The strategy is really simple. License other companies' IP but don't let other companies license Apple's own IP. That way, Apple will always have the best devices. Who can argue with this
I can.
If you are following Foss's blog and AppleInsider articles you will know that Apple is a participant and key contributor to a number of open standards. Apple also cross licenses with others like Nokia who have genuinely original and useful IP.
But it is becoming increasingly clear that Apple has some original IP around capacitive miltitouch, the stuff Jobs was referring to in his keynote intro of the original iPhone when he said "and boy have we patented it!" If another manufacturer has equally powerful and valuable IP I am sure Apple will be happy to cross-license, as they did with Nokia. Otherwise, the companies that don't do R&D (or dont succeed at it) are probably out of luck.
Apple is absolutely and passionately committed to being Different. They succeed by product differentiation above all else. This is their business model and thus they won't license important IP that contributes to that differentiation.
If the current patent disputes are an indication, then maybe the "lower level patents" cover underlying technology, as opposed to patents on aspects of the technology that are apparent to users, and thus contribute to product differentiation.
If the current patent disputes are an indication, then maybe the "lower level patents" cover underlying technology, as opposed to patents on aspects of the technology that are apparent to users, and thus contribute to product differentiation.
Agreed. Apple developed and subsequently made their Webkit browser engine an open standard (it now powers Safari and Chrome among others) but would never open-source or license the interface elements of Safari, OSX or iOS.
Forbes wrote that Microsoft will make billions of Android.
Between 700-1000 million just next year. This is much more then their Windows Mobile division does earn and probably will ever earn.
In lastest Google report they say that Google makes 2.5 billion on mobile advertising. Some less intelligent news sites have reported that "Android generates 2.5 billion". No, its all mobile devices with Google search engine including Android and iOS.
Microsoft makes more money on Android then Google does, since licensing is free money.
Android is so far the most expensive "free" (linux) OS in the world. Google have spent upwards 20 billion on buying stuff like Android, patents from IBM and Motorola mobile. They have also lost patent cases with their Linux code in Android.
If Google had some self criticism they would not have launched Android and instead continued to pay phone makers to make Google the default search engine. Far cheaper.
Google could also have invented something themselves, so they did not have to buy patents and license stuff.
And this is just the beginning. The ruling Apple Vs HTC / Samsung will probably cost Android OEMs even more.
I would have no problem with Google if the simply had developed their own OS like WebOS. But that is not their culture. Google buys stuff and release it. They settle after the fact, like the royalties Google have to pay for all Youtube videos.
You must hate Siri and multitouch then if you hate Android because Google bought it :-/
It's not like Google bought Android in 2005 then released it as was...they'd invested countless dollars and hours into R&D to continuously evolve the Android platform.
What they bought in 2005 is essentially the skeleton of what they have now in 2011...don't discredit them simply because they bought a skeleton 6 years ago therefore there is nothing they added.
And the Youtube example is weak because Google doesn't actually upload upwards of 99.999% of their content.
If I post a full episode of Modern Family on Youtube, that is not Google's fault.
You must hate Siri and multitouch then if you hate Android because Google bought it :-/
It's not like Google bought Android in 2005 then released it as was...they'd invested countless dollars and hours into R&D to continuously evolve the Android platform.
What they bought in 2005 is essentially the skeleton of what they have now in 2011...don't discredit them simply because they bought a skeleton 6 years ago therefore there is nothing they added.
And the Youtube example is weak because Google doesn't actually upload upwards of 99.999% of their content.
If I post a full episode of Modern Family on Youtube, that is not Google's fault.
Apple isn't interested in bargaining and feels they hold the important cards in this fight. And by law, they don't really have to. This is an interesting place for patent law in court in that usually these disputes are settled by one party writing the other a large check. But what if the patent holder doesn't want their money, just relief? The law as written says that Apple can have that remedy. Microsoft is perfectly happy earning money off the Android system...they aren't making that much money on their own phones anyway. Apple on the other hand is flush with cash as it is. They just want Samsung's Android phone/tablet business to go away. So far, Samsung doesn't have enough cards at this poker table to force Apple to accept settlement and the courts agree (so far).
If I post a full episode of Modern Family on Youtube, that is not Google's fault.
Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.
Same with videos that have commercial songs as the soundtrack. Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.
So, I suspect that there could be more effective file screening on YouTube.
Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.
Same with videos that have commercial songs as the soundtrack. Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.
So, I suspect that there could be more effective file screening on YouTube.
They do remove many things. I know people who upload scenes from breaking bad do so in reverse to avoid screening.
They probably could have more effective screening measures though. But I know they have some.
If Apple had not been near bankruptcy in 1997, they would not have accepted those terms. MSFT made a bargain. Especially since they sold the 150 million Apple stocks with a large profit.
Any idea what those stocks would be worth now if Microsoft had held onto them?
It doesn't appear as if either Oracle or Apple are slowing down Android's smartphone market share growth. It's like those two companies are dicking around, spending money and getting nothing in return from the courts. Google doesn't seem to be slowing down at all. I don't hear analysts talking about investor's fears of Android being shut down like they talk about Android's threat to iOS and iPhone market share. No one is expressing fear that Android OS will be crippled at all.
All I hear is that every freaking quarter it's Android grabbing another X% of market share while every platform except iOS is losing market share. Do you see any Android smartphone vendors looking to move elsewhere? Nope. They're sticking with Android because they don't think Android is going anywhere or likely to be defeated. Only Microsoft seems to be the one freely benefiting from anything to do with Android. Oracle's suit is taking forever and Apple is likely to get zilch cooperation from the U.S. courts who likely favor Android over iOS.
I was looking forward to Android get blown out by the court system, but I've given up on that happening. America believes in free enterprise and if you have to steal to get it, it's all well and good. Google portrays itself as a good guy's underdog and Apple as the bully and the courts are buying it.
Now the company that controls 82% of the desktop is well motivted to make Android as successful aa possible.
No they won't. Making Android successful means MS will loss to Google search and services. MS will only support Android devices if they have MS services on them.
It is more like the OS that was supposed to be open and free is not open and free anymore.
Comments
The strategy is really simple. License other companies' IP but don't let other companies license Apple's own IP. That way, Apple will always have the best devices. Who can argue with this
I can.
If you are following Foss's blog and AppleInsider articles you will know that Apple is a participant and key contributor to a number of open standards. Apple also cross licenses with others like Nokia who have genuinely original and useful IP.
But it is becoming increasingly clear that Apple has some original IP around capacitive miltitouch, the stuff Jobs was referring to in his keynote intro of the original iPhone when he said "and boy have we patented it!" If another manufacturer has equally powerful and valuable IP I am sure Apple will be happy to cross-license, as they did with Nokia. Otherwise, the companies that don't do R&D (or dont succeed at it) are probably out of luck.
Apple is absolutely and passionately committed to being Different. They succeed by product differentiation above all else. This is their business model and thus they won't license important IP that contributes to that differentiation.
If the current patent disputes are an indication, then maybe the "lower level patents" cover underlying technology, as opposed to patents on aspects of the technology that are apparent to users, and thus contribute to product differentiation.
Agreed. Apple developed and subsequently made their Webkit browser engine an open standard (it now powers Safari and Chrome among others) but would never open-source or license the interface elements of Safari, OSX or iOS.
"I sold the E, to Samsung, they're Samesung now" - Devon Banks
I just 'slavishly' copied your post to make my own.
Forbes wrote that Microsoft will make billions of Android.
Between 700-1000 million just next year. This is much more then their Windows Mobile division does earn and probably will ever earn.
In lastest Google report they say that Google makes 2.5 billion on mobile advertising. Some less intelligent news sites have reported that "Android generates 2.5 billion". No, its all mobile devices with Google search engine including Android and iOS.
Microsoft makes more money on Android then Google does, since licensing is free money.
Android is so far the most expensive "free" (linux) OS in the world. Google have spent upwards 20 billion on buying stuff like Android, patents from IBM and Motorola mobile. They have also lost patent cases with their Linux code in Android.
If Google had some self criticism they would not have launched Android and instead continued to pay phone makers to make Google the default search engine. Far cheaper.
Google could also have invented something themselves, so they did not have to buy patents and license stuff.
And this is just the beginning. The ruling Apple Vs HTC / Samsung will probably cost Android OEMs even more.
I would have no problem with Google if the simply had developed their own OS like WebOS. But that is not their culture. Google buys stuff and release it. They settle after the fact, like the royalties Google have to pay for all Youtube videos.
You must hate Siri and multitouch then if you hate Android because Google bought it :-/
It's not like Google bought Android in 2005 then released it as was...they'd invested countless dollars and hours into R&D to continuously evolve the Android platform.
What they bought in 2005 is essentially the skeleton of what they have now in 2011...don't discredit them simply because they bought a skeleton 6 years ago therefore there is nothing they added.
And the Youtube example is weak because Google doesn't actually upload upwards of 99.999% of their content.
If I post a full episode of Modern Family on Youtube, that is not Google's fault.
There's got to be more to the story than this. Does any hardware or software manufacturer license all of their IP to competitors?
Do they? Hell no.
You must hate Siri and multitouch then if you hate Android because Google bought it :-/
It's not like Google bought Android in 2005 then released it as was...they'd invested countless dollars and hours into R&D to continuously evolve the Android platform.
What they bought in 2005 is essentially the skeleton of what they have now in 2011...don't discredit them simply because they bought a skeleton 6 years ago therefore there is nothing they added.
And the Youtube example is weak because Google doesn't actually upload upwards of 99.999% of their content.
If I post a full episode of Modern Family on Youtube, that is not Google's fault.
Apple owns Siri.
"I sold the E, to Samsung, they're Samesung now" - Devon Banks
I traded my D to their second S = Samdung !
Just kidding !!
If I post a full episode of Modern Family on Youtube, that is not Google's fault.
Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.
Same with videos that have commercial songs as the soundtrack. Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.
So, I suspect that there could be more effective file screening on YouTube.
Apple owns Siri.
Point was they purchased it.
Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.
Same with videos that have commercial songs as the soundtrack. Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.
So, I suspect that there could be more effective file screening on YouTube.
They do remove many things. I know people who upload scenes from breaking bad do so in reverse to avoid screening.
They probably could have more effective screening measures though. But I know they have some.
If Apple had not been near bankruptcy in 1997, they would not have accepted those terms. MSFT made a bargain. Especially since they sold the 150 million Apple stocks with a large profit.
Any idea what those stocks would be worth now if Microsoft had held onto them?
All I hear is that every freaking quarter it's Android grabbing another X% of market share while every platform except iOS is losing market share. Do you see any Android smartphone vendors looking to move elsewhere? Nope. They're sticking with Android because they don't think Android is going anywhere or likely to be defeated. Only Microsoft seems to be the one freely benefiting from anything to do with Android. Oracle's suit is taking forever and Apple is likely to get zilch cooperation from the U.S. courts who likely favor Android over iOS.
I was looking forward to Android get blown out by the court system, but I've given up on that happening. America believes in free enterprise and if you have to steal to get it, it's all well and good. Google portrays itself as a good guy's underdog and Apple as the bully and the courts are buying it.
Now the company that controls 82% of the desktop is well motivted to make Android as successful aa possible.
No they won't. Making Android successful means MS will loss to Google search and services. MS will only support Android devices if they have MS services on them.
It is more like the OS that was supposed to be open and free is not open and free anymore.
Point was they purchased it.
Do you understand that, in the real world where property rights might matter, 'buy' = 'own'?