Ah, so they work for Apple and turn out their excellent products because ... they love what they do? They like being part of a winning team that innovates?
Apple's numbers include a lot of retail wages in that figure.
They published a mean without glancing at the standard deviation. Numbers only tell a story if you look at what they have to say. What a shame journalists have been replaced by reporters. Don't believe me? Check the in-depth reportage on their home page, they are the Bay Area web equivalent of the USA Today.
Gator, you read that tripe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
Give them time.
It's far easier to sue a hardware manufacturer, because there is a mechanism in place to physically block imports.
I'm sure I'd take less money to work at Apple than at MS. Just being able to use a Mac at work over a Windows PC is worth at least $10k/year in stress relief.
Apple's numbers include a lot of retail wages in that figure.
They published a mean without glancing at the standard deviation. Numbers only tell a story if you look at what they have to say. What a shame journalists have been replaced by reporters. Don't believe me? Check the in-depth reportage on their home page, they are the Bay Area web equivalent of the USA Today.
I've seen mention in the past that Apple engineer salaries are less than average. But they're also mentioned as one of the best companies to work for, making the pay differnence less of an issue.
A quick search shows support for the claim that Apple is fairly stingy when it comes to paying their engineering talent.
I'm sure I'd take less money to work at Apple than at MS. Just being able to use a Mac at work over a Windows PC is worth at least $10k/year in stress relief.
I've been telling this to my company's IT guy for years now...
I've been saying this from the beginning. In addition, from what I know about Moto's patent portfolio, most Of their patents aren't related to Googles' business at all. They have radio telephony patents. Patents related to two way communications, automobile interference CE technology, cable communitcations transceiver technologies, DVR patents, etc.
Little of this is related to what Google needs. Then, many of these patents have just a few years left.
I still insist that Google got snookered into this purchase under terms that were a last minute knee jerk reaction to Jha's statements the week before the purchase that stated that Moto was looking into making a WP7 phone line, and monetizing their patents with licensess, mostly to other Android manufacturers. I totally believe that spooked Paige, and anyone else involved.
Interestingly, even though Google has said that Andy Rubin was highly involved in this, other sources said that he was just TOLD of it when he was first brought in a week before!
In a few months we'll all understand the strength of Moto's patents better (or the lack of it). I've come across several opinion pieces that claim Google is buying enough to protect Android from almost monthly attacks on Android or it's partners. There's even claims that the IBM patents were aimed at Apple rather than the Moto ones. Since none of the Motorola patents have been tested in the infringement claims yet, we're all just guessing (or hoping) that there's nothing to them.
They may need to go back to that whole "adult supervision" thing...
Reminds me of a discussion Orlando and I had about this deal a couple of weeks back:
I'm voting for whatever choice is "not brilliant". :P
I'm voting for the "it is such a big event that we need to wait for the dust to settle before judging"
It could be one of the most costly mistakes made in the software industry, it could also be a brilliant move that catapults Google to even greater success. I can think of positive scenarios and negative scenarios. I do think there are a lot of details that aren't yet visible. Whatever your feelings on Google, they're certainly not boring.
I'm voting for the "it is such a big event that we need to wait for the dust to settle before judging"
It could be one of the most costly mistakes made in the software industry, it could also be a brilliant move that catapults Google to even greater success. I can think of positive scenarios and negative scenarios. I do think there are a lot of details that aren't yet visible. Whatever your feelings on Google, they're certainly not boring.
I am having a tough time following this. I think it means this: Motorola's Freescale division sold their patents long ago, some of which Apple bought. And most of the patents Google just bought for $12 billion are dependent on those long-gone Freescale patents. Therefore Google is *more* liable because of buying Motorola?
That's exactly what the video said as I understood it! Staggering if true.
please tell me how Google closing the code will give them more money.
Please remember the following:
1) Google makes money using eyeballs
2) HTC and Samsung both have existing deals with WP7, which uses Bing.
3) If Google pissed off HTC and Samsung it means far fewer eyeballs.
In order to make a "closed" android more attractive to them than "open" android currently is, Google would need to spend massive amounts of money improving developer experience for the platform (wait.. that would benefit them MORE if they were "open") . They would have to invest a ton of money into hardware design. (which they can do without closing android off), and they would need to find some way to make current android users all desire a higher priced "premium" motorola device (unlikely)
I don't doubt that google will do SOMETHING with motorola phones, but the whole "Google's going to close android" argument smacks too much of people assuming that Google thinks it can become Apple. The only company that really has a chance at "competing" with Apple in ecosystem terms is Amazon.
Google tried to get an injunction against one of Microsoft's witnesses in their case against Motorola, stating that the witness may reveal "highly proprietary parts" of Android's code which Google doesn't even share with OEM's.
The judge threw out Google's motion.
"Open" is a marketing term Google uses to attract the gullible to Android.
This Motorola acquisition is a tight walk. Not only are Motorola's debts and profit losses Google's debts and losses, but Motorola is the only android handset maker that has built in legal indemnity for Android.
Google tried to get an injunction against one of Microsoft's witnesses in their case against Motorola, stating that the witness may reveal "highly proprietary parts" of Android's code which Google doesn't even share with OEM's.
The judge threw out Google's motion.
"Open" is a marketing term Google uses to attract the gullible to Android.
I've explained this to you before. You ignored it then, so I won't waste my time.
TLR: There is code related to android that is not open and never was open. (Gapps, Market) You can build a working version of android without this code.
I've explained this to you before. You ignored it then, so I won't waste my time.
TLR: There is code related to android that is not open and never was open. (Gapps, Market) You can build a working version of android without this code.
You can build a working version of something, but it isn't Android without the closed parts, and Google won't allow you to sell it as such. hill60 is exactly right, Android isn't open and Google's claims that it is are just smoke and mirrors intended to dupe those who aren't capable of critical, rational thought.
hill60 is exactly right, Android isn't open and Google's claims that it is are just smoke and mirrors intended to dupe those who aren't capable of critical, rational thought.
And that matters because. . . ?
I've barely seen that mentioned anymore, even on enthusiast sites. No harm no foul IMO. Whether it's "open" according to everyone's personal interpretation of the idea really doesn't matter except to bloggers and geeks. It's not what attracts buyers to the Android devices. It's more that it offers choices for what fits them, whether it be the screen size, handset size, Google Navigation, finish or style, the latest hardware, price or carrier availability, whatever.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with choices. Even Apple recognizes that. They just don't feel the need to offer several of them in the handset line yet. What they have sells pretty darn good as is. But at some point you'll even see Apple start branching out with different color combos, style options and handset sizes IMHO.
Google needed to protect it's Android OHA partners, so they bought one of the same OHA partners (that needed the same protection).
The whole of Androidland is now protected??
Um... yes, assuming the patents were worth a squat. (According to this story, they aren't.)
But if they were, Google would take one or more of the good nuggets and sue the heck out of Apple for infringement, asking for preliminary injunctions against iPhone and/or iPad. If the patents were strong enough to warrant discussions and negotiations, Google's aim would be to settle this through a huge cross-licensing deal that included its partners.
So all that hinges on the big "if" of whether there are enough strong patents in that portfolio. This story says "no".
Um... yes, assuming the patents were worth a squat. (According to this story, they aren't.)
But if they were, Google would take one or more of the good nuggets and sue the heck out of Apple for infringement, asking for preliminary injunctions against iPhone and/or iPad. If the patents were strong enough to warrant discussions and negotiations, Google's aim would be to settle this through a huge cross-licensing deal that included its partners.
So all that hinges on the big "if" of whether there are enough strong patents in that portfolio. This story says "no".
Thompson
"This story" is one of many with varying opinions.
Google has no history of suing anyone over IP. There's also no indications whatsoever that they plan to start now. IMO, Google is not a danger to any of their competitors from a legal standpoint, unlike the extremely aggressive and unusual (for a large respected company) IP attacks that both Apple and Microsoft have been launching.
I've barely seen that mentioned anymore, even on enthusiast sites. No harm no foul IMO. Whether it's "open" according to everyone's personal interpretation of the idea really doesn't matter except to bloggers and geeks. It's not what attracts buyers to the Android devices. It's more that it offers choices for what fits them, whether it be the screen size, handset size, Google Navigation, finish or style, the latest hardware, price or carrier availability, whatever.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with choices. Even Apple recognizes that. They just don't feel the need to offer several of them in the handset line yet. What they have sells pretty darn good as is. But at some point you'll even see Apple start branching out with different color combos, style options and handset sizes IMHO.
Your complete and utter dishonesty is amusing. Clearly, Android's "openness" was its major appeal to the misguided, self-described geek crowd that threw their support behind it, and "openness", along with Google's "commitment to open source" is a huge part of the reason that these same people are rabid supporters of the company. To try and rewrite history and pretend now that it's just not important is about as disingenuous as it gets.
And, "what attracts buyers to the Android devices," has, except for these mislead, "bloggers and geeks," nothing to do with whether its any good or what features it has. It's all about naive consumers being pushed into cheap crap "feature" smartphones by carrier sales staff that have been trained to push whatever makes the carrier the most money at the lowest cost. No one chooses Android who has any clue what they are doing, except those who are still so deluded that they believe it is somehow "open".
Comments
Ah, so they work for Apple and turn out their excellent products because ... they love what they do? They like being part of a winning team that innovates?
Probably a good reason. . .
Apple isn't tops on the payscale.
Perhaps not paid as handsomely as you think. . .
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/pres...123373858.html
Apple's numbers include a lot of retail wages in that figure.
They published a mean without glancing at the standard deviation. Numbers only tell a story if you look at what they have to say. What a shame journalists have been replaced by reporters. Don't believe me? Check the in-depth reportage on their home page, they are the Bay Area web equivalent of the USA Today.
Gator, you read that tripe?
Give them time.
It's far easier to sue a hardware manufacturer, because there is a mechanism in place to physically block imports.
Probably a good reason. . .
Apple isn't tops on the payscale.
I'm sure I'd take less money to work at Apple than at MS. Just being able to use a Mac at work over a Windows PC is worth at least $10k/year in stress relief.
Apple's numbers include a lot of retail wages in that figure.
They published a mean without glancing at the standard deviation. Numbers only tell a story if you look at what they have to say. What a shame journalists have been replaced by reporters. Don't believe me? Check the in-depth reportage on their home page, they are the Bay Area web equivalent of the USA Today.
I've seen mention in the past that Apple engineer salaries are less than average. But they're also mentioned as one of the best companies to work for, making the pay differnence less of an issue.
A quick search shows support for the claim that Apple is fairly stingy when it comes to paying their engineering talent.
http://www.geekpedia.com/Report4_Sal...And-Yahoo.html
I'm sure I'd take less money to work at Apple than at MS. Just being able to use a Mac at work over a Windows PC is worth at least $10k/year in stress relief.
I've been telling this to my company's IT guy for years now...
Little of this is related to what Google needs. Then, many of these patents have just a few years left.
I still insist that Google got snookered into this purchase under terms that were a last minute knee jerk reaction to Jha's statements the week before the purchase that stated that Moto was looking into making a WP7 phone line, and monetizing their patents with licensess, mostly to other Android manufacturers. I totally believe that spooked Paige, and anyone else involved.
Interestingly, even though Google has said that Andy Rubin was highly involved in this, other sources said that he was just TOLD of it when he was first brought in a week before!
Google: We paid $12.5 billion for what????
They may need to go back to that whole "adult supervision" thing...
Reminds me of a discussion Orlando and I had about this deal a couple of weeks back:
I'm voting for whatever choice is "not brilliant". :P
I'm voting for the "it is such a big event that we need to wait for the dust to settle before judging"
It could be one of the most costly mistakes made in the software industry, it could also be a brilliant move that catapults Google to even greater success. I can think of positive scenarios and negative scenarios. I do think there are a lot of details that aren't yet visible. Whatever your feelings on Google, they're certainly not boring.
Perhaps not paid as handsomely as you think. . .
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/pres...123373858.html
?Apple may have a bunch more designers and Web marketers on staff than some of the other companies, and that might pay less,? Lee told Bloomberg News
I think support staff would really bring down the median salary at Apple.
?Apple may have a bunch more designers and Web marketers on staff than some of the other companies, and that might pay less,? Lee told Bloomberg News
I think support staff would really bring down the median salary at Apple.
The Apple engineering staff is also paid significantly less than at some other tech firms.
See post #25
I'm voting for the "it is such a big event that we need to wait for the dust to settle before judging"
It could be one of the most costly mistakes made in the software industry, it could also be a brilliant move that catapults Google to even greater success. I can think of positive scenarios and negative scenarios. I do think there are a lot of details that aren't yet visible. Whatever your feelings on Google, they're certainly not boring.
Well said, Orlando.
I am having a tough time following this. I think it means this: Motorola's Freescale division sold their patents long ago, some of which Apple bought. And most of the patents Google just bought for $12 billion are dependent on those long-gone Freescale patents. Therefore Google is *more* liable because of buying Motorola?
That's exactly what the video said as I understood it! Staggering if true.
please tell me how Google closing the code will give them more money.
Please remember the following:
1) Google makes money using eyeballs
2) HTC and Samsung both have existing deals with WP7, which uses Bing.
3) If Google pissed off HTC and Samsung it means far fewer eyeballs.
In order to make a "closed" android more attractive to them than "open" android currently is, Google would need to spend massive amounts of money improving developer experience for the platform (wait.. that would benefit them MORE if they were "open") . They would have to invest a ton of money into hardware design. (which they can do without closing android off), and they would need to find some way to make current android users all desire a higher priced "premium" motorola device (unlikely)
I don't doubt that google will do SOMETHING with motorola phones, but the whole "Google's going to close android" argument smacks too much of people assuming that Google thinks it can become Apple. The only company that really has a chance at "competing" with Apple in ecosystem terms is Amazon.
Google tried to get an injunction against one of Microsoft's witnesses in their case against Motorola, stating that the witness may reveal "highly proprietary parts" of Android's code which Google doesn't even share with OEM's.
The judge threw out Google's motion.
"Open" is a marketing term Google uses to attract the gullible to Android.
I agree with this BUT the problem is THIS:
This Motorola acquisition is a tight walk. Not only are Motorola's debts and profit losses Google's debts and losses, but Motorola is the only android handset maker that has built in legal indemnity for Android.
Read an interesting article earlier where a tax expert said how Motorola's losses could actually help Google when it comes to tax write-offs: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...xes-2011-9.DTL
So the deal isn't as bad for them financially (even not considering patents) as it might first seem.
Google tried to get an injunction against one of Microsoft's witnesses in their case against Motorola, stating that the witness may reveal "highly proprietary parts" of Android's code which Google doesn't even share with OEM's.
The judge threw out Google's motion.
"Open" is a marketing term Google uses to attract the gullible to Android.
I've explained this to you before. You ignored it then, so I won't waste my time.
TL
I've explained this to you before. You ignored it then, so I won't waste my time.
TL
You can build a working version of something, but it isn't Android without the closed parts, and Google won't allow you to sell it as such. hill60 is exactly right, Android isn't open and Google's claims that it is are just smoke and mirrors intended to dupe those who aren't capable of critical, rational thought.
hill60 is exactly right, Android isn't open and Google's claims that it is are just smoke and mirrors intended to dupe those who aren't capable of critical, rational thought.
And that matters because. . . ?
I've barely seen that mentioned anymore, even on enthusiast sites. No harm no foul IMO. Whether it's "open" according to everyone's personal interpretation of the idea really doesn't matter except to bloggers and geeks. It's not what attracts buyers to the Android devices. It's more that it offers choices for what fits them, whether it be the screen size, handset size, Google Navigation, finish or style, the latest hardware, price or carrier availability, whatever.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with choices. Even Apple recognizes that. They just don't feel the need to offer several of them in the handset line yet. What they have sells pretty darn good as is. But at some point you'll even see Apple start branching out with different color combos, style options and handset sizes IMHO.
Yup.
Google needed to protect it's Android OHA partners, so they bought one of the same OHA partners (that needed the same protection).
The whole of Androidland is now protected??
Um... yes, assuming the patents were worth a squat. (According to this story, they aren't.)
But if they were, Google would take one or more of the good nuggets and sue the heck out of Apple for infringement, asking for preliminary injunctions against iPhone and/or iPad. If the patents were strong enough to warrant discussions and negotiations, Google's aim would be to settle this through a huge cross-licensing deal that included its partners.
So all that hinges on the big "if" of whether there are enough strong patents in that portfolio. This story says "no".
Thompson
Um... yes, assuming the patents were worth a squat. (According to this story, they aren't.)
But if they were, Google would take one or more of the good nuggets and sue the heck out of Apple for infringement, asking for preliminary injunctions against iPhone and/or iPad. If the patents were strong enough to warrant discussions and negotiations, Google's aim would be to settle this through a huge cross-licensing deal that included its partners.
So all that hinges on the big "if" of whether there are enough strong patents in that portfolio. This story says "no".
Thompson
"This story" is one of many with varying opinions.
Google has no history of suing anyone over IP. There's also no indications whatsoever that they plan to start now. IMO, Google is not a danger to any of their competitors from a legal standpoint, unlike the extremely aggressive and unusual (for a large respected company) IP attacks that both Apple and Microsoft have been launching.
And that matters because. . . ?
I've barely seen that mentioned anymore, even on enthusiast sites. No harm no foul IMO. Whether it's "open" according to everyone's personal interpretation of the idea really doesn't matter except to bloggers and geeks. It's not what attracts buyers to the Android devices. It's more that it offers choices for what fits them, whether it be the screen size, handset size, Google Navigation, finish or style, the latest hardware, price or carrier availability, whatever.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with choices. Even Apple recognizes that. They just don't feel the need to offer several of them in the handset line yet. What they have sells pretty darn good as is. But at some point you'll even see Apple start branching out with different color combos, style options and handset sizes IMHO.
Your complete and utter dishonesty is amusing. Clearly, Android's "openness" was its major appeal to the misguided, self-described geek crowd that threw their support behind it, and "openness", along with Google's "commitment to open source" is a huge part of the reason that these same people are rabid supporters of the company. To try and rewrite history and pretend now that it's just not important is about as disingenuous as it gets.
And, "what attracts buyers to the Android devices," has, except for these mislead, "bloggers and geeks," nothing to do with whether its any good or what features it has. It's all about naive consumers being pushed into cheap crap "feature" smartphones by carrier sales staff that have been trained to push whatever makes the carrier the most money at the lowest cost. No one chooses Android who has any clue what they are doing, except those who are still so deluded that they believe it is somehow "open".
You really didn't earn your pay this week.