We know that from the $1 billion Samsung v. Apple verdict (in which similar damages have been imposed by two different juries!) as well as the recent ruling by Judge Koh in the second Samsung v. Apple trial in which she ruled that Samsung Android phones were infringing on a certain Apple patent.
Why is this fact relevant?
Because it is those infringed Apple patents that enables Android phones to seriously compete with Apple products. And because of this close-enough-parity with iOS, manufacturers are more than happy to agree to whatever terms Google imposes on them with regards to Android licensing. The burden of Android licensing is far outweighed by the benefits of openly infringing on invaluable Apple patents, especially the Steve Jobs multitouch patents.
If Android wasn't infringing on Apple patents, it wouldn't be as competitive and/or would be quite outdated and manufacturers would be less likely to use Android on their products and would instead migrate to alternatives such as Windows mobile.
The conclusion is that Google's power over the Android device manufacturers is partly based on continuing infringement of patented Apple technologies.
Stop the infringement (which Apple is trying through the courts) and Android degrades and in turn, Google's power over the manufacturers will also degrade.
I imagine that for most handset makers Android is still a good deal. All they have to do is give priority to using the #1 search engine, a handful of popular and very useful apps (maps, translate, YouTube, etc.), and a ready-made, well-stocked app store. No licensing fees. What's not to like (from their perspective)? Those handset makers that also make PCs probably find Google's terms a heck of a lot better than those for getting Windows from Microsoft.
And speaking of Microsoft, there is the fly in the proverbial ointment. While Google may not charge fees, thanks to the Patent Wars Microsoft is making a bundle from patent licensing fees from these same firms. Oh yes, Apple and Nokia are also getting a piece of this action, but Microsoft is the big winner. Is it any wonder that, outside of Samsung-with-the-deep-pockets-and-lots-of-lawyers, none of these guys are making any appreciable profits?
The WSJ article is behind a paywall and in the excerpt there is no claim of what you said, do you have the full text?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel
One important thing folks should not overlook:
Android infringes on patented Apple technologies.
We know that from the $1 billion Samsung v. Apple verdict (in which similar damages have been imposed by two different juries!) as well as the recent ruling by Judge Koh in the second Samsung v. Apple trial in which she ruled that Samsung Android phones were infringing on a certain Apple patent.
Why is this fact relevant?
Because it is those infringed Apple patents that enables Android phones to seriously compete with Apple products. And because of this close-enough-parity with iOS, manufacturers are more than happy to agree to whatever terms Google imposes on them with regards to Android licensing. The burden of Android licensing is far outweighed by the benefits of openly infringing on invaluable Apple patents, especially the Steve Jobs multitouch patents.
If Android wasn't infringing on Apple patents, it wouldn't be as competitive and/or would be quite outdated and manufacturers would be less likely to use Android on their products and would instead migrate to alternatives such as Windows mobile.
The conclusion is that Google's power over the Android device manufacturers is partly based on continuing infringement of patented Apple technologies.
Stop the infringement (which Apple is trying through the courts) and Android degrades and in turn, Google's power over the manufacturers will also degrade.
What? Apple vs Samsung trial ruling affected Samsung implementation, not AOSP implementation
Isn't Samsung the only Android manufacturer that makes any money?
I guess Android isn't a cure-all.
We know Android is making money. What we don't know is where they are making their money off of TVs or Android phones. The stock holders and board of directors are doing a lot of squawking over something...?
The other manufacturers are losing money... for one thing they can't compete with Samsung throwing 14 Billion into an advertising black hole.
We know Android is making money. What we don't know is where they are making their money off of TVs or Android phones. The stock holders and board of directors are doing a lot of squawking over something...?
Android (the operating system) is making money for Google though advertising.
But I was talking about the manufacturers of phones that run Android. Some of them aren't making any money at all.
Is not requred licensing apps to use the Android trademark
I think you're reading into this too literally. The licensing comes with the territory, resulting in an all-or-nothing approach that is arguably more restrictive to OEMs than what Google has portrayed publicly.
Peter talks a lot of crap, you really shouldn't believe his articles. They're mostly just linkbait these days. There's actually a Google dev who responded to him pointing out how bad that article was.
Android is designed to be forked, you can start developing your own personalised phone OS from it right now. The only thing you probably can't do is run it on a real phone as you'll have to sign all sorts of restrictive licenses with Qualcomm etc just to get working drivers.
That's the bit that's hard to do, forking Android is a single command.
No, Google is the new Microsoft. And considering all of the reports that Fandroids love pointing to where Google is dominating in market share with Android then I think that this might be close to being a monopoly violation. Google had better start praying that Apple's iOS keeps going strong because if it ever falters then I can assure you that it will be considered a monopoly violation and just like with Microsoft the governments will soon step in to force Google to give consumers a choice.
All that being said, it also makes very clear that Google isn't this wonderful bastion of "openness" fighting against the "walled gardern" of iOS for the people. Nope, it is just another evil, greedy corporation using the people who buy Android phones as a product. Funny that so many of them call people who like iOS sheep when they have more in common with sheep. As in people who own sheep taking something from them to make a profit, just like Google takes something, information, from Android users to make a profit.
So, BAH little Android sheep. Enjoy getting sheared. I for one would rather stay the customer.
No, more like a drug dealer/drug addict relationship. The dealer starts off almost giving away the drug to any potential addict. And when the drug user gets hooked, the dealer starts asking for more and more. Knowing that the user is now addicted and will be willing to pay more and more for the drug.
I'm waiting for Gatorguy to explain what this all really means.
The linked source is pretty readable. It seems that either you use all of Google's services or you don't. If you don't, you do the Amazon path of using AOSP and putting your own services on top.
I think the people saying it's not "open" don't really understand which part is supposed to be open and which isn't.
Between a half dozen Chinese producers, Amazon and now [URL=http://www.businessinsider.com/nokia-android-phone-2014-2]Nokia[/URL] who are all using "Android" without using Google services I'm not sure what the concern is. HTC, Samsung or the soon-to-be-sold Motorola can all create their own versions if they want to. That makes "Android" pretty darn open IMO. The official Google Android version with licensed Google services is not. It comes with restrictions, as of course it would. That's what licenses do as a rule.
That's not what this says: "manufacturers using Android agree to preinstall specific Google Apps, set Google Search as the default search provider for all Web access points and preload Google's Network Location Provider service.…"
Note the first 3 words of the quote: "manufacturers using Android...." Nowhere does it say "licensing Google apps." That's presumptive based on the quid pro quo of installing those apps in favored position in exchange for permission to use Android on their devices.
Got it now?
Yet Amazon has forked Android and I'm sure will continue to do so. These 'rules' aren't all that strict.
Comments
Poor choice of words, branding = trademark.
Is not requred licensing apps to use the Android trademarkThen I guess WSJ is wrong too.
I don't know, do you have the full text of the article?
One important thing folks should not overlook:
Android infringes on patented Apple technologies.
We know that from the $1 billion Samsung v. Apple verdict (in which similar damages have been imposed by two different juries!) as well as the recent ruling by Judge Koh in the second Samsung v. Apple trial in which she ruled that Samsung Android phones were infringing on a certain Apple patent.
Why is this fact relevant?
Because it is those infringed Apple patents that enables Android phones to seriously compete with Apple products. And because of this close-enough-parity with iOS, manufacturers are more than happy to agree to whatever terms Google imposes on them with regards to Android licensing. The burden of Android licensing is far outweighed by the benefits of openly infringing on invaluable Apple patents, especially the Steve Jobs multitouch patents.
If Android wasn't infringing on Apple patents, it wouldn't be as competitive and/or would be quite outdated and manufacturers would be less likely to use Android on their products and would instead migrate to alternatives such as Windows mobile.
The conclusion is that Google's power over the Android device manufacturers is partly based on continuing infringement of patented Apple technologies.
Stop the infringement (which Apple is trying through the courts) and Android degrades and in turn, Google's power over the manufacturers will also degrade.
I imagine that for most handset makers Android is still a good deal. All they have to do is give priority to using the #1 search engine, a handful of popular and very useful apps (maps, translate, YouTube, etc.), and a ready-made, well-stocked app store. No licensing fees. What's not to like (from their perspective)? Those handset makers that also make PCs probably find Google's terms a heck of a lot better than those for getting Windows from Microsoft.
And speaking of Microsoft, there is the fly in the proverbial ointment. While Google may not charge fees, thanks to the Patent Wars Microsoft is making a bundle from patent licensing fees from these same firms. Oh yes, Apple and Nokia are also getting a piece of this action, but Microsoft is the big winner. Is it any wonder that, outside of Samsung-with-the-deep-pockets-and-lots-of-lawyers, none of these guys are making any appreciable profits?
Linked in article.
The WSJ article is behind a paywall and in the excerpt there is no claim of what you said, do you have the full text?
One important thing folks should not overlook:
Android infringes on patented Apple technologies.
We know that from the $1 billion Samsung v. Apple verdict (in which similar damages have been imposed by two different juries!) as well as the recent ruling by Judge Koh in the second Samsung v. Apple trial in which she ruled that Samsung Android phones were infringing on a certain Apple patent.
Why is this fact relevant?
Because it is those infringed Apple patents that enables Android phones to seriously compete with Apple products. And because of this close-enough-parity with iOS, manufacturers are more than happy to agree to whatever terms Google imposes on them with regards to Android licensing. The burden of Android licensing is far outweighed by the benefits of openly infringing on invaluable Apple patents, especially the Steve Jobs multitouch patents.
If Android wasn't infringing on Apple patents, it wouldn't be as competitive and/or would be quite outdated and manufacturers would be less likely to use Android on their products and would instead migrate to alternatives such as Windows mobile.
The conclusion is that Google's power over the Android device manufacturers is partly based on continuing infringement of patented Apple technologies.
Stop the infringement (which Apple is trying through the courts) and Android degrades and in turn, Google's power over the manufacturers will also degrade.
What? Apple vs Samsung trial ruling affected Samsung implementation, not AOSP implementation
We know Android is making money. What we don't know is where they are making their money off of TVs or Android phones. The stock holders and board of directors are doing a lot of squawking over something...?
The other manufacturers are losing money... for one thing they can't compete with Samsung throwing 14 Billion into an advertising black hole.
Android (the operating system) is making money for Google though advertising.
But I was talking about the manufacturers of phones that run Android. Some of them aren't making any money at all.
Exactly. Samsung is sucking the oxygen out of the Android handset industry. It's a touch business to be in.
Poor choice of words, branding = trademark.
Is not requred licensing apps to use the Android trademark
I think you're reading into this too literally. The licensing comes with the territory, resulting in an all-or-nothing approach that is arguably more restrictive to OEMs than what Google has portrayed publicly.
all this word parsing is beside the real point. when you put these Google license terms together with how Google is evolving the overall Android OS itself (see the very important article http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/neither-microsoft-nokia-nor-anyone-else-should-fork-android-its-unforkable/ for the gory details), it is absolutely clear Google Android has become a master/slave relationship - with the OEM's as the slaves. even Samsung.
Peter talks a lot of crap, you really shouldn't believe his articles. They're mostly just linkbait these days. There's actually a Google dev who responded to him pointing out how bad that article was.
Android is designed to be forked, you can start developing your own personalised phone OS from it right now. The only thing you probably can't do is run it on a real phone as you'll have to sign all sorts of restrictive licenses with Qualcomm etc just to get working drivers.
That's the bit that's hard to do, forking Android is a single command.
But it's open?!?!
We can do what we want!!!
Is Google the new Apple?
No, Google is the new Microsoft. And considering all of the reports that Fandroids love pointing to where Google is dominating in market share with Android then I think that this might be close to being a monopoly violation. Google had better start praying that Apple's iOS keeps going strong because if it ever falters then I can assure you that it will be considered a monopoly violation and just like with Microsoft the governments will soon step in to force Google to give consumers a choice.
All that being said, it also makes very clear that Google isn't this wonderful bastion of "openness" fighting against the "walled gardern" of iOS for the people. Nope, it is just another evil, greedy corporation using the people who buy Android phones as a product. Funny that so many of them call people who like iOS sheep when they have more in common with sheep. As in people who own sheep taking something from them to make a profit, just like Google takes something, information, from Android users to make a profit.
So, BAH little Android sheep. Enjoy getting sheared. I for one would rather stay the customer.
Seems a little, er... how to put it, evil?
Google: "We can show you how to make US billions. You'll spend millions to develop and market your product, and maybe (if you're lucky) break even."
Fixed it for ya.
all this word parsing is beside the real point. when you put these Google license terms together with how Google is evolving the overall Android OS itself (see the very important article http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/neither-microsoft-nokia-nor-anyone-else-should-fork-android-its-unforkable/ for the gory details), it is absolutely clear Google Android has become a master/slave relationship - with the OEM's as the slaves. even Samsung.
No, more like a drug dealer/drug addict relationship. The dealer starts off almost giving away the drug to any potential addict. And when the drug user gets hooked, the dealer starts asking for more and more. Knowing that the user is now addicted and will be willing to pay more and more for the drug.
I'm waiting for Gatorguy to explain what this all really means.
The linked source is pretty readable. It seems that either you use all of Google's services or you don't. If you don't, you do the Amazon path of using AOSP and putting your own services on top.
I think the people saying it's not "open" don't really understand which part is supposed to be open and which isn't.
But...but...but...Android is OPEN. That is what makes it so great!
Oh! And Google is NOT evil! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Yet Amazon has forked Android and I'm sure will continue to do so. These 'rules' aren't all that strict.