Google plotted to give Motorola early advantage over other Android licensees

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 138
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    One thing to keep in mind too, about Florian Mueller, is that the guy refuses to answer if he's being funded by Microsoft or their subsidiaries.



    http://techrights.org/2010/08/06/rec...n-groklaw-ibm/



    Meanwhile, their critics have certainly answered any questions about their biases:



    http://www.zdnet.com/news/letter-to-...nection/134733



    And yet the media continues to quote this MS troll.



    And he never admits he's wrong. He's now spinning this story as "it's not about the Nexus line" after being called out on his flawed analysis. And he's wrong again. He's failing to acknowledge that the Nexus line specifically gives an OEM the "time-to-market advantage" that he goes on and on about. What does he think made HTC the fifth-largest smartphone OEM in the world? According to Mueller, the G1 and the Nexus One had nothing to do with how fast devices like the HTC Desire came to market.



    Mueller is a free-lance paid consultant, he blogs as a form of advertising his services. He's not an unbiased journalist or anything of the sort, so quit trying to compare him to one. If you don't like what he says that's fine, but he isn't hiding anything nefarious. He is upfront about his business and why he blogs, and even blogged a couple times about that in the last few weeks. Is it unusual that a consultant does not comment on a client? Not at all, so just make the assumption that one of his clients is MS. If it isn't it is up to him to state otherwise, but it doesn't really change anything either way because you're just creating a red herring argument out of it.



    Having read his blog for a little over a year, I find your understanding of his posts which you cite snippets from quite contextually out in left field. Maybe you should read with less axe and grinder? What you are saying he says and what I take from what he writes are definitely of two different universes.
  • Reply 102 of 138
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    I'm an Apple fan and I don't think that. In fact, I agree with Menno that Google launched Android to insure that Google got as many eyeballs as possible in the mobile market. What I disagree with is whether or not its current strategy is wise. As for the 550,000 per day activations, it hasn't helped Google that much as far as revenue is concerned.



    I don't think the two facts are mutually exclusive. To me Android is a lot more like Symbian than iOS. To anybody who has used a Symbian phone this is blatantly obvious. Just sheer comfort level makes this point intuitive. A symbian user will feel far more familiar with Android than with iOS.



    But I too agree that Google launched Android to make sure that their services retained or acquired as many eyeballs as possible. That's documented in all that's come out during the Oracle suit. They were far more concerned about Microsoft than they were about Apple. Which is why all this hate by Apple fans for Google is nonsensical. It's not like Google has stopped supporting iOS. Some of the best and most popular applications on iOS are made (or provisioned ie maps) by Google. And I've made this viewpoint too, all along.



    Google had no choice. They could not leave themselves at the mercy of Apple. Just look at how Apple has acted with some Google apps (Google Voice is a great example). And then there's the fact that Apple's interests simply don't align with Google. Google needs hardware to be as cheap and as widely distributed as possible. Apple on the other hands, wants high profits margins and will occassionally sign carrier exclusives to keep those margins. Neither philosophy is wrong. They are just different models of business, more appropriate to their industry (Google as an advertiser and software provider, and Apple as a hardware OEM.).



    Unfortunately for Google however, Apple was not willling to increase marketshare rapidly (ensuring that Google could ride Apple to the top in the mobile internet space). And with Symbian collapsing, and the likelihood of Blackberry following suit (and RIM aligned with MS), and WebOS being another Apple like vertically integrated platform, the platform that was likely to emerge as being the new Symbian would have been Windows Mobile/Phone. People forget how much traction Windows Mobile had not too long ago. And devices like the HTC Touch Diamond were actually reasonably (in non-Apple terms) popular. Google would have been largely locked out of the mobile space if OEMs like HTC, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, etc. had decided to stick to Windows Mobile. In that landscape, backing Android was a really good decision.



    As for revenue...we'll never know. Unless Google itself provides data that's broken out. Andy Rubin has said Android breaks even. So be it. The more relevant question to ask is what would have happened to Google if they hadn't launched Android? What would Google have lost, had it not pursued Android and Microsoft had moved in to dominate this space? Android is quite sensible to me, as a defensive play. It's ensured that Google's services (from Search to Maps to email) remain relevant in the mobile space. If they haven't made any money, at the very minimum, they've ensured that they haven't lost many customers to their rivals (Microsoft not Apple) either.
  • Reply 103 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I'm a bit disappointed. Google may have legal problems, perhaps even serious ones, but I can't tell from reading his blog. It doesn't appear I can trust FossPatents for an honest take on them anymore. Maybe I never could, but didn't have eyes open enough to notice.



    GrokLaw does a very good job on contractual law but everyone that writes for them have such a distaste for the concept of Intelectual Property, it is biased the other way.
  • Reply 104 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Wow, another person who doesn't agree with you that you publicly disparage. Maybe where there's smoke and raging flames there's fire? Rather than a conspiracy to create something you personally don't agree with?



    Hiro, your new look attitude towards the potential bias of Florian Mueller and why it's OK has changed a bit since yesterday.



    Combined with another of your quotes, "Is it unusual that a consultant does not comment on a client? Not at all, so just make the assumption that one of his clients is MS. If it isn't it is up to him to state otherwise. . .", Is it possible that Apple is now also a client of his, so that disparaging comments about Apple will be avoided too? Dunno, and I'm not making that claim, but using your reasoning it might be assumed by some that Apple is a client.
  • Reply 105 of 138
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Mueller is a free-lance paid consultant, he blogs as a form of advertising his services.



    I suspect that he gets paid more from his clickbait than his consultancy. Why else is he so quick to rush to judgement?



    And I'm being serious. He bills himself as somebody who advises clients on "the patent wars". He has no legal training. And often provides advice that's flat out wrong. If somebody actually is paying him for his advice, I'd love to know who that is. (and may the gods help them when his crap doesn't pan out).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    He's not an unbiased journalist or anything of the sort, so quit trying to compare him to one.



    I didn't say he was a journalist. But he does like to portray himself as only putting forward the unvarnished truth by virtue of his "expertise", when he does nothing of the sort. He does spin.



    And his chicken little routine is getting tiresome.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    He is upfront about his business and why he blogs, and even blogged a couple times about that in the last few weeks. Is it unusual that a consultant does not comment on a client? Not at all, so just make the assumption that one of his clients is MS. If it isn't it is up to him to state otherwise, but it doesn't really change anything either way because you're just creating a red herring argument out of it.



    It changes a lot. When the media keep quoting him, they talk him up as an expert on open source and patent issues. How do you think they would treat him if they knew he was essentially a paid advocate of Microsoft?



    Let's take a non-tech example. Let's say a think tank was advocating a defence project to Congress. Would you consider it irrelevant, if Boeing or Lockheed Martin was quietly funding them?



    And if it's not that big a deal as you suggest, why can't he reveal where his paycheck comes from? Whenever he's accused critics of being funded, they've revealed their ties. But he won't reveal his? That's BS.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Having read his blog for a little over a year, I find your understanding of his posts which you cite snippets from quite contextually out in left field. Maybe you should read with less axe and grinder? What you are saying he says and what I take from what he writes are definitely of two different universes.



    I've read his stuff here and there for longer than that, before he became all Google (or rather anti-Google) all the time. And he was just as bad before. Before Google, there was IBM. And before that there was (oddly enough) Oracle. The guy has a history of shooting first, and not apologizing later (he just misdirects to new issues). Only now he's becoming more annoying and obnoxious because he's got a larger soapbox by virtue of the mainstream media covering tech catfights and seeking him out as an "expert".



    And please explain where my take is "contextually out in left field". If I've misunderstood his update to his post on the "shocker", I would not mind somebody explaining it to me and correcting me at all.
  • Reply 106 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    1)

    Most android sites don't post Apple specific news, or if they do they at least try to read up on the topic to give intelligent commentary.



    Actually, many do. They also have posters users using terms like iToy, iTards, iCrap and dozen other derogatory terms to refer Apple products and users.
  • Reply 107 of 138
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


    GrokLaw does a very good job on contractual law but everyone that writes for them have such a distaste for the concept of Intelectual Property, it is biased the other way.



    For sure.



    However, they can't beat for proper factual legal analysis. And they are also quite explicit and clear on when they are editorializing and when they are discussing legal arguments and facts.



    That's the difference.



    Just compare articles on Oracle v. Google at groklaw and fosspatents. And decide for yourself, who's more accurate and reasonable.
  • Reply 108 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    For sure.



    However, they can't beat for proper factual legal analysis. And they are also quite explicit and clear on when they are editorializing and when they are discussing legal arguments and facts.



    That's the difference.



    Just compare articles on Oracle v. Google at groklaw and fosspatents. And decide for yourself, who's more accurate and reasonable.



    I actually strongly disagree with that view. Groklaw freely mixes fact and editorial content on any issue of IP law.



    Both are highly biased with personal agendas.
  • Reply 109 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    I don't think the two facts are mutually exclusive. To me Android is a lot more like Symbian than iOS. To anybody who has used a Symbian phone this is blatantly obvious. Just sheer comfort level makes this point intuitive. A symbian user will feel far more familiar with Android than with iOS.



    But I too agree that Google launched Android to make sure that their services retained or acquired as many eyeballs as possible. That's documented in all that's come out during the Oracle suit. They were far more concerned about Microsoft than they were about Apple. Which is why all this hate by Apple fans for Google is nonsensical. It's not like Google has stopped supporting iOS. Some of the best and most popular applications on iOS are made (or provisioned ie maps) by Google. And I've made this viewpoint too, all along.



    I don't think some of the anger is unwarranted. A lot of Android fans called Apple fascists among other things and some fans feel that Google took a lot from Apple for its OS (I'm on the fence on that until these pesky lawsuits have cleared).



    Quote:

    Google had no choice. They could not leave themselves at the mercy of Apple. Just look at how Apple has acted with some Google apps (Google Voice is a great example). And then there's the fact that Apple's interests simply don't align with Google. Google needs hardware to be as cheap and as widely distributed as possible. Apple on the other hands, wants high profits margins and will occassionally sign carrier exclusives to keep those margins. Neither philosophy is wrong. They are just different models of business, more appropriate to their industry (Google as an advertiser and software provider, and Apple as a hardware OEM.).



    Unfortunately for Google however, Apple was not willling to increase marketshare rapidly (ensuring that Google could ride Apple to the top in the mobile internet space). And with Symbian collapsing, and the likelihood of Blackberry following suit (and RIM aligned with MS), and WebOS being another Apple like vertically integrated platform, the platform that was likely to emerge as being the new Symbian would have been Windows Mobile/Phone. People forget how much traction Windows Mobile had not too long ago. And devices like the HTC Touch Diamond were actually reasonably (in non-Apple terms) popular. Google would have been largely locked out of the mobile space if OEMs like HTC, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, etc. had decided to stick to Windows Mobile. In that landscape, backing Android was a really good decision.



    As for revenue...we'll never know. Unless Google itself provides data that's broken out. Andy Rubin has said Android breaks even. So be it. The more relevant question to ask is what would have happened to Google if they hadn't launched Android? What would Google have lost, had it not pursued Android and Microsoft had moved in to dominate this space? Android is quite sensible to me, as a defensive play. It's ensured that Google's services (from Search to Maps to email) remain relevant in the mobile space. If they haven't made any money, at the very minimum, they've ensured that they haven't lost many customers to their rivals (Microsoft not Apple) either



    The Google Voice app situation happened AFTER relations got sour. I don't see any indication that Apple wanted to horn in on Google's business in any way and in fact was relying on them to help make a unique customer experience. Remember that the first iPhone had web apps only for third parties EXCEPT Google. Apple had a "store" for those web apps, but Google does the web much better than Apple so it could have easily capitalized on this. As for gaining marketshare rapidly, just because something is quick doesn't mean it is smart. Because Google apparently wanted the moon at lightspeed, it now has taken on quite a bit of risk with an unclear pay off.



    Now to address the revenue situation, Andy may have stated that it had broke even in the past but certainly isn't the case now. Google spent nearly two years of profit and 1/3 of its cash reserves recently in the name of Android. That's not profit from mobile but profit from EVERYTHING. Before this purchase, Schmidt said that he hoped to get $10 per handet in revenues from advertising. I bet that goal has increased by quite a bit now that they have put up a fortune. IMO, the sensible thing would have been to focus on its services to sell to OEMs and carriers and let them duke it out with whatever they had to offer.
  • Reply 110 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


    Actually, many do. They also have posters users using terms like iToy, iTards, iCrap and dozen other derogatory terms to refer Apple products and users.



    On an Android enthusiast site? Which one and is there a link to the insulting posts? I've never seen one. I'll be one of the first ones to jump in support of the insulted party. Ad hominums are not only a failure of logic, but of common courtesy and respect.
  • Reply 111 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    On an Android enthusiast site? Which one and is there a link to the insulting posts? I've never seen one. I'll be one of the first ones to jump in support of the insulted party. Ad hominums are not only a failure of logic, but of common courtesy and respect.



    You're kidding, right?!!



    If I go to Apple forum sites I rarely, if ever, see jabs at Android... same goes for Android forum sites.



    BUT...



    If I go to Android rumour/news sites similar to AI then anyone blessing Apple better run for the hills.



    Example:



    http://androidandme.com/2011/09/news...mber/#comments
  • Reply 112 of 138
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    I don't think some of the anger is unwarranted. A lot of Android fans called Apple fascists among other things and some fans feel that Google took a lot from Apple for its OS (I'm on the fence on that until these pesky lawsuits have cleared).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    On an Android enthusiast site? Which one and is there a link to the insulting posts? I've never seen one. I'll be one of the first ones to jump in support of the insulted party. Ad hominums are not only a failure of logic, but of common courtesy and respect.



    The comments are there. That said, I have to say that from my readings on the interwebs, there seems to be a much more visceral hatred of Google from Apple fans than the other way around, once you get past the 15 year old fanboys. And some of that hatred is just weirdly broad. There's a lot of Apple fans now swearing by Bing just because they dislike Google. That's irrational.



    Conversely, a lot of Android fans (even if it's begrudgingly) will willingly acknowledge the many strengths of Apple's business models and Apple's products. I, for one (though I dunno if I'm a pure Android fan since I love and use many Apple products too and the only Android I have is my phone), think the iPhone 4 (never really liked the iPhone before it) is one amazing piece of kit. And I've always suggested to friends that a perfect phone would look like a camera. I was quite pleased to see the iPhone 4 looking like an old Leica.



    And then I often find this kind of justification. Some 12 year old pre-pubescent boy called Apple fascists on an Android fan site (though I've yet to see that word used), so therefore my visceral dislike of anything and everything Google is justified.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    The Google Voice app situation happened AFTER relations got sour.



    I would say it's one of the incidents that contributed to poor relations between the companies.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    I don't see any indication that Apple wanted to horn in on Google's business in any way...



    Nor did anybody say Apple did. However, as I suggested, Google wasn't worried about Apple (who at the time was aiming for 1% of the smartphone market). They were worried about Microsoft. Keep in mind, these were years, when MS was actually growing its market share and Symbian was dominating. And RIM had struck deals with MS.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    ...and in fact was relying on them to help make a unique customer experience.



    And Google has delivered. To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of Navigation (which may well be more Apple than Google), they haven't really held back anything from iOS have they? Indeed, a lot of Google's apps are better on iOS than they are on Android.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    Remember that the first iPhone had web apps only for third parties EXCEPT Google.



    Indeed. And that shows you that they were committed to iOS, even if they were planning theyir own OS.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    Apple had a "store" for those web apps, but Google does the web much better than Apple so it could have easily capitalized on this.



    But that's not Google's goal. That's my point. It wasn't enough for Google to do well on iOS. To ensure that their core business is protected, they had to do well across the mobile space. And Apple was going to grow too slowly for that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    As for gaining marketshare rapidly, just because something is quick doesn't mean it is smart. Because Google apparently wanted the moon at lightspeed, it now has taken on quite a bit of risk with an unclear pay off.



    Sure. But what other way was there? Apple fans insist that Google should have essentially bet their business on Apple's success. But think back to 2007 and Apple hoping 1% marketshare. If you were Google, would you have bet your company's future on that. Moreover, would have bet on a company that has a history of being happy with small marketshare, when the very future of your company depends on that platform maximizing marketshare? Think of it from Google's perspective. Not that of an Apple fan.



    They are (even today) deathly afraid of Microsoft. Not Apple. Apple to them is something of a frenemy at worst. As long as Apple allows Google's services on their platform, Google has scant to worry about the competition between Android and iOS. But Google is worried that Microsoft could gain marketshare and essentially kill off Google as the world moves towards a mobile-centric future.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    Now to address the revenue situation, Andy may have stated that it had broke even in the past but certainly isn't the case now. Google spent nearly two years of profit and 1/3 of its cash reserves recently in the name of Android. That's not profit from mobile but profit from EVERYTHING. Before this purchase, Schmidt said that he hoped to get $10 per handet in revenues from advertising. I bet that goal has increased by quite a bit now that they have put up a fortune. IMO, the sensible thing would have been to focus on its services to sell to OEMs and carriers and let them duke it out with whatever they had to offer.



    This is a bit presumptuous. You are rolling in Motorola before the deal is even complete and before Google has done anything with it? I think it's disingenous to suggest that all of a sudden they've spent $20 billion on Android. Android is still a separate operating unit of Google. And they are still breaking even (or profitable) on their own. And MMI will still be run as a separate entity. Heck, for all we know Google may keep the patents and spin the manufacturing side off the day after the deal concludes. Then, will they have spent $20 billion?



    Moreover, again, you are looking at it from the perpsective of an Apple fan. What if they did this not so much to protect Android as much as they did this to say prevent MS from getting another leg up. Imagine Nokia or MS itself buying Motorola and what that would have done to Google's interest.



    But even if they have allegedly spent $20 billion to protect Android. That's small potatoes compared to the consequences of MS dominating the mobile space down the road and effectively using that dominance to kill off Google. They don't want to be another Netscape.
  • Reply 113 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    You're kidding, right?!!



    If I go to Apple forum sites I rarely, if ever, see jabs at Android... same goes for Android forum sites.



    BUT...



    If I go to Android rumour/news sites similar to AI then anyone blessing Apple better run for the hills.



    Example:



    http://androidandme.com/2011/09/news...mber/#comments



    Wow. My apologies then. That's the first time I've seen that type of venom posted on Android-centric sites, tho I really don't spend much time around them. No excuse for it, and I plan to keep my word and chime in before the day is over.
  • Reply 114 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Wow. My apologies then. That's the first time I've seen that type of venom posted on Android-centric sites, tho I really don't spend much time around them. No excuse for it, and I plan to keep my word and chime in before the day is over.



    in all fairness the Apple fans there provoked them.



    And sheesh at those apple fans there. The ones here are gems. agree or not they at least seem intelligent.
  • Reply 115 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    The comments are there. That said, I have to say that from my readings on the interwebs, there seems to be a much more visceral hatred of Google from Apple fans than the other way around, once you get past the 15 year old fanboys. And some of that hatred is just weirdly broad. There's a lot of Apple fans now swearing by Bing just because they dislike Google. That's irrational.



    Conversely, a lot of Android fans (even if it's begrudgingly) will willingly acknowledge the many strengths of Apple's business models and Apple's products. I, for one (though I dunno if I'm a pure Android fan since I love and use many Apple products too and the only Android I have is my phone), think the iPhone 4 (never really liked the iPhone before it) is one amazing piece of kit. And I've always suggested to friends that a perfect phone would look like a camera. I was quite pleased to see the iPhone 4 looking like an old Leica.



    And then I often find this kind of justification. Some 12 year old pre-pubescent boy called Apple fascists on an Android fan site (though I've yet to see that word used), so therefore my visceral dislike of anything and everything Google is justified.







    I would say it's one of the incidents that contributed to poor relations between the companies.







    Nor did anybody say Apple did. However, as I suggested, Google wasn't worried about Apple (who at the time was aiming for 1% of the smartphone market). They were worried about Microsoft. Keep in mind, these were years, when MS was actually growing its market share and Symbian was dominating. And RIM had struck deals with MS.







    And Google has delivered. To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of Navigation (which may well be more Apple than Google), they haven't really held back anything from iOS have they? Indeed, a lot of Google's apps are better on iOS than they are on Android.







    Indeed. And that shows you that they were committed to iOS, even if they were planning theyir own OS.







    But that's not Google's goal. That's my point. It wasn't enough for Google to do well on iOS. To ensure that their core business is protected, they had to do well across the mobile space. And Apple was going to grow too slowly for that.







    Sure. But what other way was there? Apple fans insist that Google should have essentially bet their business on Apple's success. But think back to 2007 and Apple hoping 1% marketshare. If you were Google, would you have bet your company's future on that. Moreover, would have bet on a company that has a history of being happy with small marketshare, when the very future of your company depends on that platform maximizing marketshare? Think of it from Google's perspective. Not that of an Apple fan.



    They are (even today) deathly afraid of Microsoft. Not Apple. Apple to them is something of a frenemy at worst. As long as Apple allows Google's services on their platform, Google has scant to worry about the competition between Android and iOS. But Google is worried that Microsoft could gain marketshare and essentially kill off Google as the world moves towards a mobile-centric future.







    This is a bit presumptuous. You are rolling in Motorola before the deal is even complete and before Google has done anything with it? I think it's disingenous to suggest that all of a sudden they've spent $20 billion on Android. Android is still a separate operating unit of Google. And they are still breaking even (or profitable) on their own. And MMI will still be run as a separate entity. Heck, for all we know Google may keep the patents and spin the manufacturing side off the day after the deal concludes. Then, will they have spent $20 billion?



    Moreover, again, you are looking at it from the perpsective of an Apple fan. What if they did this not so much to protect Android as much as they did this to say prevent MS from getting another leg up. Imagine Nokia or MS itself buying Motorola and what that would have done to Google's interest.



    But even if they have allegedly spent $20 billion to protect Android. That's small potatoes compared to the consequences of MS dominating the mobile space down the road and effectively using that dominance to kill off Google. They don't want to be another Netscape.



    I'm not going to delve into whose fanboi is ruder/angrier because there really is no objective answer to that.



    Ok, so on to real subjects. I am pretty sure that there was bad blood months before the google voice app because I was actually using that product at the time.



    You seem to reply as if I'm arguing that Google didn't want to provide its services to Apple while that is not the case. My point is that Apple treated them as a preferred partner therefore very little chance of them screwing them over for Bing.



    You stated that Apple wanted 1% of the smartphone market. That's not the case. Apple wanted 1% of the entire cell phone market. Analysts thought Jobs was crazy when he stated that because the smartphone market was not large enough for that to happen unless Apple had well over half of smartphone sales. They didn't take into account that smartphone sales would explode with the new UI/UX paradigm. Coming out with its own OS has caused Apple to start developing alternative services (not yet released).



    As for the revenue, Motorola isn't profitable nor is it breaking even. It has been losing money. Also, even if Google runs it as a separate company, the losses are still Google's regardless. This is why its handset partners should be a little nervous because even if Google doesn't plan to outright cut them out, it will need to figure out how to make Motorola profitable and that money will most likely come at the expense of its partners.
  • Reply 116 of 138
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


    Actually, many do. They also have posters users using terms like iToy, iTards, iCrap and dozen other derogatory terms to refer Apple products and users.



    So you're comparing USERS to people who are billed as authors?



    Unless you're trying to imply that the AI writer is equivalent to a blog commenter (I doubt you are) you might want to rethink what you just said.



    I was talking about DED, not you or me or anyone else.



    And can you link to a recent article by a well known site that they editorialized about Apple's agenda where it didn't directly intersect with their normal news (eg apple suing android users)
  • Reply 117 of 138
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    reality can not be bias



    Bias:



    Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias



    Misleading/Dissembling:



    A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. "Dissembling" likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie



    One can be completely biased and nevertheless accurately reference reality by dissembling.
  • Reply 118 of 138
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    I don't think some of the anger is unwarranted. A lot of Android fans called Apple fascists among other things and some fans feel that Google took a lot from Apple for its OS (I'm on the fence on that until these pesky lawsuits have cleared).



    by the same token, a lot of apple fans imply that Android users are:

    1) Cheap: Implying that only cheap people buy android and that android users never pay for apps.

    2) Stupid: Implying that people only buy Android if they're forced into it, or if they don't know any better. If we do, we're called-->

    3) Paid Shills: Certain members of this site will call ANYONE who questions AI or Apple paid employees of Google. Implying that we're part of some massive campaign to spread disinformation. Because, you know, a company would pay someone to troll the comments of AI.

    4) "fandroids:" the false assumption that just because we question apple's policies and support googles on some matters on this site, that we obviously think Apple is Satan and google can do no wrong. The fact of the matter is, is if I want to talk about criticisms about Google, I do it somewhere where I can interact with people who will know what I'm talking about. Most of the commenters here have NEVER used an Android device as a daily driver, so they won't understand what I'm saying and will instead harp talking points they've heard from writers like DED. Some of the MOST critical sites you'll find towards google are the Android "fan" sites. That's why it baffles a lot of users when they see sites like AI where the writers seem almost defensive of apple.



    Quote:

    The Google Voice app situation happened AFTER relations got sour. I don't see any indication that Apple wanted to horn in on Google's business in any way and in fact was relying on them to help make a unique customer experience. Remember that the first iPhone had web apps only for third parties EXCEPT Google. Apple had a "store" for those web apps, but Google does the web much better than Apple so it could have easily capitalized on this. As for gaining marketshare rapidly, just because something is quick doesn't mean it is smart. Because Google apparently wanted the moon at lightspeed, it now has taken on quite a bit of risk with an unclear pay off.



    I actually think the GV thing was (partially) because of ATT. GV gives you free texting, and that was a HUGE revenue source for ATT with the iphone. The bad blood between Google and Apple couldn't have helped, but ATT has blocked Apple from implementing features before.



    Quote:

    Now to address the revenue situation, Andy may have stated that it had broke even in the past but certainly isn't the case now. Google spent nearly two years of profit and 1/3 of its cash reserves recently in the name of Android. That's not profit from mobile but profit from EVERYTHING. Before this purchase, Schmidt said that he hoped to get $10 per handet in revenues from advertising. I bet that goal has increased by quite a bit now that they have put up a fortune. IMO, the sensible thing would have been to focus on its services to sell to OEMs and carriers and let them duke it out with whatever they had to offer.



    I've written this other places, but I think Google will use Motorola as a (soft) stick. They'll make motorola favor OS updates over customizations and strong arm telecoms to limit the bloat on them, at least on high end devices. Motorola Could've done this, but chose not to.



    This will encourage HTC and Samsung to do the same (and make it much harder for Verizon to say no). One of the biggest problems with HTC/Samsung/Moto is that they still operate on the old telecom model. So once a customer was locked into a contract, you just kinda forgot about them. By making moto a lot faster at updates, it will encourage HTC and Samsung to do the same. Google can accomplish this without giving a SINGLE line of code early to motorola.



    Look at the Cyanogen Mod team. They manage updates across 20+ phones, often having a "final" stable build released before it pushes out on the devices, if the manufacturers push it out at all. Imagine what a PAID team could accomplish if they were told OS updates mattered?



    All google needs from Motorola is for it to stop losing money. I don't think they intend to turn it into a profit machine.
  • Reply 119 of 138
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    You're kidding, right?!!



    If I go to Apple forum sites I rarely, if ever, see jabs at Android... same goes for Android forum sites.



    BUT...



    If I go to Android rumour/news sites similar to AI then anyone blessing Apple better run for the hills.



    Example:



    http://androidandme.com/2011/09/news...mber/#comments



    If you go to apple forum sites? You mean like AI? Or apple bloggers lie "daring fireball" or "roughly drafted" or MG Seiglar's posts at TechCrunch (though his jabs are atleast veiled)



    The thing is, AI and others run a lot of the "jabs" as ARTICLES. not comments.



    I'm not justifying what happened there. But you're comparing comments on an article to the article itself.
  • Reply 120 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    by the same token, a lot of apple fans imply that Android users are:

    1) Cheap: Implying that only cheap people buy android and that android users never pay for apps.

    2) Stupid: Implying that people only buy Android if they're forced into it, or if they don't know any better. If we do, we're called-->

    3) Paid Shills: Certain members of this site will call ANYONE who questions AI or Apple paid employees of Google. Implying that we're part of some massive campaign to spread disinformation. Because, you know, a company would pay someone to troll the comments of AI.

    4) "fandroids:" the false assumption that just because we question apple's policies and support googles on some matters on this site, that we obviously think Apple is Satan and google can do no wrong. The fact of the matter is, is if I want to talk about criticisms about Google, I do it somewhere where I can interact with people who will know what I'm talking about. Most of the commenters here have NEVER used an Android device as a daily driver, so they won't understand what I'm saying and will instead harp talking points they've heard from writers like DED. Some of the MOST critical sites you'll find towards google are the Android "fan" sites. That's why it baffles a lot of users when they see sites like AI where the writers seem almost defensive of apple.





    I actually think the GV thing was (partially) because of ATT. GV gives you free texting, and that was a HUGE revenue source for ATT with the iphone. The bad blood between Google and Apple couldn't have helped, but ATT has blocked Apple from implementing features before.





    I've written this other places, but I think Google will use Motorola as a (soft) stick. They'll make motorola favor OS updates over customizations and strong arm telecoms to limit the bloat on them, at least on high end devices. Motorola Could've done this, but chose not to.



    This will encourage HTC and Samsung to do the same (and make it much harder for Verizon to say no). One of the biggest problems with HTC/Samsung/Moto is that they still operate on the old telecom model. So once a customer was locked into a contract, you just kinda forgot about them. By making moto a lot faster at updates, it will encourage HTC and Samsung to do the same. Google can accomplish this without giving a SINGLE line of code early to motorola.



    Look at the Cyanogen Mod team. They manage updates across 20+ phones, often having a "final" stable build released before it pushes out on the devices, if the manufacturers push it out at all. Imagine what a PAID team could accomplish if they were told OS updates mattered?



    All google needs from Motorola is for it to stop losing money. I don't think they intend to turn it into a profit machine.



    1) I won't deny that but to be fair I was replying to the remark about the anger being non-sensical and non-trolls from both sides have a right to be miffed when being insulted

    2) I agree with your thoughts on GV (mostly because that is exactly how I used it)

    3) I mostly agree that Google doesn't have to make Motorola a profit center and hopefully just break even, BUT I think you are being overly optimistic as far as the other handset makers are concerned. They HAVE to put those skins on to differentiate and their DNA really isn't about updating existing but rather selling new kit. I personally hope that Google overhauls Motorola so that it doesn't produce dozens of types of phones every year and stick to 2-3 that are extremely high quality with regular updates. That would help establish a real brand for them instead of just another Android phone.
Sign In or Register to comment.