is not something you can subsidize while also being the manufacturer, everyone who has done that has been bought or gone out of business.

 

What did everyone want before the touch-screen phone?

1. Keypad phones for SMS messages (also on the way out) and email

2. Flip phones (something Nokia was very adamant about NOT doing, but nearly everything from Motorola was a flip phone, along with Samsung and LG's devices) 

post #66 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

If Google cannot use the MMI patents aggressively, what is the use? They have only ended up with a bad situation where any attempt to do something to salvage the MMI purchase will end up hurting their partners. Without getting any benefit, whatsoever!

I foresee a quick end game where HTC, Samsung, Motorola will agree to pay Apple stiff amounts of money for a cross license. And probably might lose out on their FRAND revenues as well in the bargain. Apple could very well cement itself in an impregnable competitive position. Despite the thermonuclear bluster, I think Apple will have no choice but to license on very stiff terms. Otherwise they might themselves face antitrust scrutiny!
 

 

 

"Agree to pay Apple"? "Apple will have no choice but to license [their non-essential patents]"?

 

You've flipped this story on its head.

 

Apple doesn't want a high price for its non-essential patents. It doesn't want to license them at ANY price, nor should they. That's like saying Coca Cola should be forced to license the recipe for their signature soft drink to Pepsi and others.

 

You seem to be missing the central point of this story, which is that Google and Motorola (and Apple) are required to license their FRAND patent technologies for fair and reasonable prices. They cannot demand outrageous fees for use of these patents in order to force other companies to license their non-FRAND patents. This rule most certainly does not apply to non-standards-essential patents, which are the entire basis for competition between products.

post #67 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

"Agree to pay Apple"? "Apple will have no choice but to license [their non-essential patents]"?

 

You've flipped this story on its head.

 

Apple doesn't want a high price for its non-essential patents. It doesn't want to license them at ANY price, nor should they. That's like saying Coca Cola should be forced to license the recipe for their signature soft drink to Pepsi and others.

 

You seem to be missing the central point of this story, which is that Google and Motorola (and Apple) are required to license their FRAND patent technologies for fair and reasonable prices. ...

 

... and that they are required to do so because they volunteered to include the technology described in their patents in the standard, and that it was only included because they promised to abide by FRAND licensing terms. If they had not made these promises, the standard would not have included their patented technology.

post #68 of 92

"The use of industry standard patents in litigation is a sticky matter and some pundits argue that governmental bodies like the FTC should not involve themselves in what are essentially contract disputes. Others, however, say that such issues are within the commission's jurisdiction given that the technologies apply to the broader market and are thus relevant in antitrust allegations."

 

You know these "some pundits" don't know what they are talking about when they indicate that governments should not be involved. Rubbish. Patents in the US are mandated in the Constitution, laws implementing the specifics are laws of the US government, the patent laws are also part of Treaties, patents and patent laws are interpreted by courts. There is nothing "private" about it.

 

A final piece of rubbish is the statement that these are "essentially contract disputes". What is a contract? It is an agreement, often between private individuals, which the government(s) will enforce. The general rules of commerce and contracts are explicitly the Fed's business since the Constitution says so (see the Commerce Clause), and are each State's business through their local court interpretation and state laws such as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

 

That is, there is nothing "private" here. 

post #69 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

... A final piece of rubbish is the statement that these are "essentially contract disputes". What is a contract? It is an agreement, often between private individuals, which the government(s) will enforce. ..

 

And, even more fundamentally, a contract is a promise, given on one's honor, to perform (or abstain from) certain actions. When companies, like Google, renege on these promises, they undermine trust, which is the foundation of our entire economic system. Thus, the government has every interest in making sure these contracts are honored.

post #70 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

And, even more fundamentally, a contract is a promise, given on one's honor, to perform (or abstain from) certain actions. When companies, like Google, renege on these promises, they undermine trust, which is the foundation of our entire economic system. Thus, the government has every interest in making sure these contracts are honored.

Indeed, that's why contract law exists.
post #71 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Ah, see this is where you should have clarified in your post that is was designed for tablets and perhaps even noted that it was a failure thus removing any ambiguity and doubt about your post. 1wink.gif

he said 'handset'. see this is where you should have paid attention in the original post.

post #72 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You have perfectly valid points (except that your quoted 1% was of total mobile phone sales, not the smaller smartphone segment. They already had their 1% of total mobile phone share by 2008 too), but Android's fast rise to 50%+ share couldn't have been predicted even three years ago, and for me personally that's the bigger surprise.

BTW, just for giggles take a look at this smartphone projection based on a Gartner report, published in October 2009 lol.gif :
 http://www.webosnation.com/webos-projected-have-just-1-4-market-share-2012
For this year (2012) they said to expect these smartphone sales numbers:

Symbian, 196.5 million sold, 37.4% share

Android, 94.5 million sold, 18% share

BlackBerry, 73 million sold, 13.9%

iPhone, 71.5 million sold; 13.6% share

Windows Mobile, 47.7 million sold, 9% share

Maemo, 23.5 million sold, 4.5% share

Linux (generally), 11 million, 2.1% share

WebOS (from Palm Inc.) 7.6 million sold, 1.4% share.


For our newer members, remember this next time you see analyst projections. 

Just curious ... about some of the logic here and want to be clear in my mind about this data. If Symbian sold196.5 million units why does that mean that number has any connection to current % of usage (I just picked Symbian as an example). What if 90% of those sold units are in a land fill now? Or does your data actually refer to units in use now not just sold?
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 #73 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Aspect ratios being different doesn't give Samsung a free pass. Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the actual tablets apart when the judge held them up. Why not just post that photo of the Samsung picture frame again, but only from the front?

Yea that's why they went through the trouble of photo shopping it. What's wrong with posting the pic of the picture frame from the front only? That's the only side of the ipad that's shown in pics, or why not show the white one?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #74 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Just curious ... about some of the logic here and want to be clear in my mind about this data. If Symbian sold196.5 million units why does that mean that number has any connection to current % of usage (I just picked Symbian as an example). What if 90% of those sold units are in a land fill now? Or does your data actually refer to units in use now not just sold?

If you read the link it's a projection of 2012 sales done back in 2009. It's not a prediction of the total sold over the years but specifically this year alone.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #75 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If you read the link it's a projection of 2012 sales done back in 2009. It's not a prediction of the total sold over the years but specifically this year alone.

 

Hey, Gatorguy, I know you are "ignoring" me, but can you actually post something to the point? This thread isn't about Android Marketshare, it's about how Google is abusing the entire FRAND patent system, undermining the entire standards making process, and ultimately contract law. Pretty destructive activity. What's next, destroy Western Civilization?

 

No? Well, I don't blame you, there really is no defense possible of Google's actions.

post #76 of 92

Hell yeah they need to be investigated just as Microsoft and Apple should be if the shoes are on the other foot. It either of them were in the same position, they would use the patents to freeze out other companies. Sad but true...

post #77 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Hell yeah they need to be investigated just as Microsoft and Apple should be if the shoes are on the other foot. It either of them were in the same position, they would use the patents to freeze out other companies. Sad but true...

So in your mind, 'true' means 'I made this up and have no evidence, but I hate Apple so I'll pretend there's something backing up my statement'. :-/

You have no idea how Apple would behave in such a situation. They have completely open sourced Webkit. They completely open sourced Darwin. What in the world would make you think that they would try to use a FRAND patent to exclude anyone?

Now, it's certainly true that they are not very keen on making their patents FRAND, but you are claiming that they would use their patents to close people out even if they were FRAND. There's absolutely nothing to back that up.
"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 #78 of 92

Sure, sure because Apple is a non-for profit organization. They are here for the benefit of mankind.  Get real... If Apple could get away with closing the door on its competitors they would. Contrary to popular belief, Apple is not your friend. They are a seller of products. Period, point, blank. It just so happens that I like what they sell but I am not under the illusion that they are doing me any favors...

post #79 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Sure, sure because Apple is a non-for profit organization. They are here for the benefit of mankind.  Get real... If Apple could get away with closing the door on its competitors they would. Contrary to popular belief, Apple is not your friend. They are a seller of products. Period, point, blank. It just so happens that I like what they sell but I am not under the illusion that they are doing me any favors...

But that's not what you said. You said that Apple would abuse FRAND patents by using them as a weapon against the competition just as Motorola has done. I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that claim.
"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 #80 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


But that's not what you said. You said that Apple would abuse FRAND patents by using them as a weapon against the competition just as Motorola has done. I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that claim.

I'll post mine when you post a link showing that they won't. In short... Whatever....

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FTC investigating Google, Motorola over FRAND patent abuse