Well according to the people in the other thread, Google sees patents differently than Apple. This must be it. Maybe they purchased Motorola Mobility (a company that has actually never made a profit (ever)) so they can put all of their patents in the public domain.
Why do they need them at all? It is only evil Apple running around abusing patents. Google is good and pure. They just want to share with everyone. Larry Paige called me a few minutes ago and asked if I need any 3G patents.
If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?
Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?
Or is it that their counting methodology is off?
They are mostly (not all) cheapy phones not being used as smartphone. That is also why their share of mobile web is so low and why google makes more mobile ad dollars off of iOS users than Android users.
If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?
Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?
Or is it that their counting methodology is off?
Bingo.
Few Android phones are used as smartphones. They're just throw-away replacements for their earlier throw-away cell phones that had buttons.
I've checked data on my servers every few months, and Android devices barely register enough to be considered statistically significant when you count all the desktop/laptops. If you remove the desktops and laptops so you only see mobile devices, you get somewhere between 20 and 40% Android, with most of them still running a 2.2 or 2.3 OS. In comparison nearly all the iOS devices are the current OS version when checked.
Android is hell to develop for, that's Google's fault for not going native to begin with. Unfortunately, this poor engineering seems to be a problem with Google that started when they bought doubleclick, and has been snowballing into worse and worse bad engineering efforts. With buying Motorola I only expect this bad engineering to creep into their products, not that I'd ever willingly buy a Motorola product, as the V60 and RAZR's were all extremely poor designs.
Google only does things better when their version costs nothing, and the competition costs money. Physical hardware is not something you can subsidize while also being the manufacturer, everyone who has done that has been bought or gone out of business.
What did everyone want before the touch-screen phone?
1. Keypad phones for SMS messages (also on the way out) and email
2. Flip phones (something Nokia was very adamant about NOT doing, but nearly everything from Motorola was a flip phone, along with Samsung and LG's devices)
If Google cannot use the MMI patents aggressively, what is the use? They have only ended up with a bad situation where any attempt to do something to salvage the MMI purchase will end up hurting their partners. Without getting any benefit, whatsoever!
I foresee a quick end game where HTC, Samsung, Motorola will agree to pay Apple stiff amounts of money for a cross license. And probably might lose out on their FRAND revenues as well in the bargain. Apple could very well cement itself in an impregnable competitive position. Despite the thermonuclear bluster, I think Apple will have no choice but to license on very stiff terms. Otherwise they might themselves face antitrust scrutiny!
"Agree to pay Apple"? "Apple will have no choice but to license [their non-essential patents]"?
You've flipped this story on its head.
Apple doesn't want a high price for its non-essential patents. It doesn't want to license them at ANY price, nor should they. That's like saying Coca Cola should be forced to license the recipe for their signature soft drink to Pepsi and others.
You seem to be missing the central point of this story, which is that Google and Motorola (and Apple) are required to license their FRAND patent technologies for fair and reasonable prices. They cannot demand outrageous fees for use of these patents in order to force other companies to license their non-FRAND patents. This rule most certainly does not apply to non-standards-essential patents, which are the entire basis for competition between products.
"Agree to pay Apple"? "Apple will have no choice but to license [their non-essential patents]"?
You've flipped this story on its head.
Apple doesn't want a high price for its non-essential patents. It doesn't want to license them at ANY price, nor should they. That's like saying Coca Cola should be forced to license the recipe for their signature soft drink to Pepsi and others.
You seem to be missing the central point of this story, which is that Google and Motorola (and Apple) are required to license their FRAND patent technologies for fair and reasonable prices. ...
... and that they are required to do so because they volunteered to include the technology described in their patents in the standard, and that it was only included because they promised to abide by FRAND licensing terms. If they had not made these promises, the standard would not have included their patented technology.
"The use of industry standard patents in litigation is a sticky matter and some pundits argue that governmental bodies like the FTC should not involve themselves in what are essentially contract disputes. Others, however, say that such issues are within the commission's jurisdiction given that the technologies apply to the broader market and are thus relevant in antitrust allegations."
You know these "some pundits" don't know what they are talking about when they indicate that governments should not be involved. Rubbish. Patents in the US are mandated in the Constitution, laws implementing the specifics are laws of the US government, the patent laws are also part of Treaties, patents and patent laws are interpreted by courts. There is nothing "private" about it.
A final piece of rubbish is the statement that these are "essentially contract disputes". What is a contract? It is an agreement, often between private individuals, which the government(s) will enforce. The general rules of commerce and contracts are explicitly the Fed's business since the Constitution says so (see the Commerce Clause), and are each State's business through their local court interpretation and state laws such as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
... A final piece of rubbish is the statement that these are "essentially contract disputes". What is a contract? It is an agreement, often between private individuals, which the government(s) will enforce. ..
And, even more fundamentally, a contract is a promise, given on one's honor, to perform (or abstain from) certain actions. When companies, like Google, renege on these promises, they undermine trust, which is the foundation of our entire economic system. Thus, the government has every interest in making sure these contracts are honored.
And, even more fundamentally, a contract is a promise, given on one's honor, to perform (or abstain from) certain actions. When companies, like Google, renege on these promises, they undermine trust, which is the foundation of our entire economic system. Thus, the government has every interest in making sure these contracts are honored.
Ah, see this is where you should have clarified in your post that is was designed for tablets and perhaps even noted that it was a failure thus removing any ambiguity and doubt about your post.
he said 'handset'. see this is where you should have paid attention in the original post.
You have perfectly valid points (except that your quoted 1% was of total mobile phone sales, not the smaller smartphone segment. They already had their 1% of total mobile phone share by 2008 too), but Android's fast rise to 50%+ share couldn't have been predicted even three years ago, and for me personally that's the bigger surprise.
For our newer members, remember this next time you see analyst projections.
Just curious ... about some of the logic here and want to be clear in my mind about this data. If Symbian sold196.5 million units why does that mean that number has any connection to current % of usage (I just picked Symbian as an example). What if 90% of those sold units are in a land fill now? Or does your data actually refer to units in use now not just sold?
Aspect ratios being different doesn't give Samsung a free pass. Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the actual tablets apart when the judge held them up. Why not just post that photo of the Samsung picture frame again, but only from the front?
Yea that's why they went through the trouble of photo shopping it. What's wrong with posting the pic of the picture frame from the front only? That's the only side of the ipad that's shown in pics, or why not show the white one?
Just curious ... about some of the logic here and want to be clear in my mind about this data. If Symbian sold196.5 million units why does that mean that number has any connection to current % of usage (I just picked Symbian as an example). What if 90% of those sold units are in a land fill now? Or does your data actually refer to units in use now not just sold?
If you read the link it's a projection of 2012 sales done back in 2009. It's not a prediction of the total sold over the years but specifically this year alone.
If you read the link it's a projection of 2012 sales done back in 2009. It's not a prediction of the total sold over the years but specifically this year alone.
Hey, Gatorguy, I know you are "ignoring" me, but can you actually post something to the point? This thread isn't about Android Marketshare, it's about how Google is abusing the entire FRAND patent system, undermining the entire standards making process, and ultimately contract law. Pretty destructive activity. What's next, destroy Western Civilization?
No? Well, I don't blame you, there really is no defense possible of Google's actions.
Hell yeah they need to be investigated just as Microsoft and Apple should be if the shoes are on the other foot. It either of them were in the same position, they would use the patents to freeze out other companies. Sad but true...
Hell yeah they need to be investigated just as Microsoft and Apple should be if the shoes are on the other foot. It either of them were in the same position, they would use the patents to freeze out other companies. Sad but true...
So in your mind, 'true' means 'I made this up and have no evidence, but I hate Apple so I'll pretend there's something backing up my statement'. :-/
You have no idea how Apple would behave in such a situation. They have completely open sourced Webkit. They completely open sourced Darwin. What in the world would make you think that they would try to use a FRAND patent to exclude anyone?
Now, it's certainly true that they are not very keen on making their patents FRAND, but you are claiming that they would use their patents to close people out even if they were FRAND. There's absolutely nothing to back that up.
Sure, sure because Apple is a non-for profit organization. They are here for the benefit of mankind. Get real... If Apple could get away with closing the door on its competitors they would. Contrary to popular belief, Apple is not your friend. They are a seller of products. Period, point, blank. It just so happens that I like what they sell but I am not under the illusion that they are doing me any favors...
Sure, sure because Apple is a non-for profit organization. They are here for the benefit of mankind. Get real... If Apple could get away with closing the door on its competitors they would. Contrary to popular belief, Apple is not your friend. They are a seller of products. Period, point, blank. It just so happens that I like what they sell but I am not under the illusion that they are doing me any favors...
But that's not what you said. You said that Apple would abuse FRAND patents by using them as a weapon against the competition just as Motorola has done. I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that claim.
But that's not what you said. You said that Apple would abuse FRAND patents by using them as a weapon against the competition just as Motorola has done. I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that claim.
I'll post mine when you post a link showing that they won't. In short... Whatever....
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo
Or perhaps, not so amazing.
Well according to the people in the other thread, Google sees patents differently than Apple. This must be it. Maybe they purchased Motorola Mobility (a company that has actually never made a profit (ever)) so they can put all of their patents in the public domain.
Why do they need them at all? It is only evil Apple running around abusing patents. Google is good and pure. They just want to share with everyone. Larry Paige called me a few minutes ago and asked if I need any 3G patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The lying legal team?
Pretty sure the rest of the world learned that image was from a Samsung ad... Perhaps they were the ones trying to be misleading?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrerTech
Riddle me this, then:
If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?
Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?
Or is it that their counting methodology is off?
They are mostly (not all) cheapy phones not being used as smartphone. That is also why their share of mobile web is so low and why google makes more mobile ad dollars off of iOS users than Android users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrerTech
Riddle me this, then:
If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?
Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?
Or is it that their counting methodology is off?
Bingo.
Few Android phones are used as smartphones. They're just throw-away replacements for their earlier throw-away cell phones that had buttons.
I've checked data on my servers every few months, and Android devices barely register enough to be considered statistically significant when you count all the desktop/laptops. If you remove the desktops and laptops so you only see mobile devices, you get somewhere between 20 and 40% Android, with most of them still running a 2.2 or 2.3 OS. In comparison nearly all the iOS devices are the current OS version when checked.
Android is hell to develop for, that's Google's fault for not going native to begin with. Unfortunately, this poor engineering seems to be a problem with Google that started when they bought doubleclick, and has been snowballing into worse and worse bad engineering efforts. With buying Motorola I only expect this bad engineering to creep into their products, not that I'd ever willingly buy a Motorola product, as the V60 and RAZR's were all extremely poor designs.
Google only does things better when their version costs nothing, and the competition costs money. Physical hardware is not something you can subsidize while also being the manufacturer, everyone who has done that has been bought or gone out of business.
What did everyone want before the touch-screen phone?
1. Keypad phones for SMS messages (also on the way out) and email
2. Flip phones (something Nokia was very adamant about NOT doing, but nearly everything from Motorola was a flip phone, along with Samsung and LG's devices)
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
If Google cannot use the MMI patents aggressively, what is the use? They have only ended up with a bad situation where any attempt to do something to salvage the MMI purchase will end up hurting their partners. Without getting any benefit, whatsoever!
I foresee a quick end game where HTC, Samsung, Motorola will agree to pay Apple stiff amounts of money for a cross license. And probably might lose out on their FRAND revenues as well in the bargain. Apple could very well cement itself in an impregnable competitive position. Despite the thermonuclear bluster, I think Apple will have no choice but to license on very stiff terms. Otherwise they might themselves face antitrust scrutiny!
"Agree to pay Apple"? "Apple will have no choice but to license [their non-essential patents]"?
You've flipped this story on its head.
Apple doesn't want a high price for its non-essential patents. It doesn't want to license them at ANY price, nor should they. That's like saying Coca Cola should be forced to license the recipe for their signature soft drink to Pepsi and others.
You seem to be missing the central point of this story, which is that Google and Motorola (and Apple) are required to license their FRAND patent technologies for fair and reasonable prices. They cannot demand outrageous fees for use of these patents in order to force other companies to license their non-FRAND patents. This rule most certainly does not apply to non-standards-essential patents, which are the entire basis for competition between products.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
"Agree to pay Apple"? "Apple will have no choice but to license [their non-essential patents]"?
You've flipped this story on its head.
Apple doesn't want a high price for its non-essential patents. It doesn't want to license them at ANY price, nor should they. That's like saying Coca Cola should be forced to license the recipe for their signature soft drink to Pepsi and others.
You seem to be missing the central point of this story, which is that Google and Motorola (and Apple) are required to license their FRAND patent technologies for fair and reasonable prices. ...
... and that they are required to do so because they volunteered to include the technology described in their patents in the standard, and that it was only included because they promised to abide by FRAND licensing terms. If they had not made these promises, the standard would not have included their patented technology.
"The use of industry standard patents in litigation is a sticky matter and some pundits argue that governmental bodies like the FTC should not involve themselves in what are essentially contract disputes. Others, however, say that such issues are within the commission's jurisdiction given that the technologies apply to the broader market and are thus relevant in antitrust allegations."
You know these "some pundits" don't know what they are talking about when they indicate that governments should not be involved. Rubbish. Patents in the US are mandated in the Constitution, laws implementing the specifics are laws of the US government, the patent laws are also part of Treaties, patents and patent laws are interpreted by courts. There is nothing "private" about it.
A final piece of rubbish is the statement that these are "essentially contract disputes". What is a contract? It is an agreement, often between private individuals, which the government(s) will enforce. The general rules of commerce and contracts are explicitly the Fed's business since the Constitution says so (see the Commerce Clause), and are each State's business through their local court interpretation and state laws such as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
That is, there is nothing "private" here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
... A final piece of rubbish is the statement that these are "essentially contract disputes". What is a contract? It is an agreement, often between private individuals, which the government(s) will enforce. ..
And, even more fundamentally, a contract is a promise, given on one's honor, to perform (or abstain from) certain actions. When companies, like Google, renege on these promises, they undermine trust, which is the foundation of our entire economic system. Thus, the government has every interest in making sure these contracts are honored.
Indeed, that's why contract law exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Ah, see this is where you should have clarified in your post that is was designed for tablets and perhaps even noted that it was a failure thus removing any ambiguity and doubt about your post.
he said 'handset'. see this is where you should have paid attention in the original post.
Just curious ... about some of the logic here and want to be clear in my mind about this data. If Symbian sold196.5 million units why does that mean that number has any connection to current % of usage (I just picked Symbian as an example). What if 90% of those sold units are in a land fill now? Or does your data actually refer to units in use now not just sold?
Yea that's why they went through the trouble of photo shopping it. What's wrong with posting the pic of the picture frame from the front only? That's the only side of the ipad that's shown in pics, or why not show the white one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Just curious ... about some of the logic here and want to be clear in my mind about this data. If Symbian sold196.5 million units why does that mean that number has any connection to current % of usage (I just picked Symbian as an example). What if 90% of those sold units are in a land fill now? Or does your data actually refer to units in use now not just sold?
If you read the link it's a projection of 2012 sales done back in 2009. It's not a prediction of the total sold over the years but specifically this year alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If you read the link it's a projection of 2012 sales done back in 2009. It's not a prediction of the total sold over the years but specifically this year alone.
Hey, Gatorguy, I know you are "ignoring" me, but can you actually post something to the point? This thread isn't about Android Marketshare, it's about how Google is abusing the entire FRAND patent system, undermining the entire standards making process, and ultimately contract law. Pretty destructive activity. What's next, destroy Western Civilization?
No? Well, I don't blame you, there really is no defense possible of Google's actions.
Hell yeah they need to be investigated just as Microsoft and Apple should be if the shoes are on the other foot. It either of them were in the same position, they would use the patents to freeze out other companies. Sad but true...
So in your mind, 'true' means 'I made this up and have no evidence, but I hate Apple so I'll pretend there's something backing up my statement'. :-/
You have no idea how Apple would behave in such a situation. They have completely open sourced Webkit. They completely open sourced Darwin. What in the world would make you think that they would try to use a FRAND patent to exclude anyone?
Now, it's certainly true that they are not very keen on making their patents FRAND, but you are claiming that they would use their patents to close people out even if they were FRAND. There's absolutely nothing to back that up.
Sure, sure because Apple is a non-for profit organization. They are here for the benefit of mankind. Get real... If Apple could get away with closing the door on its competitors they would. Contrary to popular belief, Apple is not your friend. They are a seller of products. Period, point, blank. It just so happens that I like what they sell but I am not under the illusion that they are doing me any favors...
But that's not what you said. You said that Apple would abuse FRAND patents by using them as a weapon against the competition just as Motorola has done. I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
But that's not what you said. You said that Apple would abuse FRAND patents by using them as a weapon against the competition just as Motorola has done. I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that claim.
I'll post mine when you post a link showing that they won't. In short... Whatever....