I called it last week. Page and Brin realize that they need to stay a close friend to their close friend S. Jobs.
They seem to be regarded as the bad guy recently.
That cannot be a good thing.
Also, they are a little worried that Apple will befriend a Facebook or someone else.
And also start doing a lot of what they use Google inhouse.
Yes, I checked and you came pretty close to the truth on the 12th... What do you think this portends? New concessions from Google? Selling off Android? More lunches with Tim Cook?
... The fact of the matter is your iPhone would not be nearly as desirable to you if everyone in the world had exactly the same as you and you didn't get some sort of superiority complex out of it.
Spoken like someone with some sort of inferiority complex.
You can't really think that Schmidt is very happy the way things seem at the present moment.
Yeah everyone is gonna say the correct thing. They don't want things to show what is really going on.
If I would guess, the conversation went sort of like this:
Page:"Hey Eric, things are starting to go a little south recently. Don't get me and Brin wrong,
we are making tons of money, and Android is doing great. You have done a great job."
Schmidt:"So what's the problem?"
Page:"No no problem. We are just a little worried of how people are thinking of what Google is becoming."
Schmidt:"What we are becoming. Screw what people think. This is a dog eat dog world. It isn't easy keeping up with the big boys."
Page:"Well that is what we are worried about. Me and Brin actually do care how people look at Google. Also we cannot alienate ourselves from everyone else. First it was Apple, now Verizon. Also, we might have a situation with Oracle coming up. We have to have some Allies. We just can't keep making enemies."
Schmidt:"This isn't easy Larry. We have to do what I beleive is best for the Company."
Page:"You mean, what We believe is best for the Company. Right?"
Schmidt:"You know what Larry. You are right. It is your Company. I am thinking that it might be the right time for you and Brin to take the direction of the Company over. I am a little worn out come to think of it."
That's just my take of how things went.
Now going out on a limb. I think Schmidt might be getting a phone call from a guy named Gates. I would not be surprised if Schmidt would be the next CEO for Microsoft soon.
Of course He would have to be able to have things done His way.
We shall see. (I think Gates has been looking for someone for a few months now, but not very many guys are to gutsy to take that over.)
Great point about the failed Google TV initiative. Funny, There is not much clatter about such a failure in the media about that. It happened but it seemed to go away very quickly. I sincerely hope Mr. Larry Page will rein in Google's reckless ways lately, starting with supporting h.264 for chrome again.
What i miss in this visual graph is the LG Prada which in essence is what the iPhone ended up looking like.
I don't like starting this whole accusation who copied who because then you start finding out things which contradicts with your statement and it loses its legitimacy.
What Apple did was take existing technology and improved it and simplified it and people ought to appreciate that. What Google did was take existing technology and sort of improved it and sort of complicated it.
The real question is are they profiting anything out of this technology? The answer with Apple is yes, the answer with Google and its device manufacturers is not really except Google somewhat in brand awareness. Motorola had to split up and prolly will be gone in the next few years, Sony Erickson barely breaks even, Samsung and HTC have thinner margins than Nokia. So even though the existing technology is there, no one has been able to make any money off of it except Apple because of their implementation.
I think these device manufacturers will grow tired of it and move away from Google or go bankrupt. Samsung is developing it's own linux based OS (Bada), HTC has hinted in the past the desire of having their own OS, Nokia already has their own.., BlackBerry has its own OS, those are already 3/4 of the market players.
I do not think that Google will be able to replicate what Microsoft did in the 90's with the pc market.
Once Oracle gets it's pound of flesh, they all might go under.
With my second point about google taking over. Just look at the adoption rates of the OS. Android is going to be everywhere, not only in phones and tablets. It really doesn't matter for you apple fan boys though because apple will always remain the most profitable with its super high prices/margins and because of their excellent marketing strategy. The fact of the matter is your iPhone would not be nearly as desirable to you if everyone in the world had exactly the same as you and you didn't get some sort of superiority complex out of it.
I am afraid not, old bean.
1) MP3 players with a touch OS - Android 0%, Apple 100%. About 25M sold a year.
2) Modern App phones - this year about a wash. Android sells more in the last quarter, but certainly not 27M. ( Their trick of saying "now activating" and getting everybody to multiply to 90 is wearisome). Android 22-24M, Apple 16.2M. Apple has supply constraints.
3) Multi-touch Tablets 90% Apple. 7.3 M
Apple way ahead. about 33M to 22-24M/
This year.
1) Apple moves to CDMA in the US, and gets on all carriers. This will increase it's penetration to 40% at a minimum. It normally doubles when it goes from one carrier to multiple carriers. I am being conservative.
2) Apple , which made $2.6B of its yearly $3B revenue in China last Q has yet to go multiple carrier there. When it does it will double, triple, or more it's market there conservatively ( clearly this would be a slowdown from the sequential gains in the last Q). iOS will do to Android there what Android and iOS has done to RIM in the US, and Nokia elsewhere.
3) Apple is one generation ahead in tablets, will be two generations ahead in two months, and Google are still scratching their collective heads over what to do with their famed tablet OS.
At the kind of technical ability we are talking about - the kind of OS which runs a laptop is needed. Goggle don't really have that.
Lastly, the Oracle case has blown up again. That is a slam dunk. Rather than being a fuzzy patent infringement it is a strong copyright and licensing infringement. Put simply Sun/ Oracle did not give teh rights to use Java on a mobile OS.
Google have no counter suit, and if they lose, which they will, Oracle could take action against Goggle for all handsets sold already, punitive damages, and future sales, making the platform a potential revenue drain for Goggle unless they pass on the costs. They can handle the costs.
However, Oracle will also be able to take action against all manufacturers who have sold an Android device. When that seems likely manufacturers will abandon the platform, probably for Windows 7, unless Bada takes over.
What i miss in this visual graph is the LG Prada which in essence is what the iPhone ended up looking like.
I don't like starting this whole accusation who copied who because then you start finding out things which contradicts with your statement and it loses its legitimacy.
A) LG Prada was not an Android phone, it was a windows phone and the first we saw of it was about the same time we saw the original iPhone, although it shipped a good several months earlier. Clearly that was a case of similar form factor, but the rest of the "smart" part was quite different.
When iPhone was released, Google was still doing Blackberry knockoffs as the Android form factor. The sudden switch to looking like a direct iPhone imitator is quite obvious even to a blind man.
Quote:
What Apple did was take existing technology and improved it and simplified it and people ought to appreciate that. What Google did was take existing technology and sort of copied it and sort of complicated it.
tftfy
Quote:
The real question is are they profiting anything out of this technology? The answer with Apple is yes, the answer with Google and its device manufacturers is not really except Google somewhat in brand awareness.
No. Google created an ecosystem where apps need to be ad-driven for income rather than paid no-add. This is a direct $2 billion per year current income stream that would largely not exist without Android.
Quote:
... I do not think that Google will be able to replicate what Microsoft did in the 90's with the pc market.
That I agree with. And Oracle will make sure of it.
1) MP3 players with a touch OS - Android 0%, Apple 100%. About 25M sold a year.
2) Modern App phones - this year about a wash. Android sells more in the last quarter, but certainly not 27M. ( Their trick of saying "now activating" and getting everybody to multiply to 90 is wearisome). Android 22-24M, Apple 16.2M. Apple has supply constraints.
3) Multi-touch Tablets 90% Apple. 7.3 M
Apple way ahead. about 33M to 22-24M/
This year.
1) Apple moves to CDMA in the US, and gets on all carriers. This will increase it's penetration to 40% at a minimum. It normally doubles when it goes from one carrier to multiple carriers. I am being conservative.
2) Apple , which made $2.6B of its yearly $3B revenue in China last Q has yet to go multiple carrier there. When it does it will double, triple, or more it's market there conservatively ( clearly this would be a slowdown from the sequential gains in the last Q). iOS will do to Android there what Android and iOS has done to RIM in the US, and Nokia elsewhere.
3) Apple is one generation ahead in tablets, will be two generations ahead in two months, and Google are still scratching their collective heads over what to do with their famed tablet OS.
At the kind of technical ability we are talking about - the kind of OS which runs a laptop is needed. Goggle don't really have that.
Lastly, the Oracle case has blown up again. That is a slam dunk. Rather than being a fuzzy patent infringement it is a strong copyright and licensing infringement. Put simply Sun/ Oracle did not give teh rights to use Java on a mobile OS.
Google have no counter suit, and if they lose, which they will, Oracle could take action against Goggle for all handsets sold already, punitive damages, and future sales, making the platform a potential revenue drain for Goggle unless they pass on the costs. They can handle the costs.
However, Oracle will also be able to take action against all manufacturers who have sold an Android device. When that seems likely manufacturers will abandon the platform, probably for Windows 7, unless Bada takes over.
Android is doomed.
Your fan boy view is so clouded. At worst people will be forced to license a patent involved in android. Manufacturers will still prefer to do this because with M$ they will have to pay license fees and have no option to modify the OS. Do some research into android you don't know anything about it
Your fan boy view is so clouded. At worst people will be forced to license a patent involved in android. Manufacturers will still prefer to do this because with M$ they will have to pay license fees and have no option to modify the OS. Do some research into android you don't know anything about it
Fraid not, my fandroid friend ( I say , friend)
The " worst case scenario" is that manufacturers have to pay retrospective costs to Oracle
That means hundreds of millions of dollars (or billions) against a company in one quarter.
As this (dead cert) case continues, manufacturers will flee.
As for "knowing Android" my next post will demolish the "this is a unit test " myth.
Here's a bit of completely left-field speculation....
Does Schmidt think he now has a chance to run Apple with Jobs out on indefinite leave?
I've given that some thought but that seems such a stretch. I am not sure Schmidt would be a good cultural fit - both Sun and Google seem to encourage small, independent projects while Apple likes much more focus and a less spaghetti-on -the-wall approach.
Your fan boy view is so clouded. At worst people will be forced to license a patent involved in android. Manufacturers will still prefer to do this because with M$ they will have to pay license fees and have no option to modify the OS. Do some research into android you don't know anything about it
Very doubtful. Oracle has said several times publicly they are not interested in licensing the patents, they feel their Mobile Java tech is just fine and it has licenses available already.
Oracle wants Android dead because that removes the business threat of uncontrolled ambiguously licensed open source code. Oracle is happy to offer code to the open source community under their terms, but not someone else's.
Just ask IBM and Apache, who tried to force their Apache License terms on the Java Community Process and lost the vote. Apache got so upset they quit, but nobody else did like Apache hoped. So Oracle got a clear indication from the rest of the market that the Oracle open source license was good enough for them. That's bad for Google, because they don't have widespread business support over the license issues anymore, and Oracle will be bolder knowing the community tacitly approved the Oracle business model for Java.
Very doubtful. Oracle has said several times publicly they are not interested in licensing the patents, they feel their Mobile Java tech is just fine and it has licenses available already.
Oracle wants Android dead because that removes the business threat of uncontrolled ambiguously licensed open source code. Oracle is happy to offer code to the open source community under their terms, but not someone else's.
Just ask IBM and Apache, who tried to force their Apache License terms on the Java Community Process and lost the vote. Apache got so upset they quit, but nobody else did like Apache hoped. So Oracle got a clear indication from the rest of the market that the Oracle open source license was good enough for them. That's bad for Google, because they don't have widespread business support over the license issues anymore, and Oracle will be bolder knowing the community tacitly approved the Oracle business model for Java.
The argument has been put forward many times that the easiest route is the smaller guy and Google avoids the law suits due to its size. I assume where Larry is concerned the bigger the better?
My other question is; what would this do to Google's stock if this blows up in Google's face as you and others predict?
Comments
I called it last week. Page and Brin realize that they need to stay a close friend to their close friend S. Jobs.
They seem to be regarded as the bad guy recently.
That cannot be a good thing.
Also, they are a little worried that Apple will befriend a Facebook or someone else.
And also start doing a lot of what they use Google inhouse.
Yes, I checked and you came pretty close to the truth on the 12th... What do you think this portends? New concessions from Google? Selling off Android? More lunches with Tim Cook?
... The fact of the matter is your iPhone would not be nearly as desirable to you if everyone in the world had exactly the same as you and you didn't get some sort of superiority complex out of it.
Spoken like someone with some sort of inferiority complex.
Yeah everyone is gonna say the correct thing. They don't want things to show what is really going on.
If I would guess, the conversation went sort of like this:
Page:"Hey Eric, things are starting to go a little south recently. Don't get me and Brin wrong,
we are making tons of money, and Android is doing great. You have done a great job."
Schmidt:"So what's the problem?"
Page:"No no problem. We are just a little worried of how people are thinking of what Google is becoming."
Schmidt:"What we are becoming. Screw what people think. This is a dog eat dog world. It isn't easy keeping up with the big boys."
Page:"Well that is what we are worried about. Me and Brin actually do care how people look at Google. Also we cannot alienate ourselves from everyone else. First it was Apple, now Verizon. Also, we might have a situation with Oracle coming up. We have to have some Allies. We just can't keep making enemies."
Schmidt:"This isn't easy Larry. We have to do what I beleive is best for the Company."
Page:"You mean, what We believe is best for the Company. Right?"
Schmidt:"You know what Larry. You are right. It is your Company. I am thinking that it might be the right time for you and Brin to take the direction of the Company over. I am a little worn out come to think of it."
That's just my take of how things went.
Now going out on a limb. I think Schmidt might be getting a phone call from a guy named Gates. I would not be surprised if Schmidt would be the next CEO for Microsoft soon.
Of course He would have to be able to have things done His way.
We shall see. (I think Gates has been looking for someone for a few months now, but not very many guys are to gutsy to take that over.)
You forgot GoogleTV for the Christmas holiday...
Great point about the failed Google TV initiative. Funny, There is not much clatter about such a failure in the media about that. It happened but it seemed to go away very quickly. I sincerely hope Mr. Larry Page will rein in Google's reckless ways lately, starting with supporting h.264 for chrome again.
What i miss in this visual graph is the LG Prada which in essence is what the iPhone ended up looking like.
I don't like starting this whole accusation who copied who because then you start finding out things which contradicts with your statement and it loses its legitimacy.
What Apple did was take existing technology and improved it and simplified it and people ought to appreciate that. What Google did was take existing technology and sort of improved it and sort of complicated it.
The real question is are they profiting anything out of this technology? The answer with Apple is yes, the answer with Google and its device manufacturers is not really except Google somewhat in brand awareness. Motorola had to split up and prolly will be gone in the next few years, Sony Erickson barely breaks even, Samsung and HTC have thinner margins than Nokia. So even though the existing technology is there, no one has been able to make any money off of it except Apple because of their implementation.
I think these device manufacturers will grow tired of it and move away from Google or go bankrupt. Samsung is developing it's own linux based OS (Bada), HTC has hinted in the past the desire of having their own OS, Nokia already has their own.., BlackBerry has its own OS, those are already 3/4 of the market players.
I do not think that Google will be able to replicate what Microsoft did in the 90's with the pc market.
Once Oracle gets it's pound of flesh, they all might go under.
With my second point about google taking over. Just look at the adoption rates of the OS. Android is going to be everywhere, not only in phones and tablets. It really doesn't matter for you apple fan boys though because apple will always remain the most profitable with its super high prices/margins and because of their excellent marketing strategy. The fact of the matter is your iPhone would not be nearly as desirable to you if everyone in the world had exactly the same as you and you didn't get some sort of superiority complex out of it.
I am afraid not, old bean.
1) MP3 players with a touch OS - Android 0%, Apple 100%. About 25M sold a year.
2) Modern App phones - this year about a wash. Android sells more in the last quarter, but certainly not 27M. ( Their trick of saying "now activating" and getting everybody to multiply to 90 is wearisome). Android 22-24M, Apple 16.2M. Apple has supply constraints.
3) Multi-touch Tablets 90% Apple. 7.3 M
Apple way ahead. about 33M to 22-24M/
This year.
1) Apple moves to CDMA in the US, and gets on all carriers. This will increase it's penetration to 40% at a minimum. It normally doubles when it goes from one carrier to multiple carriers. I am being conservative.
2) Apple , which made $2.6B of its yearly $3B revenue in China last Q has yet to go multiple carrier there. When it does it will double, triple, or more it's market there conservatively ( clearly this would be a slowdown from the sequential gains in the last Q). iOS will do to Android there what Android and iOS has done to RIM in the US, and Nokia elsewhere.
3) Apple is one generation ahead in tablets, will be two generations ahead in two months, and Google are still scratching their collective heads over what to do with their famed tablet OS.
At the kind of technical ability we are talking about - the kind of OS which runs a laptop is needed. Goggle don't really have that.
Lastly, the Oracle case has blown up again. That is a slam dunk. Rather than being a fuzzy patent infringement it is a strong copyright and licensing infringement. Put simply Sun/ Oracle did not give teh rights to use Java on a mobile OS.
Google have no counter suit, and if they lose, which they will, Oracle could take action against Goggle for all handsets sold already, punitive damages, and future sales, making the platform a potential revenue drain for Goggle unless they pass on the costs. They can handle the costs.
However, Oracle will also be able to take action against all manufacturers who have sold an Android device. When that seems likely manufacturers will abandon the platform, probably for Windows 7, unless Bada takes over.
Android is doomed.
What i miss in this visual graph is the LG Prada which in essence is what the iPhone ended up looking like.
I don't like starting this whole accusation who copied who because then you start finding out things which contradicts with your statement and it loses its legitimacy.
A) LG Prada was not an Android phone, it was a windows phone and the first we saw of it was about the same time we saw the original iPhone, although it shipped a good several months earlier. Clearly that was a case of similar form factor, but the rest of the "smart" part was quite different.
When iPhone was released, Google was still doing Blackberry knockoffs as the Android form factor. The sudden switch to looking like a direct iPhone imitator is quite obvious even to a blind man.
What Apple did was take existing technology and improved it and simplified it and people ought to appreciate that. What Google did was take existing technology and sort of copied it and sort of complicated it.
tftfy
The real question is are they profiting anything out of this technology? The answer with Apple is yes, the answer with Google and its device manufacturers is not really except Google somewhat in brand awareness.
No. Google created an ecosystem where apps need to be ad-driven for income rather than paid no-add. This is a direct $2 billion per year current income stream that would largely not exist without Android.
... I do not think that Google will be able to replicate what Microsoft did in the 90's with the pc market.
That I agree with. And Oracle will make sure of it.
I am afraid not, old bean.
1) MP3 players with a touch OS - Android 0%, Apple 100%. About 25M sold a year.
2) Modern App phones - this year about a wash. Android sells more in the last quarter, but certainly not 27M. ( Their trick of saying "now activating" and getting everybody to multiply to 90 is wearisome). Android 22-24M, Apple 16.2M. Apple has supply constraints.
3) Multi-touch Tablets 90% Apple. 7.3 M
Apple way ahead. about 33M to 22-24M/
This year.
1) Apple moves to CDMA in the US, and gets on all carriers. This will increase it's penetration to 40% at a minimum. It normally doubles when it goes from one carrier to multiple carriers. I am being conservative.
2) Apple , which made $2.6B of its yearly $3B revenue in China last Q has yet to go multiple carrier there. When it does it will double, triple, or more it's market there conservatively ( clearly this would be a slowdown from the sequential gains in the last Q). iOS will do to Android there what Android and iOS has done to RIM in the US, and Nokia elsewhere.
3) Apple is one generation ahead in tablets, will be two generations ahead in two months, and Google are still scratching their collective heads over what to do with their famed tablet OS.
At the kind of technical ability we are talking about - the kind of OS which runs a laptop is needed. Goggle don't really have that.
Lastly, the Oracle case has blown up again. That is a slam dunk. Rather than being a fuzzy patent infringement it is a strong copyright and licensing infringement. Put simply Sun/ Oracle did not give teh rights to use Java on a mobile OS.
Google have no counter suit, and if they lose, which they will, Oracle could take action against Goggle for all handsets sold already, punitive damages, and future sales, making the platform a potential revenue drain for Goggle unless they pass on the costs. They can handle the costs.
However, Oracle will also be able to take action against all manufacturers who have sold an Android device. When that seems likely manufacturers will abandon the platform, probably for Windows 7, unless Bada takes over.
Android is doomed.
Your fan boy view is so clouded. At worst people will be forced to license a patent involved in android. Manufacturers will still prefer to do this because with M$ they will have to pay license fees and have no option to modify the OS. Do some research into android you don't know anything about it
Your fan boy view is so clouded. At worst people will be forced to license a patent involved in android. Manufacturers will still prefer to do this because with M$ they will have to pay license fees and have no option to modify the OS. Do some research into android you don't know anything about it
Fraid not, my fandroid friend ( I say , friend)
The " worst case scenario" is that manufacturers have to pay retrospective costs to Oracle
That means hundreds of millions of dollars (or billions) against a company in one quarter.
As this (dead cert) case continues, manufacturers will flee.
As for "knowing Android" my next post will demolish the "this is a unit test " myth.
Does Schmidt think he now has a chance to run Apple with Jobs out on indefinite leave?
Here's a bit of completely left-field speculation....
Does Schmidt think he now has a chance to run Apple with Jobs out on indefinite leave?
I've given that some thought but that seems such a stretch. I am not sure Schmidt would be a good cultural fit - both Sun and Google seem to encourage small, independent projects while Apple likes much more focus and a less spaghetti-on -the-wall approach.
Besides that, Steve felt betrayed by Schmidt.
Your fan boy view is so clouded. At worst people will be forced to license a patent involved in android. Manufacturers will still prefer to do this because with M$ they will have to pay license fees and have no option to modify the OS. Do some research into android you don't know anything about it
Very doubtful. Oracle has said several times publicly they are not interested in licensing the patents, they feel their Mobile Java tech is just fine and it has licenses available already.
Oracle wants Android dead because that removes the business threat of uncontrolled ambiguously licensed open source code. Oracle is happy to offer code to the open source community under their terms, but not someone else's.
Just ask IBM and Apache, who tried to force their Apache License terms on the Java Community Process and lost the vote. Apache got so upset they quit, but nobody else did like Apache hoped. So Oracle got a clear indication from the rest of the market that the Oracle open source license was good enough for them. That's bad for Google, because they don't have widespread business support over the license issues anymore, and Oracle will be bolder knowing the community tacitly approved the Oracle business model for Java.
Here's a bit of completely left-field speculation....
Does Schmidt think he now has a chance to run Apple with Jobs out on indefinite leave?
That would be a certifiable thought on his part I'd think
p.s. That's so crazy as to be -'right field' speculation
Very doubtful. Oracle has said several times publicly they are not interested in licensing the patents, they feel their Mobile Java tech is just fine and it has licenses available already.
Oracle wants Android dead because that removes the business threat of uncontrolled ambiguously licensed open source code. Oracle is happy to offer code to the open source community under their terms, but not someone else's.
Just ask IBM and Apache, who tried to force their Apache License terms on the Java Community Process and lost the vote. Apache got so upset they quit, but nobody else did like Apache hoped. So Oracle got a clear indication from the rest of the market that the Oracle open source license was good enough for them. That's bad for Google, because they don't have widespread business support over the license issues anymore, and Oracle will be bolder knowing the community tacitly approved the Oracle business model for Java.
The argument has been put forward many times that the easiest route is the smaller guy and Google avoids the law suits due to its size. I assume where Larry is concerned the bigger the better?
My other question is; what would this do to Google's stock if this blows up in Google's face as you and others predict?