I actually just had a thought. I wonder how many mobile phone manufacturing companies will simply exit that market if Android starts to include a licensing cost. Every quarter it is released that Apple and Samsung have over 100% of the profits because everyone else lost money. At what point does LG, HTC, Acer, etc. throw up their hands and say that they are done making mobile phones? I expect that any mention of having to invest or spend even more money into a profit blackhole would have to seriously raise that question.
If not then I am going to add mobile phone manufacturer CEO as another greatest job ever where I could run a profit losing business for years on end and the investors are fine with it.
I've wondered if the likes of LG and Samsung largely went into the mobile handset business on their own as the other big names started getting slaughtered. People like Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson, and so forth, started drawing down their supply chain, leaving people like LG and Samsung with production lines churning out parts that were not being bought by anyone else.
So, you have all this inventory and production lines that still haven't been fully paid for. If they invest $1 billion in a line with an expectation of having it paid in 10 years, but they're six years in and those they were expecting to buy the product suddenly stop buying ... well... not hard to see the math there.
Maybe it's all just an exercise in cost recovery for Samsung...
I think there is another reason not addressed in the article for Google to move away from Dalvik VM. By using a register based Java virtual machine, Androids runtimes are forever stuck in a 32 bit environment and unable to directly use new hardware features of future ARM SoC.
I think there is another reason not addressed in the article for Google to move away for Dalvik VM. By using a register based Java virtual machine, Androids runtimes are forever stuck in a 32 bit environment and unable to directly use new hardware features of future ARM SoC.
Ein? Dalvik can, and in fact run, on 64 bit processors already
I have a question about Samsung's rumored OS (or whatever the correct term is), Tizen. If it is eventually released and ends up copying Android in any way, will Google have a legal basis to sue Samsung? With Android's own shaky foundation, it seems to me (an outsider) that Google will not have a solid leg to stand on.
Umm... Not entirely sure what you are getting at. KitKat with ART included is currently available on phones and tablets. I don't know a lot of details about ART, but I fail to see why forking for tablets would be a consideration ¿
Apologies. It was my lame attempt at stupid humor, trying to create a Fork from ART; FART in short. Hence the Inverted question markInverted question mark
I have a question about Samsung's rumored OS (or whatever the correct term is), Tizen. If it is eventually released and ends up copying Android in any way, will Google have a legal basis to sue Samsung? With Android's own shaky foundation, it seems to me (an outsider) that Google will not have a solid leg to stand on.
so unless I'm not understanding this correctly, the new Android Run Time is Google's response to the situation with Dalvik. As I understand it, ART allows the CPU to directly execute the native code of android apps, rather than having to first be interpreted, a la Dalvik (this is how java works as well). The advantages are obvious in terms of performance.
And the best part? you can enable ART right now, and most apps are working fine without any tweaks. Many apps have benefited with a noticeable increase in performance, as well. I'm running ART on my nexus 5/7, and all my apps are working with the exception of whatsapp. here is a good explanation of ART vs. Dalvik
I actually just had a thought. I wonder how many mobile phone manufacturing companies will simply exit that market if Android starts to include a licensing cost. Every quarter it is released that Apple and Samsung have over 100% of the profits because everyone else lost money. At what point does LG, HTC, Acer, etc. throw up their hands and say that they are done making mobile phones? I expect that any mention of having to invest or spend even more money into a profit blackhole would have to seriously raise that question.
If not then I am going to add mobile phone manufacturer CEO as another greatest job ever where I could run a profit losing business for years on end and the investors are fine with it.
The guessing at this point seems to be the Appeals Court finding that Judge Alsup erred when he opined that the API's were not copyrightable to begin with. The guesses then go on to say that there would then be another trial to determine if Google's limited use of the API's constituted "fair use". In the first trial it was reported that all but one of the jurors found in Google's favor on "fair use" of the copyrighted material tho at the time it didn't matter as the Judge's ruling made it moot.
It's not unlike the recent book scanning trial that finally found that yes the books Google and their scholarly partners scanned were indeed copyrightable but Google and partners did nothing wrong in scanning them because it was deemed to be "fair use".
No, Android runs natively on 64 bit processor, last one, Intel x64 Atom
True, Android operating system could run natively on a 64bit hardware. But porting Dalvik on another architecture It doesn't change Dalvik virtual processor specs, since Dalvik are a register base VM and not a traditional stack VM like Java SE, the virtualized register are fixed width at 32bit and can't be change without a major revision of DalvikVM specs. It's like using a 32 bit virtual machine with Parallels desktop, even if you're using a 64 bit host computer, the virtualized environment is still a 32 bit one.
I don't say DalvikVM can't run natively on a 64bit hardware, I'm only saying because of it's virtualization nature, DalvikVM runtimes still be a 32 bit environment only even if it is running on a 64 bit processor. The same way you could run DalvikVM natively on a 16 bit processor to emulate an 32 bit VM at unusable slow speed.
Android is pathetic and it served as the os for all those cheap ass black Friday $49.99 tablets Best Buy had tossed into those big ole plastic grab and go(suckers) containers.
I'm just wondering - aren't any court wins for Oracle against Google at this point just pyrrhic victories? Google already had years to milk the profits out of Android and as someone pointed out, Google has been working on moving Android to a platform that doesn't infringe on Java. So all Google has to do is stall the proceedings as much as possible to gain the maximum mileage out of Java-based Android before moving on to the non-infringing version of Android. So Oracle will at most get damages which Google can afford to pay given all the profits they have milked out of Android.
So it appears that the strategy being employed by Google and Samsung is as follows:
1) Infringe on intellectual property and get to market faster.
2) Milk as much profit out of infringement as possible while the lawsuits take years to go through courts.
3) Move on to the next intellectual property infringement as soon as the court judgement on #1 is finalized.
4) Pay monetary damages for #1 (which will be peanuts compared to the profits from #2).
5) Rinse and repeat.
So I am not sure how any court losses on intellectual property infringement would actually be damaging to Google at this point, unless the court mandates the disgorgement of profits which is highly unlikely (the bar is set too high for this type of punishment).
Really funny! I saw the headline, and thought to myself "that's a headline that could only have come via that paid shill of Oracle, Florian Muller". He also translated most of Oracles wet dreams into commentary during the first court case, but the judge and jury saw straight through it. One paragraph in, and bingo!
Best of luck, guys. Maybe it won't be Judge Alsup needing to expose that this guy is paid by Oracle for his "independent" views this time around. Perhaps they may one day pick someone more plausible.
Mueller reported based on information in tweets from Dan Levine (Reuters) and Scott K. Graham (The Recorder/Law.com) which came from the courtroom, are linked to in his post and seem to be factual.
Are they "paid shills" too?
Which part is biased, perhaps you can fill us in on what "really" happened there today?
I have a question about Samsung's rumored OS (or whatever the correct term is), Tizen. If it is eventually released and ends up copying Android in any way, will Google have a legal basis to sue Samsung?
Google might have a legal basis to sue, but there's no way they would IMHO. They have a near zero history of asserting their IP against other techs or search providers. No good reason to start now.
What I find strange is that Google wants to make itself look petty and cheap. They could easily admit their errors and simply broadly license Java from Oracle and be done with it. Instead they seem to be hell bent on turning the Androud ecosystem upside down. Even if Oracle charged a billion dollars Google could easily handle the costs.
Simple story is that Mueller has form, and that takes away his credibility. Just Google his name, blog name and Groklaw in the same sentence, and his track record as a paid shill is laid bare. Honest bloggers declare any financial interest; it doesn't normally need Techcrunch or Judge Alsup to out them first.
Who he selectively picks words from is of no consequence. He makes his own bed as far as credibility is concerned.
Comments
I actually just had a thought. I wonder how many mobile phone manufacturing companies will simply exit that market if Android starts to include a licensing cost. Every quarter it is released that Apple and Samsung have over 100% of the profits because everyone else lost money. At what point does LG, HTC, Acer, etc. throw up their hands and say that they are done making mobile phones? I expect that any mention of having to invest or spend even more money into a profit blackhole would have to seriously raise that question.
If not then I am going to add mobile phone manufacturer CEO as another greatest job ever where I could run a profit losing business for years on end and the investors are fine with it.
I've wondered if the likes of LG and Samsung largely went into the mobile handset business on their own as the other big names started getting slaughtered. People like Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson, and so forth, started drawing down their supply chain, leaving people like LG and Samsung with production lines churning out parts that were not being bought by anyone else.
So, you have all this inventory and production lines that still haven't been fully paid for. If they invest $1 billion in a line with an expectation of having it paid in 10 years, but they're six years in and those they were expecting to buy the product suddenly stop buying ... well... not hard to see the math there.
Maybe it's all just an exercise in cost recovery for Samsung...
Just my thoughts.
You obviously know nothing.
I think there is another reason not addressed in the article for Google to move away from Dalvik VM. By using a register based Java virtual machine, Androids runtimes are forever stuck in a 32 bit environment and unable to directly use new hardware features of future ARM SoC.
I think there is another reason not addressed in the article for Google to move away for Dalvik VM. By using a register based Java virtual machine, Androids runtimes are forever stuck in a 32 bit environment and unable to directly use new hardware features of future ARM SoC.
Ein? Dalvik can, and in fact run, on 64 bit processors already
Ein? Dalvik can, and in fact run, on 64 bit processors already
Running the VM on a 64bit processor is one thing, the virtualized environment where apps are running is still a 32 bit one.
After hearing so long about Apple's supposedly gloomy future it appears the reverse is true:
Android is doomed.
I have a question about Samsung's rumored OS (or whatever the correct term is), Tizen. If it is eventually released and ends up copying Android in any way, will Google have a legal basis to sue Samsung? With Android's own shaky foundation, it seems to me (an outsider) that Google will not have a solid leg to stand on.
Apologies. It was my lame attempt at stupid humor, trying to create a Fork from ART; FART in short. Hence the Inverted question markInverted question mark
Tizen is open source, just not the SDK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen
And the best part? you can enable ART right now, and most apps are working fine without any tweaks. Many apps have benefited with a noticeable increase in performance, as well. I'm running ART on my nexus 5/7, and all my apps are working with the exception of whatsapp. here is a good explanation of ART vs. Dalvik
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170677-android-art-google-finally-moves-to-replace-dalvik-to-boost-performance-and-battery-life
So in summary, I think the premise of this article is flawed. chrome is not the solution, ART is, and it's already baked into Android 4.4
Running the VM on a 64bit processor is one thing, the virtualized environment where apps are running is still a 32 bit one.
No, Android runs natively on 64 bit processor, last one, Intel x64 Atom
And, by the way, why do you say that being a register based VM it can't be used natively in a 64 bit architecture
The guessing at this point seems to be the Appeals Court finding that Judge Alsup erred when he opined that the API's were not copyrightable to begin with. The guesses then go on to say that there would then be another trial to determine if Google's limited use of the API's constituted "fair use". In the first trial it was reported that all but one of the jurors found in Google's favor on "fair use" of the copyrighted material tho at the time it didn't matter as the Judge's ruling made it moot.
It's not unlike the recent book scanning trial that finally found that yes the books Google and their scholarly partners scanned were indeed copyrightable but Google and partners did nothing wrong in scanning them because it was deemed to be "fair use".
Google has hired a significant number of new Android devs in the past six months.
No, Android runs natively on 64 bit processor, last one, Intel x64 Atom
True, Android operating system could run natively on a 64bit hardware. But porting Dalvik on another architecture It doesn't change Dalvik virtual processor specs, since Dalvik are a register base VM and not a traditional stack VM like Java SE, the virtualized register are fixed width at 32bit and can't be change without a major revision of DalvikVM specs. It's like using a 32 bit virtual machine with Parallels desktop, even if you're using a 64 bit host computer, the virtualized environment is still a 32 bit one.
I don't say DalvikVM can't run natively on a 64bit hardware, I'm only saying because of it's virtualization nature, DalvikVM runtimes still be a 32 bit environment only even if it is running on a 64 bit processor. The same way you could run DalvikVM natively on a 16 bit processor to emulate an 32 bit VM at unusable slow speed.
I'm just wondering - aren't any court wins for Oracle against Google at this point just pyrrhic victories? Google already had years to milk the profits out of Android and as someone pointed out, Google has been working on moving Android to a platform that doesn't infringe on Java. So all Google has to do is stall the proceedings as much as possible to gain the maximum mileage out of Java-based Android before moving on to the non-infringing version of Android. So Oracle will at most get damages which Google can afford to pay given all the profits they have milked out of Android.
So it appears that the strategy being employed by Google and Samsung is as follows:
1) Infringe on intellectual property and get to market faster.
2) Milk as much profit out of infringement as possible while the lawsuits take years to go through courts.
3) Move on to the next intellectual property infringement as soon as the court judgement on #1 is finalized.
4) Pay monetary damages for #1 (which will be peanuts compared to the profits from #2).
5) Rinse and repeat.
So I am not sure how any court losses on intellectual property infringement would actually be damaging to Google at this point, unless the court mandates the disgorgement of profits which is highly unlikely (the bar is set too high for this type of punishment).
Really funny! I saw the headline, and thought to myself "that's a headline that could only have come via that paid shill of Oracle, Florian Muller". He also translated most of Oracles wet dreams into commentary during the first court case, but the judge and jury saw straight through it. One paragraph in, and bingo!
Best of luck, guys. Maybe it won't be Judge Alsup needing to expose that this guy is paid by Oracle for his "independent" views this time around. Perhaps they may one day pick someone more plausible.
Mueller reported based on information in tweets from Dan Levine (Reuters) and Scott K. Graham (The Recorder/Law.com) which came from the courtroom, are linked to in his post and seem to be factual.
Are they "paid shills" too?
Which part is biased, perhaps you can fill us in on what "really" happened there today?
Google might have a legal basis to sue, but there's no way they would IMHO. They have a near zero history of asserting their IP against other techs or search providers. No good reason to start now.
Who he selectively picks words from is of no consequence. He makes his own bed as far as credibility is concerned.