Apple was simply outmaneuvered by Google in the Admob acquisition. I doubt frugality had anything to do with it. Its no surprise they went and hired a pretty senior lawyer to work on their acquisition strategy right after the loss of Admob. Not sure about the Palm acquisition, since there is very little information about it (including whether Apple had a serious offer to actually acquire Palm).
But I see your point. Apple has never really used its money to simply acquire patents, without any technology. That being said, they've not had a long history with billions in the bank, considering they spent most of the 90's simply trying not to go bankrupt.
Perhaps not outmaneuvered, but after looking closer at AdMob they may have decided to push the other bidders as high as possible, with the other company already in their back pocket - no an unusual process in the bidding wars.
Dodging the issue again. No counter argument, I suppose.
You can't have a counter argument to someone who refuses to give an argument. To borrow your own words, You're just throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks so no one calls you out on it.
So no, I'm not responding to you. You've proven time and again that it's a pointless exercise because you insist that I back up every statement with "Proof" and then somehow your browser is conveniently unable to view the weblinks I provide. And then, in an attempt to appear on top of it, you profess the inability to follow different arguments (only when it's in your favor) and instead quote me from a wholly separate conversation and scream that I'm contradicting myself because when I was talking about Pie, I didn't also mention the same things I did when I was talking about Dog breeds.
I know this is hard for you to believe, but most people actually HAVE opinions they base their posts on. Unlike you, they can't simply Copy/Paste from some PR handbook. So it's a given that occasionally they'll forget to cross their T's and dot their i's and you can scream CONTRADICTION at the top of your lungs like it means something. Again, we're not all astroturfers. That's just you.
EDIT: Just to state the obvious for you: I chose your reply to sprokkets because it was the most recent drivel you posted in this thread. My reasoning was really that simple. You can put the tin cap away. I promise, no one here wants to read your mind. We have Apple.com/pr for that.
That could be a dangerous game. I've bid on something I really didn't want (at auction) just to raise the price for someone I didn't care for. It bit me in the ass once, and I suspect the other bidder knew exactly what I was doing.
Personally I no longer have the stomach nor the funds for brinksmanship. I don't know if RIM would either.
Well, when you mischaracterize it like that it sounds like they are giving away puppies too. Unfortunately, that's not what the Google Books program is all about. It's about Google appropriating the intellectual property of thousands to use to sell adds.
I'm not the one who is "mischaracterize" it. It just shows that when you get your information from DED you are bound to share his irrational hate of everything google.
Quote:
The fact that the GPL is viral is a drawback to that license, and why there are other licenses. Whether I like that or not has nothing to do with Google's, and your, hypocrisy on this topic. Or with whether Google is violating the GPL by not releasing source code based on GPL code.
Look in the mirror. The hypocrite is you. And the fact that you won't admit the simple and clear fact: Android isn't GPL.
You can't have a counter argument to someone who refuses to give an argument. To borrow your own words, You're just throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks so no one calls you out on it.
So no, I'm not responding to you. You've proven time and again that it's a pointless exercise because you insist that I back up every statement with "Proof" and then somehow your browser is conveniently unable to view the weblinks I provide. And then, in an attempt to appear on top of it, you profess the inability to follow different arguments (only when it's in your favor) and instead quote me from a wholly separate conversation and scream that I'm contradicting myself because when I was talking about Pie, I didn't also mention the same things I did when I was talking about Dog breeds.
I know this is hard for you to believe, but most people actually HAVE opinions they base their posts on. Unlike you, they can't simply Copy/Paste from some PR handbook. So it's a given that occasionally they'll forget to cross their T's and dot their i's and you can scream CONTRADICTION at the top of your lungs like it means something. Again, we're not all astroturfers. That's just you.
Well, that's an impressive, albeit fantastically dishonest, attempt to distract from the facts that a) Google's corporate character is about as sleazy as it gets, b) that you are unable to refute the facts that they are serial law breakers and have demonstrated time and time again their complete lack of any moral compass, and c) and that you are in fact a paid astroturfer.
You're the one who brought up the subject of Google's character. Unfortunately for you and your employer, their character is entirely lacking. No amount of dishonesty, and no attempts to create distractions from the truth, on your part can hide that.
I'm not the one who is "mischaracterize" it. It just shows that when you get your information from DED you are bound to share his irrational hate of everything google.
I'm not sure where you cook up these fantasies about why some of us recognize Google as a "bad citizen", but mostly it's your irrational hatred showing through here.
Quote:
Look in the mirror. The hypocrite is you. And the fact that you won't admit the simple and clear fact: Android isn't GPL.
Parts of it are, parts of it aren't, but none of that is relevant to whether Google is a serial law breaker of poor "character". That's established irrefutably. The hypocrisy (do you even know what that word means, I think not) is entirely yours in coming here constantly bashing Apple for being closed and praising Google's "openness", along with all things FOSS, until it suddenly no longer supports your ends to do so.
Since you have nothing to prove your argument, I have nothing to rebut. And no, the google books incident doesn't count.
Why doesn't it count, because it's an inconvenient example of Google's behavior? How about how they ripped off Sun's/Oracle's IP in Android, does that count? Does anything count for you when it comes to Google's behavior? Does it count that they refused to link to their (lack of) privacy policy, in violation of the law, until it became a PR nightmare for them? Does it count that all their talk about Android openness is now clearly shown to be the total BS that it always was? Does it count that they were snooping on people's WiFi networks? (Inadvertent? Yeah, they inadvertently got caught.)
We'll try applying logic here. Not that I think you'll get it. It's just an object lesson for the others.
Sun/Oracle's IP: You mean the lawsuit that hasn't been settled yet? Like the HUNDREDS Apple and any other profitable company is fielding right now? If Google is guilty of stealing that IP, then Apple is guilty of the same, since they're also being sued.
Wouldn't it be better if they had a way to decide if accusations like those were factual or not? Like a court system where companies could be found to be "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" based on the evidence? Why can't we have something like that?
Oh right.
Quote:
Does anything count for you when it comes to Google's behavior? Does it count that they refused to link to their (lack of) privacy policy, in violation of the law, until it became a PR nightmare for them?
Google.com/privacy. It's been active since at least 2000:
This is the splash page you get whenever you try and log into their services. AKA, anyone giving them "personal" data would have to see a link to the privacy policy before they signed in.
The PR "Nightmare" as you call it was largely over specific applications, such as Buzz that had opt-out social networking instead of opt in. This was a mistake, obviously.
But Google's has a privacy policy available for 11 years. They've had it at the sign in page from as early as 2005 (which is as far back as the waybackmachine has a capture, it could be earlier). It Appeared on their front page in 2008.
Yes, they've recently made a big deal about it (posting links to it everywhere) but they've hardly "Hidden" it and it's in a lot plainer english than most privacy policies are.
Quote:
Does it count that all their talk about Android openness is now clearly shown to be the total BS that it always was?
You mean the FUD that people were spreading based on the talkings of various suppliers, none of them speaking on the record? The rumblings that Andy Rubin talked about in his blog post (one that even AI ran a story of)
If they withold whatever their "I" source is after announcement, then you have a case. What Honeycomb is is a blunder, a big one yes, but not a sign of them "Changing" policy. If you think otherwise, please provide EVIDENCE (note: Your ramblings do not count)
Quote:
Does it count that they were snooping on people's WiFi networks? (Inadvertent? Yeah, they inadvertently got caught.)
Oh, so you have proof that they were snooping intentionally? Really now. You'd think that something like that would be big news and they would STILL be attacked over it.
Did their system gather information? Yes (Provided the person had their network unsecured)
Was it intentional? Not according to what Google says. But since you don't believe them, then how about the courts? NONE of them have said that this was an "Intentional" information grab.
Now, I would ask for you to refute this. To provide evidence to back up what you say. But that's impossible for you. Instead you'll say it's a "Pathetic attempt" (without mentioning any specific points) and find at least three "Creative" (to you) ways to call me an astroturfer.
It's clear that there are only three types of people online in your mind:
1- Normal people: "People who think exactly like me and think that Apple has their best interest at heart."
2- "Trolls": Anyone who disagrees with me, or questions apple (It it, after all, the same thing)
3-Astroturfer: "A Troll who gives linked articles and images to back up what they say. Since it's clear that only normal people, like apple fans, would take the time to link things, these trolls must be paid by other companies."
So instead of wasting my time, hoping for some form of a coherent argument from you, I'll instead use the handy little "Ignore" button that AI's provided. Granted, I should've used it months ago. But call me an irrational optimist, who thought that just maybe it was possible to have a conversation with you, if only I found the right approach. My bad.
We'll try applying logic here. Not that I think you'll get it. It's just an object lesson for the others.
Sun/Oracle's IP: You mean the lawsuit that hasn't been settled yet?
Yes, that one, which they will lose, it was a pretty straightforward act of piracy on their part
Quote:
Google.com/privacy. It's been active since at least 2000:
But they did not post the link on their home page, as required by law, until they came under pressure to comply with the law, purportedly because they didn't want to add any links to their home page, which is a bullshit excuse, but even that shows they are a company that believes they don't have to comply with the law if they don't want to.
Quote:
What Honeycomb is is a blunder, a big one yes, but not a sign of them "Changing" policy.
It may be a blunder, but they have changed their policy.
Quote:
Oh, so you have proof that they were snooping intentionally?
It's preposterous to think that Google was unaware of this data collection for the years it was going on. To believe that, one has to believe they never looked at any of the data. They were just driving around in cars collecting data that they never looked at. Yeah, that makes sense.
That they didn't know they were collecting this data simply isn't credible.
Quote:
It's clear that there are only three types of people online in your mind:
1- Normal people: "People who think exactly like me and think that Apple has their best interest at heart."
2- "Trolls": Anyone who disagrees with me, or questions apple (It it, after all, the same thing)
3-Astroturfer: "A Troll who gives linked articles and images to back up what they say. Since it's clear that only normal people, like apple fans, would take the time to link things, these trolls must be paid by other companies."
The way you identify an Astroturfer is by watching them show up, predictably, on schedule, whenever a particular topic comes up, spouting the company line talking points verbatim.
Yes, that one, which they will lose, it was a pretty straightforward act of piracy on their part
The source for this happens to have an axe to grind against android. He lost all credibility when he refused to answer if anyone is paying him to post FUD about Android.
Quote:
But they did not post the link on their home page, as required by law, until they came under pressure to comply with the law, purportedly because they didn't want to add any links to their home page, which is a bullshit excuse, but even that shows they are a company that believes they don't have to comply with the law if they don't want to.
This is your smoking gun? Weak.
Quote:
It's preposterous to think that Google was unaware of this data collection for the years it was going on. To believe that, one has to believe they never looked at any of the data. They were just driving around in cars collecting data that they never looked at. Yeah, that makes sense.
That they didn't know they were collecting this data simply isn't credible.
The "data" collected is utter garbage. It isn't any different than walking through a crowded street and picking up random conversations. Since you only are in range for a few seconds, you can't put together anything of value.
I love it when I'm threatened with the ignore list.
I almost forgot to mention how Google displayed it's corporate character in selling out net neutrality by cutting a deal in backroom negotiations with Verizon, that after they paid lip service to it for years. Can anyone trust anything they say? Obviously not. It's all just empty rhetoric, to be cast aside whenever it's expedient to do so, just like the faux "openness" of Android.
Most of your list could be perceived as correct by a lot of forum members. But what is the "evil" they perpetrated in China? They were the only big company to stand up to the Chinese government and tell things as they are rather than keeping quiet so their business there wasn't disturbed.
Comments
Yes, because no company has EVER reworked their product to better match the market leader before, have they?
The iPhone wasn't OUT when Google switched Android. They changed it AFTER the iPhone was announced.
Apple wasn't leader at all, at the time. It wasn't ever a player, for that matter.
Apple was simply outmaneuvered by Google in the Admob acquisition. I doubt frugality had anything to do with it. Its no surprise they went and hired a pretty senior lawyer to work on their acquisition strategy right after the loss of Admob. Not sure about the Palm acquisition, since there is very little information about it (including whether Apple had a serious offer to actually acquire Palm).
But I see your point. Apple has never really used its money to simply acquire patents, without any technology. That being said, they've not had a long history with billions in the bank, considering they spent most of the 90's simply trying not to go bankrupt.
Perhaps not outmaneuvered, but after looking closer at AdMob they may have decided to push the other bidders as high as possible, with the other company already in their back pocket - no an unusual process in the bidding wars.
Dodging the issue again. No counter argument, I suppose.
You can't have a counter argument to someone who refuses to give an argument. To borrow your own words, You're just throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks so no one calls you out on it.
So no, I'm not responding to you. You've proven time and again that it's a pointless exercise because you insist that I back up every statement with "Proof" and then somehow your browser is conveniently unable to view the weblinks I provide. And then, in an attempt to appear on top of it, you profess the inability to follow different arguments (only when it's in your favor) and instead quote me from a wholly separate conversation and scream that I'm contradicting myself because when I was talking about Pie, I didn't also mention the same things I did when I was talking about Dog breeds.
I know this is hard for you to believe, but most people actually HAVE opinions they base their posts on. Unlike you, they can't simply Copy/Paste from some PR handbook. So it's a given that occasionally they'll forget to cross their T's and dot their i's and you can scream CONTRADICTION at the top of your lungs like it means something. Again, we're not all astroturfers. That's just you.
EDIT: Just to state the obvious for you: I chose your reply to sprokkets because it was the most recent drivel you posted in this thread. My reasoning was really that simple. You can put the tin cap away. I promise, no one here wants to read your mind. We have Apple.com/pr for that.
Back on topic ... I don't see RIM being able to out bid Google if Google wants to win.
Sometimes it?s good just to bid so your competition pays ways too much for something you never wanted in the first place.
Personally I no longer have the stomach nor the funds for brinksmanship. I don't know if RIM would either.
Well, when you mischaracterize it like that it sounds like they are giving away puppies too. Unfortunately, that's not what the Google Books program is all about. It's about Google appropriating the intellectual property of thousands to use to sell adds.
I'm not the one who is "mischaracterize" it. It just shows that when you get your information from DED you are bound to share his irrational hate of everything google.
The fact that the GPL is viral is a drawback to that license, and why there are other licenses. Whether I like that or not has nothing to do with Google's, and your, hypocrisy on this topic. Or with whether Google is violating the GPL by not releasing source code based on GPL code.
Look in the mirror. The hypocrite is you. And the fact that you won't admit the simple and clear fact: Android isn't GPL.
You can't have a counter argument to someone who refuses to give an argument. To borrow your own words, You're just throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks so no one calls you out on it.
So no, I'm not responding to you. You've proven time and again that it's a pointless exercise because you insist that I back up every statement with "Proof" and then somehow your browser is conveniently unable to view the weblinks I provide. And then, in an attempt to appear on top of it, you profess the inability to follow different arguments (only when it's in your favor) and instead quote me from a wholly separate conversation and scream that I'm contradicting myself because when I was talking about Pie, I didn't also mention the same things I did when I was talking about Dog breeds.
I know this is hard for you to believe, but most people actually HAVE opinions they base their posts on. Unlike you, they can't simply Copy/Paste from some PR handbook. So it's a given that occasionally they'll forget to cross their T's and dot their i's and you can scream CONTRADICTION at the top of your lungs like it means something. Again, we're not all astroturfers. That's just you.
Well, that's an impressive, albeit fantastically dishonest, attempt to distract from the facts that a) Google's corporate character is about as sleazy as it gets, b) that you are unable to refute the facts that they are serial law breakers and have demonstrated time and time again their complete lack of any moral compass, and c) and that you are in fact a paid astroturfer.
You're the one who brought up the subject of Google's character. Unfortunately for you and your employer, their character is entirely lacking. No amount of dishonesty, and no attempts to create distractions from the truth, on your part can hide that.
I'm not the one who is "mischaracterize" it. It just shows that when you get your information from DED you are bound to share his irrational hate of everything google.
I'm not sure where you cook up these fantasies about why some of us recognize Google as a "bad citizen", but mostly it's your irrational hatred showing through here.
Look in the mirror. The hypocrite is you. And the fact that you won't admit the simple and clear fact: Android isn't GPL.
Parts of it are, parts of it aren't, but none of that is relevant to whether Google is a serial law breaker of poor "character". That's established irrefutably. The hypocrisy (do you even know what that word means, I think not) is entirely yours in coming here constantly bashing Apple for being closed and praising Google's "openness", along with all things FOSS, until it suddenly no longer supports your ends to do so.
Dodging the issue again. No counter argument, I suppose.
Since you have nothing to prove your argument, I have nothing to rebut. And no, the google books incident doesn't count.
Since you have nothing to prove your argument, I have nothing to rebut. And no, the google books incident doesn't count.
Why doesn't it count, because it's an inconvenient example of Google's behavior? How about how they ripped off Sun's/Oracle's IP in Android, does that count? Does anything count for you when it comes to Google's behavior? Does it count that they refused to link to their (lack of) privacy policy, in violation of the law, until it became a PR nightmare for them? Does it count that all their talk about Android openness is now clearly shown to be the total BS that it always was? Does it count that they were snooping on people's WiFi networks? (Inadvertent? Yeah, they inadvertently got caught.)
Sometimes it?s good just to bid so your competition pays ways too much for something you never wanted in the first place.
Quite, but who is doing that to who?
Sorry DigitalClips, didn't mean you.
Sun's/Oracle's IP in Android, does that count?
We'll try applying logic here. Not that I think you'll get it. It's just an object lesson for the others.
Sun/Oracle's IP: You mean the lawsuit that hasn't been settled yet? Like the HUNDREDS Apple and any other profitable company is fielding right now? If Google is guilty of stealing that IP, then Apple is guilty of the same, since they're also being sued.
Wouldn't it be better if they had a way to decide if accusations like those were factual or not? Like a court system where companies could be found to be "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" based on the evidence? Why can't we have something like that?
Oh right.
Does anything count for you when it comes to Google's behavior? Does it count that they refused to link to their (lack of) privacy policy, in violation of the law, until it became a PR nightmare for them?
Google.com/privacy. It's been active since at least 2000:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200...n/privacy.html
Which is pretty darn close to when the website was founded.
Their Privacy policy was also a single click away from their "About Google" page as early as 2000:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200...com/about.html
From their "Accounts page" the earliest capture is from 2005. It also has a DIRECT link to their privacy policy:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/200....com/accounts/
This is the splash page you get whenever you try and log into their services. AKA, anyone giving them "personal" data would have to see a link to the privacy policy before they signed in.
The PR "Nightmare" as you call it was largely over specific applications, such as Buzz that had opt-out social networking instead of opt in. This was a mistake, obviously.
But Google's has a privacy policy available for 11 years. They've had it at the sign in page from as early as 2005 (which is as far back as the waybackmachine has a capture, it could be earlier). It Appeared on their front page in 2008.
Yes, they've recently made a big deal about it (posting links to it everywhere) but they've hardly "Hidden" it and it's in a lot plainer english than most privacy policies are.
Does it count that all their talk about Android openness is now clearly shown to be the total BS that it always was?
You mean the FUD that people were spreading based on the talkings of various suppliers, none of them speaking on the record? The rumblings that Andy Rubin talked about in his blog post (one that even AI ran a story of)
If they withold whatever their "I" source is after announcement, then you have a case. What Honeycomb is is a blunder, a big one yes, but not a sign of them "Changing" policy. If you think otherwise, please provide EVIDENCE (note: Your ramblings do not count)
Does it count that they were snooping on people's WiFi networks? (Inadvertent? Yeah, they inadvertently got caught.)
Oh, so you have proof that they were snooping intentionally? Really now. You'd think that something like that would be big news and they would STILL be attacked over it.
Did their system gather information? Yes (Provided the person had their network unsecured)
Was it intentional? Not according to what Google says. But since you don't believe them, then how about the courts? NONE of them have said that this was an "Intentional" information grab.
Now, I would ask for you to refute this. To provide evidence to back up what you say. But that's impossible for you. Instead you'll say it's a "Pathetic attempt" (without mentioning any specific points) and find at least three "Creative" (to you) ways to call me an astroturfer.
It's clear that there are only three types of people online in your mind:
1- Normal people: "People who think exactly like me and think that Apple has their best interest at heart."
2- "Trolls": Anyone who disagrees with me, or questions apple (It it, after all, the same thing)
3-Astroturfer: "A Troll who gives linked articles and images to back up what they say. Since it's clear that only normal people, like apple fans, would take the time to link things, these trolls must be paid by other companies."
So instead of wasting my time, hoping for some form of a coherent argument from you, I'll instead use the handy little "Ignore" button that AI's provided. Granted, I should've used it months ago. But call me an irrational optimist, who thought that just maybe it was possible to have a conversation with you, if only I found the right approach. My bad.
We'll try applying logic here. Not that I think you'll get it. It's just an object lesson for the others.
Sun/Oracle's IP: You mean the lawsuit that hasn't been settled yet?
Yes, that one, which they will lose, it was a pretty straightforward act of piracy on their part
Google.com/privacy. It's been active since at least 2000:
But they did not post the link on their home page, as required by law, until they came under pressure to comply with the law, purportedly because they didn't want to add any links to their home page, which is a bullshit excuse, but even that shows they are a company that believes they don't have to comply with the law if they don't want to.
What Honeycomb is is a blunder, a big one yes, but not a sign of them "Changing" policy.
It may be a blunder, but they have changed their policy.
Oh, so you have proof that they were snooping intentionally?
It's preposterous to think that Google was unaware of this data collection for the years it was going on. To believe that, one has to believe they never looked at any of the data. They were just driving around in cars collecting data that they never looked at. Yeah, that makes sense.
That they didn't know they were collecting this data simply isn't credible.
It's clear that there are only three types of people online in your mind:
1- Normal people: "People who think exactly like me and think that Apple has their best interest at heart."
2- "Trolls": Anyone who disagrees with me, or questions apple (It it, after all, the same thing)
3-Astroturfer: "A Troll who gives linked articles and images to back up what they say. Since it's clear that only normal people, like apple fans, would take the time to link things, these trolls must be paid by other companies."
The way you identify an Astroturfer is by watching them show up, predictably, on schedule, whenever a particular topic comes up, spouting the company line talking points verbatim.
That's you.
Yes, that one, which they will lose, it was a pretty straightforward act of piracy on their part
The source for this happens to have an axe to grind against android. He lost all credibility when he refused to answer if anyone is paying him to post FUD about Android.
But they did not post the link on their home page, as required by law, until they came under pressure to comply with the law, purportedly because they didn't want to add any links to their home page, which is a bullshit excuse, but even that shows they are a company that believes they don't have to comply with the law if they don't want to.
This is your smoking gun? Weak.
It's preposterous to think that Google was unaware of this data collection for the years it was going on. To believe that, one has to believe they never looked at any of the data. They were just driving around in cars collecting data that they never looked at. Yeah, that makes sense.
That they didn't know they were collecting this data simply isn't credible.
The "data" collected is utter garbage. It isn't any different than walking through a crowded street and picking up random conversations. Since you only are in range for a few seconds, you can't put together anything of value.
But feel free to think you been violated.
Further posts from you will be ignored.
... Further posts from you will be ignored.
I love it when I'm threatened with the ignore list.
I almost forgot to mention how Google displayed it's corporate character in selling out net neutrality by cutting a deal in backroom negotiations with Verizon, that after they paid lip service to it for years. Can anyone trust anything they say? Obviously not. It's all just empty rhetoric, to be cast aside whenever it's expedient to do so, just like the faux "openness" of Android.
Which these days is a pretty damn lot.
Net Neutrality
China
Panda <-- (oh snap, thats funny when I list it after China)
Net Neutrality
Shanking Apple in the back
And so much more ...