HTC profits plunge 57% in face of Apple injunction, European struggles

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post




    Quote:

     


    The real issue isn't end users vs channel. The issue is Samsung doesn't break down sales by type. They simply say "40 million smartphones" sold. This includes the GS3 right down to the 320x240 Android phone still selling with Froyo. It also includes their QWERTY smartphones, their phones running Bada, Windows Mobile and WP7. The fandroids like to point out total Samsung smartphones vs total iPhone sales, but this is meaningless since many Ssmsung phones don't compete with the iPhone.

    The best way to look at this is to look at their revenue/profit and compare this to their phone sales. Then you realize the average price of their phones is quite low, meaning a large portion of those sales are low end devices. Yet me even claiming such blasphemy will get me berated, even though the numbers prove my position.


    I agree with you. It's obvious there's some significant number of base-model smart-phones being sold, primarily because there's a market for a significant number of those base-model smart-phones. Arguing about which ones compete with the iPhone might be fun for a forum discussion,but  it really matters not at the end of the day does it? Samsung's profits from their mobile division are skyrocketing, just as fast as Apple did just a couple years back. Up over 300% YOY. As other members here like to accurately say, it's not as much about volume as it is profit. Apple is king of the heap there, but it's increasingly obvious that Samsung pays attention to what makes Apple successful, not just in design but in business. Their profits are way up too, and it's not coming from just low-profit base-model phones.


     


    Apple doesn't publish any breakdown of 3GS, 4 and 4S sales either, but who cares other than bloggers and news writers? If they had 50 phone models they still wouldn't break numbers down by SKU. Several billion in profit is a whole lot more important than satisfying someone's curiosity. 

  • Reply 22 of 42
    mac.worldmac.world Posts: 340member
    hill60 wrote: »
    The One X has a quad core processor, the main thing against HTC is they can't compete against Samsung's hype.

    While they were focussing on Apple, Samsung basically left them with nothing but crumbs.

    The One X is every bit as good as a Galaxy S III.
    Well, except for the whole multitasking fiasco. And no memory expansion capability. And the lack of a removable battery. But hey, it has a slightly better screen, so it's got that going for it.

    The HOX is similar to the iPhone in what it can't do, rather than what it can.
  • Reply 23 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    I find it very amusing that the Fandroids (really just Apple haters) move from one manufacturer to another depending on the proposed iPhone killer du jour. At one time Motorola was the be all end all of smarthphones, the one that would destroy Apple. Then as Moto started to trail off this crowd hitched their wagons to HTC. Now Samsung is the White Knight that will deal the death blow and save mankind from the walled garden. In the tablet world it was... hell, I don't even remember. Then it was the Fire, then the Galaxy Tab, now the Nexus 7. I wonder what happens when some of these manufacturers decide to go with yet another mobile OS. Rumors are flying that Firefox OS is around the corner. Samsung has its own OS if it wants to go that way. Fine and dandy but it all revolves around defeating Apple and taking that profit crown away.

    It goes back a long way for many. The older ones of course are all PC / Wintel nerds thus Apple haters. Anything from Apple just say no! Praise anything that is a copy of Apple whoever makes it. Even when it is a foreign company over an American one.

    Meanwhile I wonder how long before Apple's patents gain any traction against Google themselves.
  • Reply 24 of 42
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    It goes back a long way for many. The older ones of course are all PC / Wintel nerds thus Apple haters. Anything from Apple just say no! Praise anything that is a copy of Apple whoever makes it. Even when it is a foreign company over an American one.

    Meanwhile I wonder how long before Apple's patents gain any traction against Google themselves.


    FWIW there's some push underway in Europe to pressure Apple into licensing rather than withholding IP from the marketplace. It goes hand-in-hand with Apple and Microsoft's push to have those same standard-setting organizations create ground rules for what is a permissible royalty basis for FRAND-pledged IP along with a declaration on standards IP holders use of injunction requests to pressure potential licensees.


     


    Personally I don't expect them to hand-slap Moto or Samsung or Qualcomm or Nokia or any of the others on FRAND licensing and enforcement policies without also calling out companies like Apple for aggressive and exclusionary IP litigation.


     


    When Florian Mueller finally blogs about it, which he will, he'll have you come away believing an upcoming ITU Roundtable is only about possible abuse of standards-essential patent enforcement. It's not.


    http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/45.aspx

  • Reply 25 of 42
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    The One X has a quad core processor, the main thing against HTC is they can't compete against Samsung's hype.


     


    While they were focussing on Apple, Samsung basically left them with nothing but crumbs.


     


    The One X is every bit as good as a Galaxy S III.



    It's every bit as good as the iPhone too but of course that's just my opinion.

  • Reply 26 of 42
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    HTC isn't handling the thermonuclear war too well. 


     


     




     


     


     


    I've always viewed this as ridiculously shady. Then again, it's Samsung we're talking about. They've turned deception and evasion into an art. 



    I think some of your hatred is misplaced at times.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


    It's every bit as good as the iPhone too but of course that's just my opinion.



    I may have to look at one given the lack of an iphone for my carrier. I'd only change carriers if that made sense. I care more about which carrier than which phone I use even given the amount of things we all access  through our phones at this point.

  • Reply 27 of 42
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member


    OMFG!  LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    So true.

  • Reply 28 of 42
    spacepowerspacepower Posts: 208member
    I read the ITU press release and they talk about SEP and non SEP patents. The problem is that they have no authority to force Apple and MS to license their non essential patents. The other problem is that if the ITU allows Samsung and Moto to pursue these lawsuits with frand patents, then Apple and MS will have to be allowed to follow up with their 3G and 4G frand patents that they have via Rockstar ( 6000 former Nortel patents. ) That is when this will go thermonuclear. (which contrary to popular thought, was said in early 2010, not on Steve Job's deathbed.)
  • Reply 29 of 42
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post



    I read the ITU press release and they talk about SEP and non SEP patents. The problem is that they have no authority to force Apple and MS to license their non essential patents. The other problem is that if the ITU allows Samsung and Moto to pursue these lawsuits with frand patents, then Apple and MS will have to be allowed to follow up with their 3G and 4G frand patents that they have via Rockstar ( 6000 former Nortel patents. ) That is when this will go thermonuclear. (which contrary to popular thought, was said in early 2010, not on Steve Job's deathbed.)


    I don't know for certain what authority some of the regulatory agencies actually have. I do know that in the EU at least if a specific patent is found to be essential to a developing standard but that patent holder refuses to license it, blocking the standard from being developed, they can deem the patent essential anyway and force licensing on FRAND terms. Before you ask, no I don't have an example of that happening tho there may be one or two somewhere.

  • Reply 30 of 42
    spacepowerspacepower Posts: 208member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I don't know for certain what authority some of the regulatory agencies actually have. I do know that in the EU at least if a specific patent is found to be essential to a developing standard but that patent holder refuses to license it, blocking the standard from being developed, they can deem the patent essential anyway and force licensing on FRAND terms. Before you ask, no I don't have an example of that happening tho there may be one or two somewhere.

    I think your missing the order of events here...

    A patent cannot be essential to a standard unless it is already/or will be pledged to a standard. By this it means that the patent owner willingly puts forth its patents under the assumption of FRAND, willing to license to anyone.

    By definition, a patent can't be "essential" to a standard if it is not part of a standard. If it is part of a standard then it has be to licensed on frand terms, according to the ITU, ISO, and IEEE. The problem with "frand terms" is that they were never clearly definded and different companies negotiate different prices with each licsenee. But they are not supposed to be able to deny anyone a license.

    Another issue is patent exhaustion.
    If Moto licenses Qualcomm or whoever to use their patents for 2.25% of the cost of a $10 GSM radio, they should not be able to ask Apple for 2.25% of a $500 ipad since Apple already bought a part that was licensed. If Moto got its way then they would get 2.25% of a $50,000 car if it used one of their patents for services such as OnStar or whatever.

    If things operated the way Moto claims they should, nothing would ever be created bc most devices that use GSM are using 1000's of patents. It would take less than 10 @ 2.25% it make a device unprofitable considering most devices have less than a 22.5% margin.

    I don't want to sound like a jerk but....
    You obviously don't like Florian or his website, but you obviously haven't read it bc you have no idea what you are talking about. Not that he is the enlightened one or anything, but he does explain things in easy ( for complex legal issues ) to understand concepts.

    I've taken patent law classes and other business law classes, so Florians website is supplemental to things I already know. One of my coworkers is a IP attorney, and we have been discussing these cases weekly since late 2010.

    Everyone on the Internet has a bias, but some actually try to educate people, take them all with a grain salt, but learn what you can from them.

    I would speculate that 95% of people who complain about Florain have never read an entire post of his, or at least they didn't comprehend the legal arguments. They are too busy exhutling their own bias for their platform of choice. The people who don't understand think he is anti-google, but really he is anti-bullshit.
  • Reply 31 of 42
    igorsovaigorsova Posts: 24member


    Apple is destroying HTC.


    But is it a good thing?...

  • Reply 32 of 42
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by igorsova View Post


    Apple is destroying HTC.


    But is it a good thing?...



     


    Apple "and Samsung" are destroying HTC.


     


    It seems to be the way businesses evolve. Personally I don't like it. Car companies, computer companies, food companies... there used to a lot of them but gradually it gets boiled down to a handful (or less), and, imho, our choices become much more limited. Businesses aren't charities, though, and, sadly, some companies are unable to survive.

  • Reply 33 of 42
    technarchytechnarchy Posts: 296member
    Companies have no right to exist.

    Either you make competitive products and sell them or you don't and die.

    That's life.

    Maybe next time should HTC should choose a better software partner, because this whole android thing isn't going to well for them.
  • Reply 34 of 42

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post



    Companies have no right to exist. Either you make competitive products and sell them or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should HTC should choose a better software partner, because this whole android thing isn't going to well for them.




    I second that. Companies have no right to exist. They earn their spot by making sure the market needs them, or make sure the market keeps them. Companies come and go. some get rebranded. In this world, not everyone can be successful. a

  • Reply 35 of 42
    igorsovaigorsova Posts: 24member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post



    Companies have no right to exist. Either you make competitive products and sell them or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should HTC should choose a better software partner, because this whole android thing isn't going to well for them.


     


    I'm just going to replace word "HTC" with word "Jews", and project it back in history. I can only hope that you finally will see how your position looks like:


    "Jews have no right to exist. Either you make strong armies and fight NAZIs or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should Jews should choose a better allies, because this whole Judaism isn't going to well for them."


     


    Correct, Adolf Technarchy?...

  • Reply 36 of 42
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    igorsova wrote: »
    I'm just going to replace word "HTC" with word "Jews", and project it back in history. I can only hope that you finally will see how your position looks like:
    [SIZE=11px]"Jews have no right to exist. Either you make strong armies and fight NAZIs or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should Jews should choose a better allies, because this whole Judaism isn't going to well for them."[/SIZE]

    Correct, Adolf Technarchy?...

    Not only is your argument not one, you've Godwined away any credibility you might have otherwise had.
  • Reply 37 of 42
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    igorsova wrote: »
    I'm just going to replace word "HTC" with word "Jews", and project it back in history. I can only hope that you finally will see how your position looks like:
    [SIZE=11px]"Jews have no right to exist. Either you make strong armies and fight NAZIs or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should Jews should choose a better allies, because this whole Judaism isn't going to well for them."[/SIZE]

    Correct, Adolf Technarchy?...

    1) Cool it with the personal attacks.

    2) Ever heard of Godwin's Law?

    3) So all companies should support all other companies equally? If you have an actual defense as to why survival of the fittest shouldn't be a factor in commerce or why a failing company should be supported because of "basic corporate rights"(?) then make an argument for it. I need a good laugh.
  • Reply 38 of 42
    hungoverhungover Posts: 603member


    The choice of their preferred OS aside, HTC have been instrumental in the development of smartphones over the last 10 years, pushing boundaries with what were ultimately niche phones but daring never-the-less. IMO the market needs makers that are willing to release low volume units.

  • Reply 39 of 42
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post





    I think your missing the order of events here...

    A patent cannot be essential to a standard unless it is already/or will be pledged to a standard. By this it means that the patent owner willingly puts forth its patents under the assumption of FRAND, willing to license to anyone.

    By definition, a patent can't be "essential" to a standard if it is not part of a standard. If it is part of a standard then it has be to licensed on frand terms, according to the ITU, ISO, and IEEE. 


    From ETSI:


    "For the avoidance of doubt in exceptional cases where a STANDARD can only be implemented by technical solutions, all of which are infringements of IPRs, all such IPRs shall be considered ESSENTIAL." In fairness I do believe that I overstepped by also claiming the patent holder could be forced to license on FRAND terms. The cite only establishes the IP to be deemed essential regardless of the holder's views. Thank you for sending me on a verification check.


     


    Going further than that despite Microsoft's loud and long protests to the EU, they were ordered to not only license their server tech including appropriate patents, but told it would be on FRAND terms, available to all competitors.


     


    From MS:  "The Commission also held that Microsoft violated EU competition law by failing to disclose to competitors some of its most innovative technologies relating to “server” operating systems (i.e., back-office computers that help run networks). The Commission reached this conclusion despite the fact that many of the world’s most powerful IT companies, such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Novell, and Red Hat, compete vigorously in the supply of server operating systems. The Commission ordered Microsoft to create extensive documents describing its complex and innovative technologies – many of which are protected by patents and trade secrets – and to license these technologies to competitors. In recent months, the Commission has broadened the scope of this compulsory license considerably by holding that Microsoft: (i) must license these technologies even outside Europe; (ii) must license these technologies royalty-free; and (iii) cannot prevent licensees from disclosing Microsoft trade secrets in their source code."


    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/european/EU_Competition_Overview.mspx


     


    As for your comments on Mr. Mueller, if you spent much time here you might know that FOSSPatents is one of my three go-to sources on patent litigation, the other two being PatentlyO and Groklaw. In the case of Mr. Mueller, he almost always has the facts he chooses to use correct, which is admirable and a good reason for my visits to his blog. He just doesn't mention any that might not be beneficial to Microsoft's goals (nor Oracle's now). You never found it odd that there's not even one article at FOSSPatents criticising Microsoft? 


     


    Motorola isn't saying "that's the way it should work". On the contrary it's the way it does work, and Mr. Mueller is well aware of that. Since it doesn't advance Microsoft's arguments to have a mention by Mueller that MS partner Nokia reportedly wants 2.5% of a finished consumer-ready device cost for a single patent, up to 5% for 10 or more, he's not going to say a word about it. Qualcomm wants 3.5% of a completed device price not just a chipset, but don't expect FOSSPatents to mention it since it's an inconvenient fact. And those are just the two of the bigger ones. According to the ETSI, companies from Ericsson to Alcatel, and ZTE to Huawei receive royalty payments based on a percentage of a finished consumer device's price. It's not the rarity that "someone" apparently convinced you it is. 


    http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/56757.html


     



     


    I believe Microsoft's goal, Apple's as well, is to isolate Motorola as a rogue patent claimant, basing royalties on the "ridiculous notion" of a finished device. Pointing out that it's a common royalty basis for FRAND royalties in the telecom industry would not support his client's claims would it? How else to explain his failure to mention it while portraying Moto as an outlier.


     


    So contrary to what you might think, yes I do read every single article that's posted at FOSSPatents. I also read the Twitter links he offers to better understand his sources and views. But I don't trust him to tell me the whole story. He's paid to offer support to his clients, Oracle and Microsoft among others, and IMO that support appears to extend into his personal blogs, evidenced by the total lack of any concerns or criticisms written about them. He's great with the facts. Just realize he'll dole out only those that aren't at odds with his clients gameplans as far as I can see.


     


    Would I go so far as to say Motorola or Samsung's use of SEP's to seek injunctions is proper. No sir. Nor do I necessarily agree with a BOM being the proper royalty basis in all cases but at the same time that's been seen as proper, even by Microsoft, for a long time. Neither Apple nor Microsoft should be able to avoid paying the same royalties requested from other licensees (with credit for patents granted back in return, ie cross-licensing) and there should be consequences. I don't see any obvious reason those penalties could not be determined by a court, altho they should seldom get that far IMO. I don't support injunctions as a proper cure except in the possible case that an infringer absolutely refuses to pay royalties under any circumstance and in opposition to court rulings.

  • Reply 40 of 42
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    From ETSI:
    "For the avoidance of doubt in exceptional cases where a STANDARD can only be implemented by technical solutions, all of which are infringements of IPRs, all such IPRs shall be considered ESSENTIAL." In fairness I do believe that I overstepped by also claiming the patent holder could be forced to license on FRAND terms. The cite only establishes the IP to be deemed essential regardless of the holder's views. Thank you for sending me on a verification check.

    Look up 'red herring'.

    You haven't shown that the Apple technology in question is essential in any sense. Unless there's no other way to unlock a phone, it's not essential.

    In fact, can you point to a single example where a cell phone technology has been declared essential over the patent owner's objections?

    For that matter, can you point to a single example where a cell phone patent owner has been forced to license?

    No one has made any rational argument as to why Apple should be forced to license the technologies in question. The theoretical ability for a technology to be called essential in some rare circumstance doesn't change that.
Sign In or Register to comment.