Samsung, HTC, Motorola,Intel and Android wantabe's around the world just saw their economics change drastically.... the cost of royalities just went up for many.... how much longer can Android be free when intellectual property has to be paid for somewhere along the way....
Google needs to realize that they are an online services provider, not everything to everyone. Stick to what you're good at (maps, search, email, YouTube) and let everyone else take care of making the devices to get people to those services. If they had never made Android and made deals with RIM, Apple, Palm, Nokia, etc. to use Google services, they would be in an even better position than they are, IMHO. Just look at all the Google fingerprints on iOS still to this day (maps, YouTube app, default search)
That high winning amount is due to individual companies in the consortium were wiling to contribute more than any single company would on their own. I imagine if they license them out, the money they'll receive will be proportionate to the holding percentage. The licensing fee and arrangement between consortium members however would be different, could be lower but payable still.
There might of been a single company willing to pay almost as much. The winning bid got to that amount somehow. If Apple is more then a 50% contributor to the consortium, Apple might essentially control the patents.
And just like that, all the positive energy at Google around the initial reception to G+ just went right out the window.
I wonder if the consortium will use these patents aggressively? I can't imagine why else they would bid $4.5B.
I would say not. The fact that a group of companies pulled together to buy them, means they wanted to keep them out of the hands of someone who would use them offensively and aggressively. This is also Apple's second time in joining with a group of companies to secure wireless related pantents.
What positive energy? From everything I've read, Google+ has bombed. People have classified it as too difficult to use and as no threat to Facebook.
It's entirely possible I'm not reading the right reports though.
No, its had quite a positive reception.
I teased it a bit when I first saw it as well. It looks like direct Facebook clone with UI elements stolen from Microsoft's metro playbook!
After using it for a day though I'm starting to "get it"... a couple of things stand out.
The first is that Google+ isn't really Facebook per se, it's more like what Facebook+XBL are to Windows Phone (or at least Mango).
Think unified social communications platform (i.e. messaging, chat, voice, video) group experiences and media sharing.
The second is that it's soooooo pervasive. If you're using a Google, you're on G+. You don't need to go to the G+ site... it's just always there.
My predictions:
The Google toolbar will be added to YouTube by the end of the year.
G+ will be baked in Ice Cream Sandwich. End to end and everything in between.
G+ will be baked into ChromeOS and the Chrome browser. Not sure when this will happen. Probably within a year.
Something else that needs to happen is an Apple/Facebook truce.
After Microsoft purchased Skype I made the prediction that we would see Skype communications baked into Facebook.
After using G+ I'm doubling up on that prediction... however, I think that if Apple made the right kind of offer we could easily see an iMessage/iChat/Facetime integration with Facebook and Facebook baked into iOS.
Twitter integration into iOS5 is cute, but to be honest Apple need Facebook.
Something else that needs to happen is an Apple/Facebook truce.
After Microsoft purchased Skype I made the prediction that we would see Skype communications baked into Facebook.
After using G+ I'm doubling up on that prediction... however, I think that if Apple made the right kind of offer we could easily see an iMessage/iChat/Facetime integration with Facebook and Facebook baked into iOS.
Twitter integration into iOS5 is cute, but to be honest Apple need Facebook.
The reception has been positive. Zuckerberg should be concerned, just as RIM should have been concerned when Apple first released the iPhone. Apple doesn't need Facebook. Facebook needs Apple.
Not only is this a defensive move, it is also a sure way of getting it past gov. regulators (hmmm REGULATORS RIDE!!!! ... sorry that slipped out), if one company bought that portfolio it might have been blocked, with several companies there is not a huge worry about shutting out competition.
Google needs to realize that they are an online services provider, not everything to everyone. Stick to what you're good at (maps, search, email, YouTube) and let everyone else take care of making the devices to get people to those services. If they had never made Android and made deals with RIM, Apple, Palm, Nokia, etc. to use Google services, they would be in an even better position than they are, IMHO. Just look at all the Google fingerprints on iOS still to this day (maps, YouTube app, default search)
edit: edited for typo
YouTube was sooo much better before Google. Now it's just ads.
The reception has been positive. Zuckerberg should be concerned, just as RIM should have been concerned when Apple first released the iPhone. Apple doesn't need Facebook. Facebook needs Apple.
That's going too far the other way. Just as G+ can't be dismissed as irrelevant, it also can't be seen as the "Facebook killer".
I can see G+ being the social glue that pulls Google's services together, but I can't see it replacing Facebook.
Well this is good news. I'm glad that Apple is part of the consortium that won the bid. As much as I don't like Microsoft. I must give them some credit for making a phone os that is very different from iOS. It seems like Microsoft is at least respecting Apple's designs and doing what they can to avoid being an iOS "copyist" like Google and their OEM phone manufacturers. I don't believe that Apple has any issues with Sony/Ericsson phone, because once again, their phones do not copy the iPhone, much. Rimm, too is vastly different.
It looks like Google and their OEMs are going to be suffering for this one.
Well this is good news. I'm glad that Apple is part of the consortium that won the bid. As much as I don't like Microsoft. I must give them some credit for making a phone os that is very different from iOS. It seems like 1) Microsoft is at least respecting Apple's designs and 2) doing what they can to avoid being an iOS "copyist" like Google and their OEM phone manufacturers. I don't believe that Apple has any issues with Sony/Ericsson phone, because once again, their phones do not copy the iPhone, much. Rimm, too is vastly different.
It looks like Google and their OEMs are going to be suffering for this one.
Wrong on point 1 (in bold) and right on point 2 (in bold)... imho. MS was smart enough to create a different user experience than iOS with WP7 (Ballmer must have been away that day), it had nothing to do with respect (unless you meant respect in the sense that they respect Apple's success with the iPhone and decided that a copy wouldn't cut it).
MS is doing what tablet manufacturers should be doing... creating a different experience in the same form factor. webOS has (had) the best chance of doing this (again, imho) and hopefully it will be 3rd time a charm for HP sometime in the future.
[ on edit: Somebody must be liking Google's moves... the competitors (Apple, HP, MS are up no more than 1.6% today but Google is up 2.15%... actually Yahoo is also up 2.5% today... something up in the search area?! ]
Balsillie and Lazaridis said the same sort of thing about the iPhone...
A couple of guys made a stupid call about a phone and that is supposed to relate to a new social platform? No analogy is perfect, but it has to be relevant.
The iPhone was a vastly superior product released against an entrenched competitor. G+ is a vastly inferior product released against an entrenched competitor.
I can see how the tight integration with Google products and services will help G+. I can see it sticking around as the default communications/media sharing platform for Android. I can't see it killing off Facebook though.
A better analogy would be the the TouchPad. It's also an inferior product launching against an entrenched compeditor with a solid ecosystem... However I can see how the tight integration with the Pre would make it an attractive purchase for some people.
Comments
Linkage to the PERPETUAL access please.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...GNortelPR.mspx
But it's not clear whether Nortel's bankruptcy could have caused the agreement to become null, it's certainly plausible.
Apple has cross-licensed such needs through Nokia.
Are you trying to suggest that Nokia has licensed Motorola's patents to Apple? *face palm*
Samsung, HTC, Motorola,Intel and Android wantabe's around the world just saw their economics change drastically.... the cost of royalities just went up for many.... how much longer can Android be free when intellectual property has to be paid for somewhere along the way....
Are you sure Samsung isnt on the list indirectly?
http://www.bestgrowthstock.com/stock...ense-interest/
Linkage to the PERPETUAL access please.
Really?
Alright, here you go.
edit: edited for typo
And just like that, all the positive energy at Google around the initial reception to G+ just went right out the window.
What positive energy? From everything I've read, Google+ has bombed. People have classified it as too difficult to use and as no threat to Facebook.
It's entirely possible I'm not reading the right reports though.
That high winning amount is due to individual companies in the consortium were wiling to contribute more than any single company would on their own. I imagine if they license them out, the money they'll receive will be proportionate to the holding percentage. The licensing fee and arrangement between consortium members however would be different, could be lower but payable still.
There might of been a single company willing to pay almost as much. The winning bid got to that amount somehow. If Apple is more then a 50% contributor to the consortium, Apple might essentially control the patents.
And just like that, all the positive energy at Google around the initial reception to G+ just went right out the window.
I wonder if the consortium will use these patents aggressively? I can't imagine why else they would bid $4.5B.
I would say not. The fact that a group of companies pulled together to buy them, means they wanted to keep them out of the hands of someone who would use them offensively and aggressively. This is also Apple's second time in joining with a group of companies to secure wireless related pantents.
What positive energy? From everything I've read, Google+ has bombed. People have classified it as too difficult to use and as no threat to Facebook.
It's entirely possible I'm not reading the right reports though.
No, its had quite a positive reception.
I teased it a bit when I first saw it as well. It looks like direct Facebook clone with UI elements stolen from Microsoft's metro playbook!
After using it for a day though I'm starting to "get it"... a couple of things stand out.
The first is that Google+ isn't really Facebook per se, it's more like what Facebook+XBL are to Windows Phone (or at least Mango).
Think unified social communications platform (i.e. messaging, chat, voice, video) group experiences and media sharing.
The second is that it's soooooo pervasive. If you're using a Google, you're on G+. You don't need to go to the G+ site... it's just always there.
My predictions:
- The Google toolbar will be added to YouTube by the end of the year.
- G+ will be baked in Ice Cream Sandwich. End to end and everything in between.
- G+ will be baked into ChromeOS and the Chrome browser. Not sure when this will happen. Probably within a year.
Something else that needs to happen is an Apple/Facebook truce.After Microsoft purchased Skype I made the prediction that we would see Skype communications baked into Facebook.
After using G+ I'm doubling up on that prediction... however, I think that if Apple made the right kind of offer we could easily see an iMessage/iChat/Facetime integration with Facebook and Facebook baked into iOS.
Twitter integration into iOS5 is cute, but to be honest Apple need Facebook.
No, its had quite a positive reception.
Something else that needs to happen is an Apple/Facebook truce.
After Microsoft purchased Skype I made the prediction that we would see Skype communications baked into Facebook.
After using G+ I'm doubling up on that prediction... however, I think that if Apple made the right kind of offer we could easily see an iMessage/iChat/Facetime integration with Facebook and Facebook baked into iOS.
Twitter integration into iOS5 is cute, but to be honest Apple need Facebook.
The reception has been positive. Zuckerberg should be concerned, just as RIM should have been concerned when Apple first released the iPhone. Apple doesn't need Facebook. Facebook needs Apple.
Google needs to realize that they are an online services provider, not everything to everyone. Stick to what you're good at (maps, search, email, YouTube) and let everyone else take care of making the devices to get people to those services. If they had never made Android and made deals with RIM, Apple, Palm, Nokia, etc. to use Google services, they would be in an even better position than they are, IMHO. Just look at all the Google fingerprints on iOS still to this day (maps, YouTube app, default search)
edit: edited for typo
YouTube was sooo much better before Google. Now it's just ads.
If you're forced to overpay for something by circumstance, it's nice to have partners. Nortel's creditors are the winners here.
$750 for AdMob is overpayment.
$8 billion for Skype is overpayment.
$4.5 billion for Nortel's patents is not overpayment.
... but it is nice to have partners to share the bill... and, yes, lawyers and creditors are also winners in this deal.
Are you honestly suggesting that Motorola, Samsung et al have no patents? Motorola is one of the biggest holders of GSMA patents.
This will really help Apple against Motorola's suit against Apple. There is a good chance now, that Apple will not be paying Motorola a dime.
The reception has been positive. Zuckerberg should be concerned, just as RIM should have been concerned when Apple first released the iPhone. Apple doesn't need Facebook. Facebook needs Apple.
That's going too far the other way. Just as G+ can't be dismissed as irrelevant, it also can't be seen as the "Facebook killer".
I can see G+ being the social glue that pulls Google's services together, but I can't see it replacing Facebook.
It looks like Google and their OEMs are going to be suffering for this one.
That's going too far the other way. Just as G+ can't be dismissed as irrelevant, it also can't be seen as the "Facebook killer".
I can see G+ being the social glue that pulls Google's services together, but I can't see it replacing Facebook.
Balsillie and Lazaridis said the same sort of thing about the iPhone...
Well this is good news. I'm glad that Apple is part of the consortium that won the bid. As much as I don't like Microsoft. I must give them some credit for making a phone os that is very different from iOS. It seems like 1) Microsoft is at least respecting Apple's designs and 2) doing what they can to avoid being an iOS "copyist" like Google and their OEM phone manufacturers. I don't believe that Apple has any issues with Sony/Ericsson phone, because once again, their phones do not copy the iPhone, much. Rimm, too is vastly different.
It looks like Google and their OEMs are going to be suffering for this one.
Wrong on point 1 (in bold) and right on point 2 (in bold)... imho. MS was smart enough to create a different user experience than iOS with WP7 (Ballmer must have been away that day), it had nothing to do with respect (unless you meant respect in the sense that they respect Apple's success with the iPhone and decided that a copy wouldn't cut it).
MS is doing what tablet manufacturers should be doing... creating a different experience in the same form factor. webOS has (had) the best chance of doing this (again, imho) and hopefully it will be 3rd time a charm for HP sometime in the future.
[ on edit: Somebody must be liking Google's moves... the competitors (Apple, HP, MS are up no more than 1.6% today but Google is up 2.15%... actually Yahoo is also up 2.5% today... something up in the search area?! ]
Balsillie and Lazaridis said the same sort of thing about the iPhone...
A couple of guys made a stupid call about a phone and that is supposed to relate to a new social platform? No analogy is perfect, but it has to be relevant.
The iPhone was a vastly superior product released against an entrenched competitor. G+ is a vastly inferior product released against an entrenched competitor.
I can see how the tight integration with Google products and services will help G+. I can see it sticking around as the default communications/media sharing platform for Android. I can't see it killing off Facebook though.
A better analogy would be the the TouchPad. It's also an inferior product launching against an entrenched compeditor with a solid ecosystem... However I can see how the tight integration with the Pre would make it an attractive purchase for some people.