This is intended as a general round of applause from one of the lurkers to all who sincerely post here. I may not yet have enough accumulated knowledge to enter into a detailed discussion about a great many of the points made here at AI, but I do learn from both the intelligent and not so intelligent postings of others. Thank you all for your participation. It's not often vocalized, but it is appreciated.
Hold it! Stop the presses!
Nobody told me that we have to accumulate knowledge before entering discussions and I've seen very little evidence in any discussion of such a requirement.
Your perception is completely wrong. FRAND is a legal designation applied to patents that are essential to implementing standards. Apple isn't suing using a patent LEGALLY DESIGNATED as FRAND.
Is FRAND truly a legal designation? It is recognized in the courts, but ... a legal designation? I am reasonably sure (say 90%) that it is not so. Interested in confirmation.
Patents and their implied monopoly stimulate research. Including software research and related patents. Although Mueller is open about his dislike for software patents. His comment about a 20 year monopoly being against the public good for something that would be invented anyways is part of his view, but inconsistent with general practice of patent law. He has his view, but it is irrelevant on this point. I find his reporting and interpretation for the lay person to be first class.
Mueller does seem to do a good job of separating facts from his opinion...
BTW, I was known as "St. Louis Park Richie" in my youth...
Is FRAND truly a legal designation? It is recognized in the courts, but ... a legal designation? I am reasonably sure (say 90%) that it is not so. Interested in confirmation.
Yes and no.
FRAND does not, by itself, have a legal status with the courts. A third party can not simply go in to court and charge someone with a FRAND violation.
OTOH, when a company submits a technology as FRAND, they sign a license agreement with the standards body which lays out the terms under which they agree to license the technology. That agreement uses the term 'FRAND' - and that agreement is enforceable by the courts if they are asked to do so. Any one with standing to sue can bring action. That could be the licensee, the licensor, and in some cases, even a prospective licensee.
Agree wih everything except the bolded demographic.
Women avoid these forums -- especially tech forums that seem to be infested, um, shall we say, by types that come as through as socially awkward misogynists that never grew out of their basements -- like the plague.
Also, look at how few women write for tech, despite the fact that writing/journalism is a very woman-friendly profession (and employs a higher proportion of women than most).
That's because women have both brains and a lack of need to best those around them, God bless'em.
Is FRAND truly a legal designation? It is recognized in the courts, but ... a legal designation? I am reasonably sure (say 90%) that it is not so. Interested in confirmation.
I don't think FRAND is a legal definition -- as opposed to a body of legal precedents.
As I understand it, a company spends resources ($ and time) developing a technology -- like 3G. Then, to:
1) recover the cost of their investment
2) maintain their competive lead in the technology in question
They offer the tech as a FRAND standard.
...they can't maximize the bucks -- but they can pay the freight and maintain a tech lead.
Apple offered Darwin and WebKit as free (FRAND-like) tech to further the use of the tech -- because it was to Apple's advantage to do so.
But Apple, and others, can also develop tech that they believe provides them a significant advantage by not making it available to others... Their choice.
So, the mixture of FRAND and non-FRAND claims is like trying to play basketball with a lacrosse net and a catchers mitt.
Nobody told me that we have to accumulate knowledge before entering discussions and I've seen very little evidence in any discussion of such a requirement.
Is this new?!
You mean you didn't have to do the brain/limbo stick thing before being provided with a username like the rest of us?
At what point does Google realize that trying to profit from Android is like pushing a rope up a hill?
Not everything is about profit. Where is the profit in the driverless car, for example? As long as Google makes enough from other sources, I am happy with them providing Android, search, docs, maps, youtube, translate, sites, gmail, for free. Remember, focus on making great products first...
Not everything is about profit. Where is the profit in the driverless car, for example? As long as Google makes enough from other sources, I am happy with them providing Android, search, docs, maps, youtube, translate, sites, gmail, for free. Remember, focus on making great products first...
For an article that might give you a different view of Google and Android:
It's easy to forget that Android as a marketed and viable mobile OS is well short of 3 years old. The original Motorola Droid marked the beginning for practical purposes, October 2009.
It's easy to forget that Android as a marketed and viable mobile OS is well short of 3 years old. The original Motorola Droid marked the beginning for practical purposes, October 2009.
I love the way the story changes.
When it's about Android not coping iOS, then the fandroids claim that Android has been around much longer than iOS.
When it's about Android's inability to provide the kind of revenues that iOS does, then they claim that Android has only been around for a couple of years.
It's easy to forget that Android as a marketed and viable mobile OS is well short of 3 years old. The original Motorola Droid marked the beginning for practical purposes, October 2009.
Thanks for the link, GigaOM is always a good read. I would counter those who say that Android doesn't bring profits for Google with a different (also off-topic) question that likely rarely crosses their minds: how much of iPhone's initial success was due to Google's Maps, Search, and YouTube?
When it's about Android not coping iOS, then the fandroids claim that Android has been around much longer than iOS.
When it's about Android's inability to provide the kind of revenues that iOS does, then they claim that Android has only been around for a couple of years.
Longer in the making, shorter on the market. Where's the problem with that?
When it's about Android not coping iOS, then the fandroids claim that Android has been around much longer than iOS.
When it's about Android's inability to provide the kind of revenues that iOS does, then they claim that Android has only been around for a couple of years.
I was assuming the mention that Android has only been seriously marketed for a little over two years might be helpful in understanding one possible reason Android revenues might appear to be lagging compared to Apple's iOS, which hit the market running more than two years earlier.
I was assuming the mention that Android has only been seriously marketed for a little over two years might be helpful in understanding one possible reason Android revenues might appear to be lagging compared to Apple's iOS, which hit the market running more than two years earlier.
The G1 was released in October, 2008. The iPhone was released in June, 2007.
The G1 was released in October, 2008. The iPhone was released in June, 2007.
The G1 was certainly the very first Android phone to come to market. In fact the only one for some time. It was more putting a toe in the water than anything else IMO. The Motorola Droid is very often mentioned as the first marketable Android smartphone, which also allowed the Android market to grow, which then encouraged other players like Samsung to jump in with both feet. Without the original Droid I don't know that Android would even be a realistic alternative to iOS today, and it would most certainly be much further behind.
The G1 was certainly the very first Android phone to come to market. In fact the only one for some time. It was more putting a toe in the water than anything else IMO. The Motorola Droid is very often mentioned as the first marketable Android smartphone, which also allowed the Android market to grow, which then encouraged other players like Samsung to jump in with both feet. Without the original Droid I don't know that Android would even be a realistic alternative to iOS today, and it would most certainly be much further behind.
The point is that you keep changing dates to suit whatever point you're trying to make at the time.
The first iPhone didn't sell anywhere near as well as later iPhones, either. So can we say that Apple was putting a toe in the water, too?
The facts are simple. First Android phone on the market was 3 1/2 years ago. And, as the fandroids are so eager to point out, Google was working on, talking about, and promoting Android long before that.
The point is that you keep changing dates to suit whatever point you're trying to make at the time.
The first iPhone didn't sell anywhere near as well as later iPhones, either. So can we say that Apple was putting a toe in the water, too?
The facts are simple. First Android phone on the market was 3 1/2 years ago. And, as the fandroids are so eager to point out, Google was working on, talking about, and promoting Android long before that.
When did I change any dates?
As for anyone else's mention, Android started development in 2004 according to news reports but didn't have a commercially successful smartphone (original Droid) until the fall of 2009.
I've seen some mention that iPhone development may also have begun in the 2004/2005 timeframe, with their first commercially successful smartphone coming to market in 2007, about 2.5 years earlier than Android. Is that easier for you to understand? One set of dates involve starting development while the other involves viable product. Two separate and distinct things aren't they? But you already knew that.
Comments
This is intended as a general round of applause from one of the lurkers to all who sincerely post here. I may not yet have enough accumulated knowledge to enter into a detailed discussion about a great many of the points made here at AI, but I do learn from both the intelligent and not so intelligent postings of others. Thank you all for your participation. It's not often vocalized, but it is appreciated.
Hold it! Stop the presses!
Nobody told me that we have to accumulate knowledge before entering discussions and I've seen very little evidence in any discussion of such a requirement.
Is this new?!
Your perception is completely wrong. FRAND is a legal designation applied to patents that are essential to implementing standards. Apple isn't suing using a patent LEGALLY DESIGNATED as FRAND.
Is FRAND truly a legal designation? It is recognized in the courts, but ... a legal designation? I am reasonably sure (say 90%) that it is not so. Interested in confirmation.
Patents and their implied monopoly stimulate research. Including software research and related patents. Although Mueller is open about his dislike for software patents. His comment about a 20 year monopoly being against the public good for something that would be invented anyways is part of his view, but inconsistent with general practice of patent law. He has his view, but it is irrelevant on this point. I find his reporting and interpretation for the lay person to be first class.
Mueller does seem to do a good job of separating facts from his opinion...
BTW, I was known as "St. Louis Park Richie" in my youth...
Is FRAND truly a legal designation? It is recognized in the courts, but ... a legal designation? I am reasonably sure (say 90%) that it is not so. Interested in confirmation.
Yes and no.
FRAND does not, by itself, have a legal status with the courts. A third party can not simply go in to court and charge someone with a FRAND violation.
OTOH, when a company submits a technology as FRAND, they sign a license agreement with the standards body which lays out the terms under which they agree to license the technology. That agreement uses the term 'FRAND' - and that agreement is enforceable by the courts if they are asked to do so. Any one with standing to sue can bring action. That could be the licensee, the licensor, and in some cases, even a prospective licensee.
Agree wih everything except the bolded demographic.
Women avoid these forums -- especially tech forums that seem to be infested, um, shall we say, by types that come as through as socially awkward misogynists that never grew out of their basements -- like the plague.
Also, look at how few women write for tech, despite the fact that writing/journalism is a very woman-friendly profession (and employs a higher proportion of women than most).
That's because women have both brains and a lack of need to best those around them, God bless'em.
What would we do without them?
Anybody up for a quick joust?
Is FRAND truly a legal designation? It is recognized in the courts, but ... a legal designation? I am reasonably sure (say 90%) that it is not so. Interested in confirmation.
I don't think FRAND is a legal definition -- as opposed to a body of legal precedents.
As I understand it, a company spends resources ($ and time) developing a technology -- like 3G. Then, to:
1) recover the cost of their investment
2) maintain their competive lead in the technology in question
They offer the tech as a FRAND standard.
...they can't maximize the bucks -- but they can pay the freight and maintain a tech lead.
Apple offered Darwin and WebKit as free (FRAND-like) tech to further the use of the tech -- because it was to Apple's advantage to do so.
But Apple, and others, can also develop tech that they believe provides them a significant advantage by not making it available to others... Their choice.
So, the mixture of FRAND and non-FRAND claims is like trying to play basketball with a lacrosse net and a catchers mitt.
You can't have it both ways!
Mueller does seem to do a good job of separating facts from his opinion...
BTW, I was known as "St. Louis Park Richie" in my youth...
St. Louis Park is a fine place.
Hold it! Stop the presses!
Nobody told me that we have to accumulate knowledge before entering discussions and I've seen very little evidence in any discussion of such a requirement.
Is this new?!
You mean you didn't have to do the brain/limbo stick thing before being provided with a username like the rest of us?
Lucky bastard.
At what point does Google realize that trying to profit from Android is like pushing a rope up a hill?
Not everything is about profit. Where is the profit in the driverless car, for example? As long as Google makes enough from other sources, I am happy with them providing Android, search, docs, maps, youtube, translate, sites, gmail, for free. Remember, focus on making great products first...
Not everything is about profit. Where is the profit in the driverless car, for example? As long as Google makes enough from other sources, I am happy with them providing Android, search, docs, maps, youtube, translate, sites, gmail, for free. Remember, focus on making great products first...
For an article that might give you a different view of Google and Android:
http://gigaom.com/mobile/why-google-...roids-revenue/
It's easy to forget that Android as a marketed and viable mobile OS is well short of 3 years old. The original Motorola Droid marked the beginning for practical purposes, October 2009.
For an article that might give you a different view of Google and Android:
http://gigaom.com/mobile/why-google-...roids-revenue/
It's easy to forget that Android as a marketed and viable mobile OS is well short of 3 years old. The original Motorola Droid marked the beginning for practical purposes, October 2009.
I love the way the story changes.
When it's about Android not coping iOS, then the fandroids claim that Android has been around much longer than iOS.
When it's about Android's inability to provide the kind of revenues that iOS does, then they claim that Android has only been around for a couple of years.
For an article that might give you a different view of Google and Android:
http://gigaom.com/mobile/why-google-...roids-revenue/
It's easy to forget that Android as a marketed and viable mobile OS is well short of 3 years old. The original Motorola Droid marked the beginning for practical purposes, October 2009.
Thanks for the link, GigaOM is always a good read. I would counter those who say that Android doesn't bring profits for Google with a different (also off-topic) question that likely rarely crosses their minds: how much of iPhone's initial success was due to Google's Maps, Search, and YouTube?
I love the way the story changes.
When it's about Android not coping iOS, then the fandroids claim that Android has been around much longer than iOS.
When it's about Android's inability to provide the kind of revenues that iOS does, then they claim that Android has only been around for a couple of years.
Longer in the making, shorter on the market. Where's the problem with that?
I love the way the story changes.
When it's about Android not coping iOS, then the fandroids claim that Android has been around much longer than iOS.
When it's about Android's inability to provide the kind of revenues that iOS does, then they claim that Android has only been around for a couple of years.
I was assuming the mention that Android has only been seriously marketed for a little over two years might be helpful in understanding one possible reason Android revenues might appear to be lagging compared to Apple's iOS, which hit the market running more than two years earlier.
I was assuming the mention that Android has only been seriously marketed for a little over two years might be helpful in understanding one possible reason Android revenues might appear to be lagging compared to Apple's iOS, which hit the market running more than two years earlier.
The G1 was released in October, 2008. The iPhone was released in June, 2007.
The G1 was released in October, 2008. The iPhone was released in June, 2007.
The G1 was certainly the very first Android phone to come to market. In fact the only one for some time. It was more putting a toe in the water than anything else IMO. The Motorola Droid is very often mentioned as the first marketable Android smartphone, which also allowed the Android market to grow, which then encouraged other players like Samsung to jump in with both feet. Without the original Droid I don't know that Android would even be a realistic alternative to iOS today, and it would most certainly be much further behind.
The G1 was certainly the very first Android phone to come to market. In fact the only one for some time. It was more putting a toe in the water than anything else IMO. The Motorola Droid is very often mentioned as the first marketable Android smartphone, which also allowed the Android market to grow, which then encouraged other players like Samsung to jump in with both feet. Without the original Droid I don't know that Android would even be a realistic alternative to iOS today, and it would most certainly be much further behind.
The point is that you keep changing dates to suit whatever point you're trying to make at the time.
The first iPhone didn't sell anywhere near as well as later iPhones, either. So can we say that Apple was putting a toe in the water, too?
The facts are simple. First Android phone on the market was 3 1/2 years ago. And, as the fandroids are so eager to point out, Google was working on, talking about, and promoting Android long before that.
The point is that you keep changing dates to suit whatever point you're trying to make at the time.
The first iPhone didn't sell anywhere near as well as later iPhones, either. So can we say that Apple was putting a toe in the water, too?
The facts are simple. First Android phone on the market was 3 1/2 years ago. And, as the fandroids are so eager to point out, Google was working on, talking about, and promoting Android long before that.
When did I change any dates?
As for anyone else's mention, Android started development in 2004 according to news reports but didn't have a commercially successful smartphone (original Droid) until the fall of 2009.
I've seen some mention that iPhone development may also have begun in the 2004/2005 timeframe, with their first commercially successful smartphone coming to market in 2007, about 2.5 years earlier than Android. Is that easier for you to understand? One set of dates involve starting development while the other involves viable product. Two separate and distinct things aren't they? But you already knew that.
When did I change any dates?
When you arbitrarily pick dates to try to make a point.
Like saying that Android phones have only been around for 2 years when they've really been around for almost twice that.