Actually, these latest revelations could work to Google's advantage.
It may raise antitrust issues that prevent the Google/MMI merger...
It may be that Google can, thus, abandon its ill-conceived $12 Billion purchase without having to pay the $3.5 Billion guarantee it gave MMI.
...We really, really, wanted to buy you -- but they just wouldn't let us...
It will be interesting to see if the market reacts -- MMI has been hovering near the Google Offering price during a week or so of down tech stocks.
First, it has not been established that the $12 B purchase is a bad move. Aside from the billions of dollars in tax savings from the deal, Google can sell of a number of divisions that it doesn't want and use others to feed its voracious appetite for consumers' personal information. When the dust settles, this could actually end up as a good deal for Google (I'm not saying that it will, but that the outcome is not clear at this point).
Second, unless you've seen the terms of the agreement, you don't know that a DOJ objection would save Google the breakup fee. These fees are sometimes set to take effect when the deal doesn't go through for ANY reason.
Not really, as mentioned by the guy above your post, google has always had a favorite developer for each major release of android. Its always been either moto or htc or samsung. I dunno, this is not that revolutionary, since it does not concern the future of moto, only the past. There is no need for google to piss off partners like samsung and htc when they are happily at work increwasing googles advertising empire.
I think moto will be a volume low end manufacturer if anything, to free up the koreans and taiwanese to focus on high end.
Hard to say. As I first said, whether I agreed with him or not didn't matter, I felt he was an unbiased source and one that I could trust to report the facts as they were, good or bad, for Google or Apple or anyone else. The tone of some of his recent blogs has changed my opinion.
Well, he gets paid to have opinions, not be an unbiased journalist. His opinions and the tenor of his articles has pretty much mirrored the released series of court documents he reviews as part of his paid job. He gets paid to be an investment advisor with a specialty in IP issues. If he isn't very good at it he doesn't get clients, or even calls from significant potential clients. As more info becomes concrete via published evidence and court filings, that eliminates much of the early "it could go either way depending on..." and replaces it with a reasonable set of facts and other information that can support a reasoned opinion.
So if you don't like the opinion he has come to after looking much of the source documents for months, you don't have to like him. But it takes quite the blinders to not see that Google's case is turning into a real biotch to get away from without losing their asses.
When this story broke, I knew there would be a stupid post like this up on AI before too long. Can't let the facts get in the way of a good flame fest, right Daniel?
1-Google developing android in private is NOT new. This is how it's always been done and they've NEVER tried hiding this fact. They broke tradition with Honeycomb, but AI has no basis for commenting on that.
2-The Verizon/Google deal was USING THE EXAMPLE OF THE DROID/XOOM. These companies had early access to code because they were building flagship devices. You know, like HTC had with 2.1 for the Nexus one and Samsung had for 2.3 and the Nexus S. Again, not new, revolutionary or controversial.
For how much this site loves to talk about Android, maybe they should spend some time educating their writers ABOUT android so they can avoid making horrible miss steps like this in the future. Both of these "shockers" were known from the original G1, reinforced every time they came out with a new OS version.
Well, he gets paid to have opinions, not be an unbiased journalist. His opinions and the tenor of his articles has pretty much mirrored the released series of court documents he reviews as part of his paid job. He gets paid to be an investment advisor with a specialty in IP issues. If he isn't very good at it he doesn't get clients, or even calls from significant potential clients. As more info becomes concrete via published evidence and court filings, that eliminates much of the early "it could go either way depending on..." and replaces it with a reasonable set of facts and other information that can support a reasoned opinion.
So if you don't like the opinion he has come to after looking much of the source documents for months, you don't have to like him. But it takes quite the blinders to not see that Google's case is turning into a real biotch to get away from without losing their asses.
Because it's not turning into that? Big company lawsuits NEVER turn into that. Furthermore, Florian has a tendency to ignore any judgements that get passed down that go against oracle. (for a list of those, check out Groklaw)
and Florian get's paid because he's a windbag and will never miss a moment to talk about something. He's also taking the populist position of bashing the "big guy" and choosing which judgement's he covers to paint them in a worst light possible. In short, he gets paid to paint a narrative, not to analyze the data. If he DID look at the data, he'd know that second comment was about FLAGSHIPS, which is obvious from the writing.
Google is giving preferential treatment. If they dont offer the same access, within the same requirements to all customers, that is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.
Offering preference to one vendor, even a subsidiary that they buy, over it's competitors is monopolistic and, thus, illegal if Google does that.
I get the impression he is calling them like he sees them. When a hundred mile an hour fastball comes directly in the strike zone an unbiased umpire might well say "STRIIIIIIKE" instead of "strike". The various emails that have been uncovered in court being the fastball.
It's on a fastball if it's unexpected. these "shockers" are things known since the G1. He called them a SHOCKER to make sure more people quoted him because they're too lazy to look it up themselves.
I'm confused ... what are you referencing? I don't see the word Shepherd anywhere in the article, nor in any of the comments.
"Sheppard" can be a correct spelling if it's referring to a name. If you're talking about the dog breed(s) or the profession then it is spelled "Shepherd," but I don't know it makes you a genius for pointing it out. All it really does is make you come off as a dick ... like you've never made a spelling or grammar mistake in your life.
Google is giving preferential treatment. If they dont offer the same access, within the same requirements to all customers, that is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.
Offering preference to one vendor, even a subsidiary that they buy, over it's competitors is monopolistic and, thus, illegal if Google does that.
You're not getting it.
Google chooses "Flagship" devices to showcase the new version and android. Since they DO NOT make devices on their own, this means working with one of the manufacturers to develop a new device that shows off all the new software features with appropriate hardware. These manufacturers are selected using a bidding process that they ALL have the option to participate in.
Once a manufacturer is selected, they work with Google to build the device, necessitating that they have access to the code before it's posted publicly because they're also the error testers for it. With the exception of honeycomb, every other version of code was released publicly (called AOSP) typically within a weak of the device announcement.
Here's a brief example:
Android 1.5/1.6=G1 by HTC
Android 2.0 = Droid by Motorola
Android 2.1/2.2= Nexus One by HTC
Android 2.3= Nexus S by Samsung
Android 3.0= Xoom by Motorola
Android 4.0= ?
It should be worth noting that beyond that SINGLE lead device, it doesn't seem that this "early access" helps a manufacturer update existing devices (or new ones) any faster. IN fact, with 2.2, some of the First phones to launch with it (Froyo) were from LG, a company that has yet to GET a "flagship" device. Motorola devices were some of the first to get upgraded to 2.2 even though it was an HTC device (nexus one) that showed it off. With Gingerbread everyone is struggling to update devices, samsung most of all, even though they had the software FIRST.
With Honeycomb, the only "unreleased" version, the update path gets even murkier. Even though the Xoom is the flagship, it's only the verizon version that seems to have an advantage with the updates. The Asus Transformer seems to get updates a lot faster than the wifi xoom.
Again, this is NOTHING NEW. FOSS patents knew this, but he also knew that making it seem like it was something he "discovered" would mean more people writing about him, and that people like DED were looking for ANYTHING to put Google in a negative light so they wouldn't question it. (note his Title choice for this article)
it's fascinating to watch the twisted rationalizations of the Fandroids to this smoking gun power point slide.
What smoking gun? That Google is going to give preferential treatment to companies that don't screw with Android to the point of basically turning it into a different OS? To keep it from the fragmentation that could destroy Android? Certainly a smoking gun
Seriously, what about all the twisted interpretation coming from Apple zealots like Dilger? I mean even the article's title is such BS hyperbole. "Google plotted..." ??? Um, even a casual reader would easily understand that Motorola was just being used as an example.
P.S., before you try to disparage me by calling me a fandroid, I don't own an Android device or an iOS device for that matter. I just have a brain and the ability to use it.
This is the kind of article that spawns a lot of "AI has sure gone downhill since..." sentiments. "FOSS Patents" did an excellent job explaining what's troubling about these documents. Then Dilger turns around and does this hatchet job.
Please, in the RSS feed, would you guys start listing the author? Many of the AI writers are quite good. Others, I'd like to skip.
The comments following the TechCrunch article are particularly informative. An excellent explanation is made concerning the "9 lines of code" allegedly copied.
Whether the author of this article can be perceived has slanting the article and having pro-Apple agenda is up to the reader, but is there much wrong with that kind of action from a site called APPLEinsider? I mean really....
Whether the author of this article can be perceived has slanting the article and having pro-Apple agenda is up to the reader, but is there much wrong with that kind of action from a site called APPLEinsider? I mean really....
Actually yes. Because you'd think a site called "AppleInsider" would write about Apple and if they wrote about something NOT apple, they would actually spend some time getting to know the subject matter before editorializing it.
And having a title that starts with "Google Plotted" leaves NOTHING up to the reader.
What smoking gun? That Google is going to give preferential treatment to companies that don't screw with Android to the point of basically turning it into a different OS? To keep it from the fragmentation that could destroy Android? Certainly a smoking gun
Seriously, what about all the twisted interpretation coming from Apple zealots like Dilger? I mean even the article's title is such BS hyperbole. "Google plotted..." ??? Um, even a casual reader would easily understand that Motorola was just being used as an example.
P.S., before you try to disparage me by calling me a fandroid, I don't own an Android device or an iOS device for that matter. I just have a brain and the ability to use it.
ok, you're not a fandroid. but you are a sucker. "open" doesn't really mean "open." it means "open" only when Google is in control. and the "open handset alliance" isn't a level playing field. it's tilted toward/away whoever Googles decides to play favorites with - or punish - to its own advantage. except from now on, of course, it just means Motorola.
ok, you're not a fandroid. but you are a sucker. "open" doesn't really mean "open." it means "open" only when Google is in control. and the "open handset alliance" isn't a level playing field. it's tilted toward/away whoever Googles decides to play favorites with - or punish - to its own advantage. except from now on, of course, it just means Motorola.
pul-leeze. go jump in that boat.
It doesn't just mean motorola. Not only does this go against history and Google's stated intentions but it would COMPLETELY ruin their business model. The goal of android is to get Google services infront of as many eyeballs as possible. Closing android would not only REDUCE eyeballs but would give a HUGE boost to Bing.
The "Flagship" device manufacturer is deciding via a bidding process that the manufacturers participate in.
Comments
Actually, these latest revelations could work to Google's advantage.
It may raise antitrust issues that prevent the Google/MMI merger...
It may be that Google can, thus, abandon its ill-conceived $12 Billion purchase without having to pay the $3.5 Billion guarantee it gave MMI.
...We really, really, wanted to buy you -- but they just wouldn't let us...
It will be interesting to see if the market reacts -- MMI has been hovering near the Google Offering price during a week or so of down tech stocks.
First, it has not been established that the $12 B purchase is a bad move. Aside from the billions of dollars in tax savings from the deal, Google can sell of a number of divisions that it doesn't want and use others to feed its voracious appetite for consumers' personal information. When the dust settles, this could actually end up as a good deal for Google (I'm not saying that it will, but that the outcome is not clear at this point).
Second, unless you've seen the terms of the agreement, you don't know that a DOJ objection would save Google the breakup fee. These fees are sometimes set to take effect when the deal doesn't go through for ANY reason.
So Google has been lying all along?
Such poor behavior for a once admired Google.
Not really, as mentioned by the guy above your post, google has always had a favorite developer for each major release of android. Its always been either moto or htc or samsung. I dunno, this is not that revolutionary, since it does not concern the future of moto, only the past. There is no need for google to piss off partners like samsung and htc when they are happily at work increwasing googles advertising empire.
I think moto will be a volume low end manufacturer if anything, to free up the koreans and taiwanese to focus on high end.
Hard to say. As I first said, whether I agreed with him or not didn't matter, I felt he was an unbiased source and one that I could trust to report the facts as they were, good or bad, for Google or Apple or anyone else. The tone of some of his recent blogs has changed my opinion.
Well, he gets paid to have opinions, not be an unbiased journalist. His opinions and the tenor of his articles has pretty much mirrored the released series of court documents he reviews as part of his paid job. He gets paid to be an investment advisor with a specialty in IP issues. If he isn't very good at it he doesn't get clients, or even calls from significant potential clients. As more info becomes concrete via published evidence and court filings, that eliminates much of the early "it could go either way depending on..." and replaces it with a reasonable set of facts and other information that can support a reasoned opinion.
So if you don't like the opinion he has come to after looking much of the source documents for months, you don't have to like him. But it takes quite the blinders to not see that Google's case is turning into a real biotch to get away from without losing their asses.
1-Google developing android in private is NOT new. This is how it's always been done and they've NEVER tried hiding this fact. They broke tradition with Honeycomb, but AI has no basis for commenting on that.
2-The Verizon/Google deal was USING THE EXAMPLE OF THE DROID/XOOM. These companies had early access to code because they were building flagship devices. You know, like HTC had with 2.1 for the Nexus one and Samsung had for 2.3 and the Nexus S. Again, not new, revolutionary or controversial.
For how much this site loves to talk about Android, maybe they should spend some time educating their writers ABOUT android so they can avoid making horrible miss steps like this in the future. Both of these "shockers" were known from the original G1, reinforced every time they came out with a new OS version.
Further Commentary: http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the...sses-the-mark/
(and I know they're doing this because they want to sell ad space, it's just sad that so many people here are buying into this FUD)
Well, he gets paid to have opinions, not be an unbiased journalist. His opinions and the tenor of his articles has pretty much mirrored the released series of court documents he reviews as part of his paid job. He gets paid to be an investment advisor with a specialty in IP issues. If he isn't very good at it he doesn't get clients, or even calls from significant potential clients. As more info becomes concrete via published evidence and court filings, that eliminates much of the early "it could go either way depending on..." and replaces it with a reasonable set of facts and other information that can support a reasoned opinion.
So if you don't like the opinion he has come to after looking much of the source documents for months, you don't have to like him. But it takes quite the blinders to not see that Google's case is turning into a real biotch to get away from without losing their asses.
Because it's not turning into that? Big company lawsuits NEVER turn into that. Furthermore, Florian has a tendency to ignore any judgements that get passed down that go against oracle. (for a list of those, check out Groklaw)
and Florian get's paid because he's a windbag and will never miss a moment to talk about something. He's also taking the populist position of bashing the "big guy" and choosing which judgement's he covers to paint them in a worst light possible. In short, he gets paid to paint a narrative, not to analyze the data. If he DID look at the data, he'd know that second comment was about FLAGSHIPS, which is obvious from the writing.
Offering preference to one vendor, even a subsidiary that they buy, over it's competitors is monopolistic and, thus, illegal if Google does that.
I get the impression he is calling them like he sees them. When a hundred mile an hour fastball comes directly in the strike zone an unbiased umpire might well say "STRIIIIIIKE" instead of "strike". The various emails that have been uncovered in court being the fastball.
It's on a fastball if it's unexpected. these "shockers" are things known since the G1. He called them a SHOCKER to make sure more people quoted him because they're too lazy to look it up themselves.
Google is giving preferential treatment. That is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.
1) It's not illegal
2) All android OEM's already know about this, and HAVE known about this since (most likely) before they even signed up to MAKE android devices.
I'm confused ... what are you referencing? I don't see the word Shepherd anywhere in the article, nor in any of the comments.
"Sheppard" can be a correct spelling if it's referring to a name. If you're talking about the dog breed(s) or the profession then it is spelled "Shepherd," but I don't know it makes you a genius for pointing it out. All it really does is make you come off as a dick ... like you've never made a spelling or grammar mistake in your life.
agreed
Google is giving preferential treatment. If they dont offer the same access, within the same requirements to all customers, that is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.
Offering preference to one vendor, even a subsidiary that they buy, over it's competitors is monopolistic and, thus, illegal if Google does that.
You're not getting it.
Google chooses "Flagship" devices to showcase the new version and android. Since they DO NOT make devices on their own, this means working with one of the manufacturers to develop a new device that shows off all the new software features with appropriate hardware. These manufacturers are selected using a bidding process that they ALL have the option to participate in.
Once a manufacturer is selected, they work with Google to build the device, necessitating that they have access to the code before it's posted publicly because they're also the error testers for it. With the exception of honeycomb, every other version of code was released publicly (called AOSP) typically within a weak of the device announcement.
Here's a brief example:
Android 1.5/1.6=G1 by HTC
Android 2.0 = Droid by Motorola
Android 2.1/2.2= Nexus One by HTC
Android 2.3= Nexus S by Samsung
Android 3.0= Xoom by Motorola
Android 4.0= ?
It should be worth noting that beyond that SINGLE lead device, it doesn't seem that this "early access" helps a manufacturer update existing devices (or new ones) any faster. IN fact, with 2.2, some of the First phones to launch with it (Froyo) were from LG, a company that has yet to GET a "flagship" device. Motorola devices were some of the first to get upgraded to 2.2 even though it was an HTC device (nexus one) that showed it off. With Gingerbread everyone is struggling to update devices, samsung most of all, even though they had the software FIRST.
With Honeycomb, the only "unreleased" version, the update path gets even murkier. Even though the Xoom is the flagship, it's only the verizon version that seems to have an advantage with the updates. The Asus Transformer seems to get updates a lot faster than the wifi xoom.
Again, this is NOTHING NEW. FOSS patents knew this, but he also knew that making it seem like it was something he "discovered" would mean more people writing about him, and that people like DED were looking for ANYTHING to put Google in a negative light so they wouldn't question it. (note his Title choice for this article)
it's fascinating to watch the twisted rationalizations of the Fandroids to this smoking gun power point slide.
What smoking gun? That Google is going to give preferential treatment to companies that don't screw with Android to the point of basically turning it into a different OS? To keep it from the fragmentation that could destroy Android? Certainly a smoking gun
Seriously, what about all the twisted interpretation coming from Apple zealots like Dilger? I mean even the article's title is such BS hyperbole. "Google plotted..." ??? Um, even a casual reader would easily understand that Motorola was just being used as an example.
P.S., before you try to disparage me by calling me a fandroid, I don't own an Android device or an iOS device for that matter. I just have a brain and the ability to use it.
WTF.
This is the kind of article that spawns a lot of "AI has sure gone downhill since..." sentiments. "FOSS Patents" did an excellent job explaining what's troubling about these documents. Then Dilger turns around and does this hatchet job.
Please, in the RSS feed, would you guys start listing the author? Many of the AI writers are quite good. Others, I'd like to skip.
Jog on then, because I quite like it.
Further Commentary: http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the...sses-the-mark/
The comments following the TechCrunch article are particularly informative. An excellent explanation is made concerning the "9 lines of code" allegedly copied.
Thanks!
So Google has been lying all along?
Such poor behavior for a once admired Google.
Google was telling the truth! Buying Motorola Mobility won't change how they treat other hardware makers since they're already screwing them!
Type envy ?? ...
Whether the author of this article can be perceived has slanting the article and having pro-Apple agenda is up to the reader, but is there much wrong with that kind of action from a site called APPLEinsider? I mean really....
Actually yes. Because you'd think a site called "AppleInsider" would write about Apple and if they wrote about something NOT apple, they would actually spend some time getting to know the subject matter before editorializing it.
And having a title that starts with "Google Plotted" leaves NOTHING up to the reader.
What smoking gun? That Google is going to give preferential treatment to companies that don't screw with Android to the point of basically turning it into a different OS? To keep it from the fragmentation that could destroy Android? Certainly a smoking gun
Seriously, what about all the twisted interpretation coming from Apple zealots like Dilger? I mean even the article's title is such BS hyperbole. "Google plotted..." ??? Um, even a casual reader would easily understand that Motorola was just being used as an example.
P.S., before you try to disparage me by calling me a fandroid, I don't own an Android device or an iOS device for that matter. I just have a brain and the ability to use it.
ok, you're not a fandroid. but you are a sucker. "open" doesn't really mean "open." it means "open" only when Google is in control. and the "open handset alliance" isn't a level playing field. it's tilted toward/away whoever Googles decides to play favorites with - or punish - to its own advantage. except from now on, of course, it just means Motorola.
pul-leeze. go jump in that boat.
ok, you're not a fandroid. but you are a sucker. "open" doesn't really mean "open." it means "open" only when Google is in control. and the "open handset alliance" isn't a level playing field. it's tilted toward/away whoever Googles decides to play favorites with - or punish - to its own advantage. except from now on, of course, it just means Motorola.
pul-leeze. go jump in that boat.
It doesn't just mean motorola. Not only does this go against history and Google's stated intentions but it would COMPLETELY ruin their business model. The goal of android is to get Google services infront of as many eyeballs as possible. Closing android would not only REDUCE eyeballs but would give a HUGE boost to Bing.
The "Flagship" device manufacturer is deciding via a bidding process that the manufacturers participate in.