Are Nortel's assets being liquidated separately or is the company as a whole for sale? I know Microsoft offered to buy their IPv4 addresses for 7 something million dollars. I'm wondering if the patent portfolio is being sold by itself or exactly what RIM is bidding on?
Lol. Wrong analysis on your part, with a silly comparison of a company that gets pretty much all its revenues from selling its own stuff, versus one that gets its revenue from eyeballs that it (hopefully) directs to other people's sites so they can (hopefully) sell more of their stuff.
Google has three main ad-placement products --search, YouTube and Gmail -- for own revenue (about two-thirds), and gets an additional one-third from third-party sites. If you are convinced that some 'super cool' Googe labs experiments (most of which are pr, and don't necessarily pan out: case in point, Google TV) like Google Body and Google Self-Driving car are comparable to iTunes, iLife, and the App Store in terms of the ecosystem it creates for Apple's hardware sales, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Incidentally, here's Google's biggest nightmare, and one for which they have no answer despite repeated tries (hence their panic): ad dollars migrating en masse to Facebook, Twitter et. al.
How about you give me an example one Google Labs product that will help solve this problem for them?
I wasn't the one claiming "None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google." Burden of proof is on you if you're claiming it as a fact. If it's just your opinion, that's a different matter. So which is it?
Are you having a problem in figuring out whether or not Facetime brings any revenue to Apple? For some reason they determined it was worth the time and money to develop it, yet include it for free. Same with Garage Band. This all goes back to my point that most of us can't see how Google's business plan makes sense. Yet it works.
This all goes back to my point that most of us can't see how Google's business plan makes sense. Yet it works.
It's not really hard to understand at all. Google uses its dominance in search and data mining of personal information, and the revenues that generates, to leverage itself into other markets by giving away low quality software and services for free to destroy the viability of competition in that market. Google Labs is just their way of throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick -- is this crappy product we have good enough as freeware to get people to stop paying for quality software. Their purpose is to further expand their hegemony in online advertising and personal data collection.
It is, like everything Google does, an essentially destructive approach to doing business. There's no serious innovation going on in Google Labs projects, just crapware development. Like Android and everything else they do, it doesn't have to be good, just good enough to give away for free and destroy the market for companies who have any interest in producing quality software.
It's really not that complicated, nor very impressive in terms of innovation.
Anonymouse, whenever I see someone resort to adjectives like shitty, crappy, or crapware, I pretty much figure the poster is at a loss on how to respond.
You might have a great point to make, but writing like it's still Junior High probably won't get your opinion the respect it may deserve. Big boy words would work much better for making a convincing argument.
Mostly just to call you out as an astroturfer, which in itself is a deceitful, dishonest activity on the part of both the company and the individual engaged in it.
Wild claims? Think Google isn't an outlaw company? Then explain to us why they are engaged in wholesale lawbreaking in the illegal Google Books Program, and why, even after it's been established that their behavior is illegal, and even after they tried to essentially bribe their way out of it, ineffectually, they continue to constantly commit illegal acts because they believe they can simply strongarm authors and buy their way out of trouble for a few pieces of silver.
If open is so good, what's up with Honeycomb? Google's in violation of the GPL and talking out of both sides of their mouth. And while we're on the subject, Google provides all sorts of software to people that's based on GPL code but never provides us with the source code as required by the licenses. This is a company we should trust? This is a company whose very basis is deceit.
Google is a company that will do whatever it wants because it believes itself above the law. Sometimes I think the people inside Google believe they are actually following the "Do no evil" propaganda. They are Google, they do no evil, so, if Google does it, it isn't evil.
Still with the bullshit about google books. And Android is not GPL, except for the kernel.
It's not really hard to understand at all. Google uses its dominance in search and data mining of personal information, and the revenues that generates, to leverage itself into other markets by giving away low quality software and services for free to destroy the viability of competition in that market. Google Labs is just their way of throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick -- is this crappy product we have good enough as freeware to get people to stop paying for quality software. Their purpose is to further expand their hegemony in online advertising and personal data collection.
It is, like everything Google does, an essentially destructive approach to doing business. There's no serious innovation going on in Google Labs projects, just crapware development. Like Android and everything else they do, it doesn't have to be good, just good enough to give away for free and destroy the market for companies who have any interest in producing quality software.
It's really not that complicated, nor very impressive in terms of innovation.
It's called life. Get used to it. Everyone, including apple does it.
Anonymouse, whenever I see someone resort to adjectives like shitty, crappy, or crapware, I pretty much figure the poster is at a loss on how to respond.
You might have a great point to make, but writing like it's still Junior High probably won't get your opinion the respect it may deserve. Big boy words would work much better for making a convincing argument.
I guess we can take that as indicating you don't have a response.
Still with the bullshit about google books. And Android is not GPL, except for the kernel.
Given that we're discussing Google's "character", their most egregious and ongoing example of rapacious greed winning out over following the law or respecting the rights of IP owners seems entirely appropriate.
And, I love how the self-proclaimed FOSS advocates are now forced into the role of Google apologist.
It's called life. Get used to it. Everyone, including apple does it.
No, it's not called life. Not everyone, and certainly not Apple, approaches business in this fashion. Most companies, especially Apple, seek success through creation. Google is one of the few that seeks success almost solely through destruction. It's a huge difference in philosophy and a very significant one, and says a lot about the character of the companies, and the people running them.
No, it's not called life. Not everyone, and certainly not Apple, approaches business in this fashion. Most companies, especially Apple, seek success through creation. Google is one of the few that seeks success almost solely through destruction. It's a huge difference in philosophy and a very significant one, and says a lot about the character of the companies, and the people running them.
It would be easier for people to respond to your posts if any of them made sense instead of being filled with vitriol and paranoia. With the incredible amount of hatred you obviously have for Google, you should probably be in therapy. I'm certainly glad I'm no where near someone with as much pent up rage as your posts express.
Did a Google employee run over your dog or something?
Given that we're discussing Google's "character", their most egregious and ongoing example of rapacious greed winning out over following the law or respecting the rights of IP owners seems entirely appropriate.
I know it's beyond your comprehension that making available orphan works or books out of print where the copyright holder is nowhere to be found nor profiting by said books not being available is "evil".
Quote:
And, I love how the self-proclaimed FOSS advocates are now forced into the role of Google apologist.
Wrong again. I never said anything about Google being FOSS, and anyone else who did was mistaken in their saying that. People who really are FOSS nuts would get a Nokia N900, not anything Android.
But I believe people like you hate the fact that the GPL is "viral" and thus evil. Quite ironic that the "open" BSD style license Android is under allows it to be closed again.
No, it's not called life. Not everyone, and certainly not Apple, approaches business in this fashion. Most companies, especially Apple, seek success through creation. Google is one of the few that seeks success almost solely through destruction. It's a huge difference in philosophy and a very significant one, and says a lot about the character of the companies, and the people running them.
Right. You keep those rose colored glassed on there buddy.
No, the reason they haven't sued yet is because they think that suing over software patents hurts the industry as a whole and stifles innovation.
In the blog post where they talked about this potential purchase they said as much. They're purchasing these patents for defensive purposes because too many companies are trying to use patents offensively and since Google is such a young company, and they're rather adverse to patents, they don't have a portfolio of their own to make companies think twice before trying to sue them.
Businesses exist for only one reason: make money and lots of it. I don't by company rhetoric which claims that they're taking certain actions out of the goodness of their hearts. I won't spare any company on this, including Apple. All that talk about wanting to maintain the "user experience" is simply business-speak for: "We want to protect our brand and a bad user experience is bad for our brand."
Also, if companies don't have/don't like a particular product, they tend to over-emphasize the negatives and under-emphasize the positives. For example, Apple emphasizes the fact that Android is fragmented in order to attack the claims of Android being "open." Yet, there are benefits to an open-source platform.
Google does not own very many patents, and I don't think they care much about patents. Google is singularly focused on grabbing as many eyeballs as possible. Things like patents are not that important. For that matter, I don't think Google has patents that they could use against other companies.
So if Google claims that they aren't suing because it hurts innovation, I don't buy it for a second. Google probably doesn't have any patents it could use against others. They probably don't care much for patents. This self-effacing rhetoric is nothing more than "sour grapes."
Jessi, it's not clear at all that Google "stole" multi-touch from Apple. It was more a "line in the sand" drawn by Steve Jobs.
True, somebody might have attempted to "steal" the idea behind multi-touch and claim it as their own. But it wasn't Google.
I thought Apple acquired the patents when it acquired Fingerworks. Didn't SJ end the uncharacteristic iPhone preview with the punchline "and it's patented"?
It would be easier for people to respond to your posts if any of them made sense instead of being filled with vitriol and paranoia. With the incredible amount of hatred you obviously have for Google, you should probably be in therapy. I'm certainly glad I'm no where near someone with as much pent up rage as your posts express.
Did a Google employee run over your dog or something?
Another astroturfer with no actual response, just schoolyard taunts. You guys really aren't earning your money.
I know it's beyond your comprehension that making available orphan works or books out of print where the copyright holder is nowhere to be found nor profiting by said books not being available is "evil".
Well, when you mischaracterize it like that it sounds like they are giving away puppies too. Unfortunately, that's not what the Google Books program is all about. It's about Google appropriating the intellectual property of thousands to use to sell adds.
Quote:
Wrong again. I never said anything about Google being FOSS, and anyone else who did was mistaken in their saying that. People who really are FOSS nuts would get a Nokia N900, not anything Android.
But I believe people like you hate the fact that the GPL is "viral" and thus evil. Quite ironic that the "open" BSD style license Android is under allows it to be closed again.
The fact that the GPL is viral is a drawback to that license, and why there are other licenses. Whether I like that or not has nothing to do with Google's, and your, hypocrisy on this topic. Or with whether Google is violating the GPL by not releasing source code based on GPL code.
Let RIM buy Nortel IP then as soon as RIM goes down the crapper, Apple can come in and buy them up at a huge discount.
In the mean time Apple should buy Joyent and boost their cloud services team. NVIDIA would be a great buy too. Apple needs to improve 3D on the Mac leaps and bounds.
I would love for Apple to buy RIM and snatch up QNX OS. It's a great OS to build on with a sound architecture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti
RIM see's their business going down the crapper so owning a bunch of patents allows them to become patent trolls.
Do you really think Apple would buy it? They might have a go but they have generally been a bit frugal in the offering and lost the bid. Admob and Palm (allegedly) spring to mind.
Neither Admob nor Palm offered anything that compelling to Apple.
Comments
Lol. Wrong analysis on your part, with a silly comparison of a company that gets pretty much all its revenues from selling its own stuff, versus one that gets its revenue from eyeballs that it (hopefully) directs to other people's sites so they can (hopefully) sell more of their stuff.
Google has three main ad-placement products --search, YouTube and Gmail -- for own revenue (about two-thirds), and gets an additional one-third from third-party sites. If you are convinced that some 'super cool' Googe labs experiments (most of which are pr, and don't necessarily pan out: case in point, Google TV) like Google Body and Google Self-Driving car are comparable to iTunes, iLife, and the App Store in terms of the ecosystem it creates for Apple's hardware sales, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Incidentally, here's Google's biggest nightmare, and one for which they have no answer despite repeated tries (hence their panic): ad dollars migrating en masse to Facebook, Twitter et. al.
How about you give me an example one Google Labs product that will help solve this problem for them?
I wasn't the one claiming "None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google." Burden of proof is on you if you're claiming it as a fact. If it's just your opinion, that's a different matter. So which is it?
Are you having a problem in figuring out whether or not Facetime brings any revenue to Apple? For some reason they determined it was worth the time and money to develop it, yet include it for free. Same with Garage Band. This all goes back to my point that most of us can't see how Google's business plan makes sense. Yet it works.
This all goes back to my point that most of us can't see how Google's business plan makes sense. Yet it works.
It's not really hard to understand at all. Google uses its dominance in search and data mining of personal information, and the revenues that generates, to leverage itself into other markets by giving away low quality software and services for free to destroy the viability of competition in that market. Google Labs is just their way of throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick -- is this crappy product we have good enough as freeware to get people to stop paying for quality software. Their purpose is to further expand their hegemony in online advertising and personal data collection.
It is, like everything Google does, an essentially destructive approach to doing business. There's no serious innovation going on in Google Labs projects, just crapware development. Like Android and everything else they do, it doesn't have to be good, just good enough to give away for free and destroy the market for companies who have any interest in producing quality software.
It's really not that complicated, nor very impressive in terms of innovation.
You might have a great point to make, but writing like it's still Junior High probably won't get your opinion the respect it may deserve. Big boy words would work much better for making a convincing argument.
Mostly just to call you out as an astroturfer, which in itself is a deceitful, dishonest activity on the part of both the company and the individual engaged in it.
Wild claims? Think Google isn't an outlaw company? Then explain to us why they are engaged in wholesale lawbreaking in the illegal Google Books Program, and why, even after it's been established that their behavior is illegal, and even after they tried to essentially bribe their way out of it, ineffectually, they continue to constantly commit illegal acts because they believe they can simply strongarm authors and buy their way out of trouble for a few pieces of silver.
If open is so good, what's up with Honeycomb? Google's in violation of the GPL and talking out of both sides of their mouth. And while we're on the subject, Google provides all sorts of software to people that's based on GPL code but never provides us with the source code as required by the licenses. This is a company we should trust? This is a company whose very basis is deceit.
Google is a company that will do whatever it wants because it believes itself above the law. Sometimes I think the people inside Google believe they are actually following the "Do no evil" propaganda. They are Google, they do no evil, so, if Google does it, it isn't evil.
Still with the bullshit about google books. And Android is not GPL, except for the kernel.
It's not really hard to understand at all. Google uses its dominance in search and data mining of personal information, and the revenues that generates, to leverage itself into other markets by giving away low quality software and services for free to destroy the viability of competition in that market. Google Labs is just their way of throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick -- is this crappy product we have good enough as freeware to get people to stop paying for quality software. Their purpose is to further expand their hegemony in online advertising and personal data collection.
It is, like everything Google does, an essentially destructive approach to doing business. There's no serious innovation going on in Google Labs projects, just crapware development. Like Android and everything else they do, it doesn't have to be good, just good enough to give away for free and destroy the market for companies who have any interest in producing quality software.
It's really not that complicated, nor very impressive in terms of innovation.
It's called life. Get used to it. Everyone, including apple does it.
Anonymouse, whenever I see someone resort to adjectives like shitty, crappy, or crapware, I pretty much figure the poster is at a loss on how to respond.
You might have a great point to make, but writing like it's still Junior High probably won't get your opinion the respect it may deserve. Big boy words would work much better for making a convincing argument.
I guess we can take that as indicating you don't have a response.
Still with the bullshit about google books. And Android is not GPL, except for the kernel.
Given that we're discussing Google's "character", their most egregious and ongoing example of rapacious greed winning out over following the law or respecting the rights of IP owners seems entirely appropriate.
And, I love how the self-proclaimed FOSS advocates are now forced into the role of Google apologist.
It's called life. Get used to it. Everyone, including apple does it.
No, it's not called life. Not everyone, and certainly not Apple, approaches business in this fashion. Most companies, especially Apple, seek success through creation. Google is one of the few that seeks success almost solely through destruction. It's a huge difference in philosophy and a very significant one, and says a lot about the character of the companies, and the people running them.
I guess we can take that as indicating you don't have a response.
Don't bother. His 'responses' are basically blathering non-responses and non-sequitirs.
That's why I gave up after a while.
No, it's not called life. Not everyone, and certainly not Apple, approaches business in this fashion. Most companies, especially Apple, seek success through creation. Google is one of the few that seeks success almost solely through destruction. It's a huge difference in philosophy and a very significant one, and says a lot about the character of the companies, and the people running them.
It would be easier for people to respond to your posts if any of them made sense instead of being filled with vitriol and paranoia. With the incredible amount of hatred you obviously have for Google, you should probably be in therapy. I'm certainly glad I'm no where near someone with as much pent up rage as your posts express.
Did a Google employee run over your dog or something?
Given that we're discussing Google's "character", their most egregious and ongoing example of rapacious greed winning out over following the law or respecting the rights of IP owners seems entirely appropriate.
I know it's beyond your comprehension that making available orphan works or books out of print where the copyright holder is nowhere to be found nor profiting by said books not being available is "evil".
And, I love how the self-proclaimed FOSS advocates are now forced into the role of Google apologist.
Wrong again. I never said anything about Google being FOSS, and anyone else who did was mistaken in their saying that. People who really are FOSS nuts would get a Nokia N900, not anything Android.
But I believe people like you hate the fact that the GPL is "viral" and thus evil. Quite ironic that the "open" BSD style license Android is under allows it to be closed again.
No, it's not called life. Not everyone, and certainly not Apple, approaches business in this fashion. Most companies, especially Apple, seek success through creation. Google is one of the few that seeks success almost solely through destruction. It's a huge difference in philosophy and a very significant one, and says a lot about the character of the companies, and the people running them.
Right. You keep those rose colored glassed on there buddy.
No, the reason they haven't sued yet is because they think that suing over software patents hurts the industry as a whole and stifles innovation.
In the blog post where they talked about this potential purchase they said as much. They're purchasing these patents for defensive purposes because too many companies are trying to use patents offensively and since Google is such a young company, and they're rather adverse to patents, they don't have a portfolio of their own to make companies think twice before trying to sue them.
Businesses exist for only one reason: make money and lots of it. I don't by company rhetoric which claims that they're taking certain actions out of the goodness of their hearts. I won't spare any company on this, including Apple. All that talk about wanting to maintain the "user experience" is simply business-speak for: "We want to protect our brand and a bad user experience is bad for our brand."
Also, if companies don't have/don't like a particular product, they tend to over-emphasize the negatives and under-emphasize the positives. For example, Apple emphasizes the fact that Android is fragmented in order to attack the claims of Android being "open." Yet, there are benefits to an open-source platform.
Google does not own very many patents, and I don't think they care much about patents. Google is singularly focused on grabbing as many eyeballs as possible. Things like patents are not that important. For that matter, I don't think Google has patents that they could use against other companies.
So if Google claims that they aren't suing because it hurts innovation, I don't buy it for a second. Google probably doesn't have any patents it could use against others. They probably don't care much for patents. This self-effacing rhetoric is nothing more than "sour grapes."
Jessi, it's not clear at all that Google "stole" multi-touch from Apple. It was more a "line in the sand" drawn by Steve Jobs.
True, somebody might have attempted to "steal" the idea behind multi-touch and claim it as their own. But it wasn't Google.
I thought Apple acquired the patents when it acquired Fingerworks. Didn't SJ end the uncharacteristic iPhone preview with the punchline "and it's patented"?
McD
It would be easier for people to respond to your posts if any of them made sense instead of being filled with vitriol and paranoia. With the incredible amount of hatred you obviously have for Google, you should probably be in therapy. I'm certainly glad I'm no where near someone with as much pent up rage as your posts express.
Did a Google employee run over your dog or something?
Another astroturfer with no actual response, just schoolyard taunts. You guys really aren't earning your money.
I know it's beyond your comprehension that making available orphan works or books out of print where the copyright holder is nowhere to be found nor profiting by said books not being available is "evil".
Well, when you mischaracterize it like that it sounds like they are giving away puppies too. Unfortunately, that's not what the Google Books program is all about. It's about Google appropriating the intellectual property of thousands to use to sell adds.
Wrong again. I never said anything about Google being FOSS, and anyone else who did was mistaken in their saying that. People who really are FOSS nuts would get a Nokia N900, not anything Android.
But I believe people like you hate the fact that the GPL is "viral" and thus evil. Quite ironic that the "open" BSD style license Android is under allows it to be closed again.
The fact that the GPL is viral is a drawback to that license, and why there are other licenses. Whether I like that or not has nothing to do with Google's, and your, hypocrisy on this topic. Or with whether Google is violating the GPL by not releasing source code based on GPL code.
In the mean time Apple should buy Joyent and boost their cloud services team. NVIDIA would be a great buy too. Apple needs to improve 3D on the Mac leaps and bounds.
I would love for Apple to buy RIM and snatch up QNX OS. It's a great OS to build on with a sound architecture.
RIM see's their business going down the crapper so owning a bunch of patents allows them to become patent trolls.
Right. You keep those rose colored glassed on there buddy.
Dodging the issue again. No counter argument, I suppose.
Do you really think Apple would buy it? They might have a go but they have generally been a bit frugal in the offering and lost the bid. Admob and Palm (allegedly) spring to mind.
Neither Admob nor Palm offered anything that compelling to Apple.