Is that why they have all those ad-supported apps on the Android Market?
Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google.
Let's assume Google doesn't care about dominating and only cares about people using its search engine. Explain why Google brags about activation numbers? If they make more money out of iOS (or even equal amount) why are they aggressively pushing Android and giving it away for free such that no one can develop a business case in creating a competing OS (Amazon and Baidu found a way around that). Android is to Google what Bing or XBox are to Microsoft. Remember how Microsoft got its Windows and Office monopoly? There is a longterm plan and Google wants to control everything, what better way to sell you ads than controlling the OS you use to access the web on a device that has all your personal info linked to Google services. Why no company is actively developing a desktop OS to compete with Microsoft except for Apple (Linux and others have less than 3%)? Microsoft thru back-room deals with OEMs made it cost prohibitive, and this is Google's game with Android.
Agreed. Android is important to Google because it will be the source of personal information and search terms and serves as a platform for serving up Google ads.
Oh man, this is a big one, maybe even the biggest so far.
This remains to be seen. Let's hope the Fingerworks crew were far enough ahead of the curve that they've got a good footing in multi-touch. Cypress, Atmel, Synaptics and others have been working in this area since before the iPhone. We won't know the value of Apple's patent until they bring it to bear against potential infringers.
I have a suspicion mapping won't be a problem for long and maybe search won't be far behind. After all iOS is killing Google everyday since apps bypass the web entirely and iOS is so dominant in actual use (I am ignoring sales figures of Google toys here rather looking at stats of real users on the internet actually buying stuff). Steve didn't get shafted by Gates to ever let it happen again and even though he's left us, I have to think there is a strategy he crafted in play. When he presented the iPhone his comments regarding patents didn't sound like wasted air time to me.
ummmm you are making my point. Apple is treading into Google territory and it is somewhat probable that Apple will run into patent issues with some of Google's technology. Just because Apple improves on Google doesn't mean Apple won't be infringing any Google patents. I'm not saying Apple is stealing Google technology. I'm just pointing out that whenever you start trying to overtake a competitor like Google, there is a risk that you will infringe patents covering their technology.
This remains to be seen. Let's hope the Fingerworks crew were far enough ahead of the curve that they've got a good footing in multi-touch. Cypress, Atmel, Synaptics and others have been working in this area since before the iPhone. We won't know the value of Apple's patent until they bring it to bear against potential infringers.
Apple bought Fingerworks not because they needed Multitouch Engineers [They already had several such talent on staff], but to expand their portfolio and to make sure their work doesn't infringe on Fingerworks. They gained a solid portfolio footing and applied all of their research with Fingerworks to build a much larger pool of multitouch IP.
The Inventor, Kristoph H. Krah has worked at Apple and on 3-D multitouch patent research years before Fingerworks was bought by Apple.
Is that why they have all those ad-supported apps on the Android Market?
Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google.
Let's assume Google doesn't care about dominating and only cares about people using its search engine. Explain why Google brags about activation numbers? If they make more money out of iOS (or even equal amount) why are they aggressively pushing Android and giving it away for free such that no one can develop a business case in creating a competing OS (Amazon and Baidu found a way around that). Android is to Google what Bing or XBox are to Microsoft. Remember how Microsoft got its Windows and Office monopoly? There is a longterm plan and Google wants to control everything, what better way to sell you ads than controlling the OS you use to access the web on a device that has all your personal info linked to Google services. Why no company is actively developing a desktop OS to compete with Microsoft except for Apple (Linux and others have less than 3%)? Microsoft thru back-room deals with OEMs made it cost prohibitive, and this is Google's game with Android.
They brag about Activation because that's the only number that matters to them since they don't sell Android.
Google created Android to kill innovation in the mobile world. Unfortunately for Google this isn't working as good as they hoped. Microsoft is collecting royalties on Android rendering Android non-free for hardware vendors. Also companies like Baidu and Amazon are using Android to compete against Google and cutting Google off of any profits that they might make. Android might stifle innovation as Google intended but it will also compete against itself, leaving Google with an expensive endeavor that can never be truly monetized and if we are lucky Google will slowly distance itself away from it.
Actually, they bought Android in an attempt to side-swipe Microsoft's plans of taking over the mobile market as they did with the desktop market, which would've cut Google out of the mobile search market - one that was expected to become larger than the desktop search market.
Unfortunately for Google's inability to look forward and innovate, Android was just another clone of what Microsoft and RIM already had. Then when Apple released the iPhone, it pretty much derailed the entire industry, which was desperately needed. This sent Google back the drawing board for 18 months to rejigger their user interface so it was more iPhone-like (again, because they completely failed at coming up with their own ideas).
Now this is a real patent. Developing a hardware and software solution to the multi-touch problem is real innovation. I'm sorry, I love AAPL and all but the patents these guys have been fighting over (vague or look/feel or "...on a mobile" type patents) just seem so... I don't know... petty.
Whether this is going to hurt GOOG et al. shall be seen. Don't know what tech is in the current androids so I can't say but this isn't the only way to do multi-touch (see: jeff han or MS Surface or DiamondTouch). Not saying those are better/worse than AAPL, just saying there are many different ways to sort an array (or skin a cat, if you're more comfortable with that analogy).
Hey, all Apple has to do is enforce an across the board $10 per every touch phone licensing fee. Nothing says the licensing fee must be low, right? After all, Microsoft makes something like $5 per Android phone licensing fee.
Change colors in a drawing program? Choose which character to attack in a MMPORG? Equivalent to <right-click>? Hover could be used as a whole extra dimension of UI.
Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google
Google would probably prefer you to use Android; however, iOS doesn't have an Android market either and Google still makes lots of money on iOS. Why should the other platforms be any different?
Hey, all Apple has to do is enforce an across the board $10 per every touch phone licensing fee. Nothing says the licensing fee must be low, right? After all, Microsoft makes something like $5 per Android phone licensing fee.
There better off taking zero and taking away android and others ability to use there technology the more apple can show there phones and devices are different the better..
Google created Android to kill innovation in the mobile world. Unfortunately for Google this isn't working as good as they hoped. Microsoft is collecting royalties on Android rendering Android non-free for hardware vendors. Also companies like Baidu and Amazon are using Android to compete against Google and cutting Google off of any profits that they might make. Android might stifle innovation as Google intended but it will also compete against itself, leaving Google with an expensive endeavor that can never be truly monetized and if we are lucky Google will slowly distance itself away from it.
Google is about making money and data mining. They don't give a F about anything else or how they achieve these goals. That is also why they don't care that Android vendors have to pay 5-15 dollar per Android device as protection fee to MSFT.
This is the perfect unholy alliance. Google gets its data mining with Android and MSFT gets their beloved licensing fee's.
MSFT makes it money on doing crappy programs so that people have to upgrade every 18-24 month. Google makes it money from advertising. Both these approaches is not good for innovation.
Steve Jobs was about making great products that he would like to use. He was not obsessed about maximizing profit. This is also the reason why Apple hoards money. To be able to create great products without maximizing profit you need a cushion. Otherwise we have Apple 1985 again where they start to make shortcuts to maximize profit.
A bit off topic. This is also something that most uneducated persons don't understand: Apple's stuff is not expensive. There is no "Apple tax". Intel, MSFT, Google all have higher profit margins then Apple. The difference is that Apple uses quality components that cost much money. "But Apple makes billions in profit. This have to be because their stuff is expensive" No. Its simple mathematics. An iPhone costs 650 dollar and Apple makes in average 30%. Microsoft license Windows mobile 7.5 is 15 dollar and MSFT makes 50% profit. Apple makes about 200 dollar on a phone. MSFT makes 7.5 dollars.
And last:
Its fun that MSFT make much more money on Android then what Google does.
Google is about making money and data mining. They don't give a F about anything else or how they achieve these goals. That is also why they don't care that Android vendors have to pay 5-15 dollar per Android device as protection fee to MSFT.
This is the perfect unholy alliance. Google gets its data mining with Android and MSFT gets their beloved licensing fee's.
MSFT makes it money on doing crappy programs so that people have to upgrade every 18-24 month. Google makes it money from advertising. Both these approaches is not good for innovation.
Steve Jobs was about making great products that he would like to use. He was not obsessed about maximizing profit. This is also the reason why Apple hoards money. To be able to create great products without maximizing profit you need a cushion. Otherwise we have Apple 1985 again where they start to make shortcuts to maximize profit.
A bit off topic. This is also something that most uneducated persons don't understand: Apple's stuff is not expensive. There is no "Apple tax". Intel, MSFT, Google all have higher profit margins then Apple. The difference is that Apple uses quality components that cost much money. "But Apple makes billions in profit. This have to be because their stuff is expensive" No. Its simple mathematics. An iPhone costs 650 dollar and Apple makes in average 30%. Microsoft license Windows mobile 7.5 is 15 dollar and MSFT makes 50% profit. Apple makes about 200 dollar on a phone. MSFT makes 7.5 dollars.
And last:
Its fun that MSFT make much more money on Android then what Google does.
The model is changing though. The web is only a part of the internet. As apps continue to become the major way people access stuff out there they by pass the web entirely and Google is closed out of the loop. Google's financial model is tied to the web or their own apps and we all know iOS is so far ahead in use on the internet as to make you wonder what Android owners use them for ...
Google would probably prefer you to use Android; however, iOS doesn't have an Android market either and Google still makes lots of money on iOS. Why should the other platforms be any different?
How does Google gain revenues from an iOS device running an app? Yes, more iOS devices are accessing the web than anything else but as they use Safari less and use more and more apps Google get left out. Siri is the key to this since more searching will be done via Siri in the future. Siri is Google's worst nightmare as she gets you info without you eyeballing a Google ad.
How does Google gain revenues from an iOS device running an app? Yes, more iOS devices are accessing the web than anything else but as they use Safari less and use more and more apps Google get left out. Siri is the key to this since more searching will be done via Siri in the future. Siri is Google's worst nightmare as she gets you info without you eyeballing a Google ad.
By this time next year there will be a (cross?) licensing agreement between Apple and at least Samsung, if not Google themselves. The lawsuits aren't having the impact that was hoped for.
By this time next year there will be a (cross?) licensing agreement between Apple and at least Samsung, if not Google themselves. The lawsuits aren't having the impact that was hoped for.
Probably not anytime soon. The patents are just starting to stack up. We still might see another wave of lawsuits with these new patents ant probably NOT in the ITC but in regional courts instead. Then we have the oracle vs google lawsuit that's probably rollin on sooner than later.
Comments
Is that why they have all those ad-supported apps on the Android Market?
Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google.
Let's assume Google doesn't care about dominating and only cares about people using its search engine. Explain why Google brags about activation numbers? If they make more money out of iOS (or even equal amount) why are they aggressively pushing Android and giving it away for free such that no one can develop a business case in creating a competing OS (Amazon and Baidu found a way around that). Android is to Google what Bing or XBox are to Microsoft. Remember how Microsoft got its Windows and Office monopoly? There is a longterm plan and Google wants to control everything, what better way to sell you ads than controlling the OS you use to access the web on a device that has all your personal info linked to Google services. Why no company is actively developing a desktop OS to compete with Microsoft except for Apple (Linux and others have less than 3%)? Microsoft thru back-room deals with OEMs made it cost prohibitive, and this is Google's game with Android.
Agreed. Android is important to Google because it will be the source of personal information and search terms and serves as a platform for serving up Google ads.
Oh man, this is a big one, maybe even the biggest so far.
This remains to be seen. Let's hope the Fingerworks crew were far enough ahead of the curve that they've got a good footing in multi-touch. Cypress, Atmel, Synaptics and others have been working in this area since before the iPhone. We won't know the value of Apple's patent until they bring it to bear against potential infringers.
I have a suspicion mapping won't be a problem for long and maybe search won't be far behind. After all iOS is killing Google everyday since apps bypass the web entirely and iOS is so dominant in actual use (I am ignoring sales figures of Google toys here rather looking at stats of real users on the internet actually buying stuff). Steve didn't get shafted by Gates to ever let it happen again and even though he's left us, I have to think there is a strategy he crafted in play. When he presented the iPhone his comments regarding patents didn't sound like wasted air time to me.
ummmm you are making my point. Apple is treading into Google territory and it is somewhat probable that Apple will run into patent issues with some of Google's technology. Just because Apple improves on Google doesn't mean Apple won't be infringing any Google patents. I'm not saying Apple is stealing Google technology. I'm just pointing out that whenever you start trying to overtake a competitor like Google, there is a risk that you will infringe patents covering their technology.
It would be cool if you could actually access the hover event.
Why? What would you do with the hover data?
This remains to be seen. Let's hope the Fingerworks crew were far enough ahead of the curve that they've got a good footing in multi-touch. Cypress, Atmel, Synaptics and others have been working in this area since before the iPhone. We won't know the value of Apple's patent until they bring it to bear against potential infringers.
Apple bought Fingerworks not because they needed Multitouch Engineers [They already had several such talent on staff], but to expand their portfolio and to make sure their work doesn't infringe on Fingerworks. They gained a solid portfolio footing and applied all of their research with Fingerworks to build a much larger pool of multitouch IP.
The Inventor, Kristoph H. Krah has worked at Apple and on 3-D multitouch patent research years before Fingerworks was bought by Apple.
Is that why they have all those ad-supported apps on the Android Market?
Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google.
Let's assume Google doesn't care about dominating and only cares about people using its search engine. Explain why Google brags about activation numbers? If they make more money out of iOS (or even equal amount) why are they aggressively pushing Android and giving it away for free such that no one can develop a business case in creating a competing OS (Amazon and Baidu found a way around that). Android is to Google what Bing or XBox are to Microsoft. Remember how Microsoft got its Windows and Office monopoly? There is a longterm plan and Google wants to control everything, what better way to sell you ads than controlling the OS you use to access the web on a device that has all your personal info linked to Google services. Why no company is actively developing a desktop OS to compete with Microsoft except for Apple (Linux and others have less than 3%)? Microsoft thru back-room deals with OEMs made it cost prohibitive, and this is Google's game with Android.
They brag about Activation because that's the only number that matters to them since they don't sell Android.
Google created Android to kill innovation in the mobile world. Unfortunately for Google this isn't working as good as they hoped. Microsoft is collecting royalties on Android rendering Android non-free for hardware vendors. Also companies like Baidu and Amazon are using Android to compete against Google and cutting Google off of any profits that they might make. Android might stifle innovation as Google intended but it will also compete against itself, leaving Google with an expensive endeavor that can never be truly monetized and if we are lucky Google will slowly distance itself away from it.
Actually, they bought Android in an attempt to side-swipe Microsoft's plans of taking over the mobile market as they did with the desktop market, which would've cut Google out of the mobile search market - one that was expected to become larger than the desktop search market.
Unfortunately for Google's inability to look forward and innovate, Android was just another clone of what Microsoft and RIM already had. Then when Apple released the iPhone, it pretty much derailed the entire industry, which was desperately needed. This sent Google back the drawing board for 18 months to rejigger their user interface so it was more iPhone-like (again, because they completely failed at coming up with their own ideas).
Now this is a real patent. Developing a hardware and software solution to the multi-touch problem is real innovation. I'm sorry, I love AAPL and all but the patents these guys have been fighting over (vague or look/feel or "...on a mobile" type patents) just seem so... I don't know... petty.
Whether this is going to hurt GOOG et al. shall be seen. Don't know what tech is in the current androids so I can't say but this isn't the only way to do multi-touch (see: jeff han or MS Surface or DiamondTouch). Not saying those are better/worse than AAPL, just saying there are many different ways to sort an array (or skin a cat, if you're more comfortable with that analogy).
Hey, all Apple has to do is enforce an across the board $10 per every touch phone licensing fee. Nothing says the licensing fee must be low, right? After all, Microsoft makes something like $5 per Android phone licensing fee.
Why? What would you do with the hover data?
Change colors in a drawing program? Choose which character to attack in a MMPORG? Equivalent to <right-click>? Hover could be used as a whole extra dimension of UI.
Let's assume Google doesn't want to monetize Android. Amazon and Baidu do worry them. Here's why: 1) No Android Marketplace 2) No Google Apps 3) In case of Baidu no Google search. Amazon and Baidu are riding on Android and then 'forking' it to undercut Google
Google would probably prefer you to use Android; however, iOS doesn't have an Android market either and Google still makes lots of money on iOS. Why should the other platforms be any different?
Hey, all Apple has to do is enforce an across the board $10 per every touch phone licensing fee. Nothing says the licensing fee must be low, right? After all, Microsoft makes something like $5 per Android phone licensing fee.
There better off taking zero and taking away android and others ability to use there technology the more apple can show there phones and devices are different the better..
Google created Android to kill innovation in the mobile world. Unfortunately for Google this isn't working as good as they hoped. Microsoft is collecting royalties on Android rendering Android non-free for hardware vendors. Also companies like Baidu and Amazon are using Android to compete against Google and cutting Google off of any profits that they might make. Android might stifle innovation as Google intended but it will also compete against itself, leaving Google with an expensive endeavor that can never be truly monetized and if we are lucky Google will slowly distance itself away from it.
Google is about making money and data mining. They don't give a F about anything else or how they achieve these goals. That is also why they don't care that Android vendors have to pay 5-15 dollar per Android device as protection fee to MSFT.
This is the perfect unholy alliance. Google gets its data mining with Android and MSFT gets their beloved licensing fee's.
MSFT makes it money on doing crappy programs so that people have to upgrade every 18-24 month. Google makes it money from advertising. Both these approaches is not good for innovation.
Steve Jobs was about making great products that he would like to use. He was not obsessed about maximizing profit. This is also the reason why Apple hoards money. To be able to create great products without maximizing profit you need a cushion. Otherwise we have Apple 1985 again where they start to make shortcuts to maximize profit.
A bit off topic. This is also something that most uneducated persons don't understand: Apple's stuff is not expensive. There is no "Apple tax". Intel, MSFT, Google all have higher profit margins then Apple. The difference is that Apple uses quality components that cost much money. "But Apple makes billions in profit. This have to be because their stuff is expensive" No. Its simple mathematics. An iPhone costs 650 dollar and Apple makes in average 30%. Microsoft license Windows mobile 7.5 is 15 dollar and MSFT makes 50% profit. Apple makes about 200 dollar on a phone. MSFT makes 7.5 dollars.
And last:
Its fun that MSFT make much more money on Android then what Google does.
Google is about making money and data mining. They don't give a F about anything else or how they achieve these goals. That is also why they don't care that Android vendors have to pay 5-15 dollar per Android device as protection fee to MSFT.
This is the perfect unholy alliance. Google gets its data mining with Android and MSFT gets their beloved licensing fee's.
MSFT makes it money on doing crappy programs so that people have to upgrade every 18-24 month. Google makes it money from advertising. Both these approaches is not good for innovation.
Steve Jobs was about making great products that he would like to use. He was not obsessed about maximizing profit. This is also the reason why Apple hoards money. To be able to create great products without maximizing profit you need a cushion. Otherwise we have Apple 1985 again where they start to make shortcuts to maximize profit.
A bit off topic. This is also something that most uneducated persons don't understand: Apple's stuff is not expensive. There is no "Apple tax". Intel, MSFT, Google all have higher profit margins then Apple. The difference is that Apple uses quality components that cost much money. "But Apple makes billions in profit. This have to be because their stuff is expensive" No. Its simple mathematics. An iPhone costs 650 dollar and Apple makes in average 30%. Microsoft license Windows mobile 7.5 is 15 dollar and MSFT makes 50% profit. Apple makes about 200 dollar on a phone. MSFT makes 7.5 dollars.
And last:
Its fun that MSFT make much more money on Android then what Google does.
The model is changing though. The web is only a part of the internet. As apps continue to become the major way people access stuff out there they by pass the web entirely and Google is closed out of the loop. Google's financial model is tied to the web or their own apps and we all know iOS is so far ahead in use on the internet as to make you wonder what Android owners use them for ...
Google would probably prefer you to use Android; however, iOS doesn't have an Android market either and Google still makes lots of money on iOS. Why should the other platforms be any different?
How does Google gain revenues from an iOS device running an app? Yes, more iOS devices are accessing the web than anything else but as they use Safari less and use more and more apps Google get left out. Siri is the key to this since more searching will be done via Siri in the future. Siri is Google's worst nightmare as she gets you info without you eyeballing a Google ad.
How does Google gain revenues from an iOS device running an app? Yes, more iOS devices are accessing the web than anything else but as they use Safari less and use more and more apps Google get left out. Siri is the key to this since more searching will be done via Siri in the future. Siri is Google's worst nightmare as she gets you info without you eyeballing a Google ad.
..It*
By this time next year there will be a (cross?) licensing agreement between Apple and at least Samsung, if not Google themselves. The lawsuits aren't having the impact that was hoped for.
Bloomberg has an article up along the same lines.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...-war-tech.html
How does Google gain revenues from an iOS device running an app?
AdMob. Still the #1 mobile ad in-app advertising platform.
Prediction:
By this time next year there will be a (cross?) licensing agreement between Apple and at least Samsung, if not Google themselves. The lawsuits aren't having the impact that was hoped for.
Bloomberg has an article up along the same lines.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...-war-tech.html
Probably not anytime soon. The patents are just starting to stack up. We still might see another wave of lawsuits with these new patents ant probably NOT in the ITC but in regional courts instead. Then we have the oracle vs google lawsuit that's probably rollin on sooner than later.