That plan has failed because Android failed to attract a demographic similar to iOS. Sure there is some residual money in advertising to poor people, but the real money is on iOS.
That's why Google aimed its initial Nexus phones directly at iPhone and its Honeycomb tablets 20% above the price of iPad. It thought it had a shot of replicating iOS the way Windows ravaged Macs.
It failed. By 2013 it was trying to introduce free hardware; zero profit Nexus 7 & Moto X and Moto G devices that were priced so low it was losing hundreds of millions of dollars (just in the last six months!) on hardware.
<span style="line-height:22px;">Mobile ads aren't going to subsidize those losses, particularly because Google's mobile efforts are failing. </span>
Google does earn ad revenues from both Android and iOS, but relative to its historical rates from PC web users, it makes nearly nothing.
Apple used to make relatively nothing on hardware sales. But its transition to mobile turned it into the world's largest and most valuable tech company.
I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.
My clicking on an add in the U.S allows Google to make money and keep that YouTube server running with some kid learning about gravity from a YouTube video. Internet advertising the best from of socialism there is.
I'm lucky enough to watch YouTube on my iPad air. A $75 dollar android with a YouTube app, helps more if my fellow humans.
You seem to have turn this into apple makes more money than Google pissing contest. I appreciate both technology companies for what they do and how they do it.
I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.
My clicking on an add in the U.S allows Google to make money and keep that YouTube server running with some kid learning about gravity from a YouTube video. Internet advertising the best from of socialism there is.
I'm lucky enough to watch YouTube on my iPad air. A $75 dollar android with a YouTube app, helps more if my fellow humans.
You seem to have turn this into apple makes more money than Google pissing contest. You are the definition of a rabid fanboy. I appreciate both technology companies for what they do and how they do it.
In what way has Apple ever threatened the ability of poor people to stream YouTube ad-videos?
Companies can do all the things you describe without stealing Apple tech, presenting it as their own and refusing to pay for it.
Samsung doesn't need to steal in order to produce low cost phones.
Funny when all the trolls come out from under the bridge. Even funnier to see them agreeing with and supporting each other, as if it adds any weight to their pathetic arguments.
In what way has Apple ever threatened the ability of poor people to stream YouTube ad-videos?
Companies can do all the things you describe without stealing Apple tech, presenting it as their own and refusing to pay for it.
Samsung doesn't need to steal in order to produce low cost phones.
Never said Apple threaten anything. You seem to have a distace for the poor buying android and are gleeful about Google not being able to monetize the poor because that means the death if their mobile advertising business.
I find Samsung to be a shameless company with few positive qualities. I actually wanted them to get punish more during the first trial. I just happen to have a different view on software patents, especially the crap ones apple used in this tral. I'm happy to see software patents being devalued, and hopefully a system is put in place that deals with software in a more nuanced way.
That plan has failed because Android failed to attract a demographic similar to iOS. Sure there is some residual money in advertising to poor people, but the real money is on iOS.
That's why Google aimed its initial Nexus phones directly at iPhone and its Honeycomb tablets 20% above the price of iPad. It thought it had a shot of replicating iOS the way Windows ravaged Macs.
It failed. By 2013 it was trying to introduce free hardware; zero profit Nexus 7 & Moto X and Moto G devices that were priced so low it was losing hundreds of millions of dollars (just in the last six months!) on hardware.
Mobile ads aren't going to subsidize those losses, particularly because Google's mobile efforts are failing.
Google does earn ad revenues from both Android and iOS, but relative to its historical rates from PC web users, it makes nearly nothing.
Can't we all just get along? and deliver better products?
Apple blew it by not going after Schmidt and Google directly. They are the real pirates here.
That's not how patent law works. Google doesn't make phones and they don't charge for Android software. $0 revenue times anything is still $0. Apple can't directly go after Google's ad revenue.
If you read that garbage article, you'll find out what it actually says.
Hint: the click bait title has nothing to do with the nugget of garbage that Business Insider constructed the piece upon.
The short answer is that it some analytics firm is saying more ads will be shown to Android users. The fact that there is any "revenue ad gap" between the supposedly 80% of Android and iOS should tell you something is already wrong with their creative wordplay.
I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.
My clicking on an add in the U.S allows Google to make money and keep that YouTube server running with some kid learning about gravity from a YouTube video. Internet advertising the best from of socialism there is.
I'm lucky enough to watch YouTube on my iPad air. A $75 dollar android with a YouTube app, helps more if my fellow humans.
You seem to have turn this into apple makes more money than Google pissing contest. You are the definition of a rabid fanboy. I appreciate both technology companies for what they do and how they do it.
You can use iTunes U and apparently MIT have all their courses available online.
No need for Google Ad dollars at all.
How much does data cost in Haiti?
No point in wasting hundreds on a phone without a reliable network.
Why wouldn't these people get something in the sub $50 range from a Chinese OEM?
If you read that garbage article, you'll find out what it actually says.
Hint: the click bait title has nothing to do with the nugget of garbage that Business Insider constructed the piece upon.
The short answer is that it some analytics firm is saying more ads will be shown to Android users. The fact that there is any "revenue ad gap" between the supposedly 80% of Android and iOS should tell you something is already wrong with their creative wordplay.
No, according to that analytics firm more ads are *already* being shown to Android users.
Where's the amounts? Ad monetization of apps is not where "mobile revenue" is coming from, unless you Opera and have no part of the world's largest market for consumer electronics hardware.
The bottom line is that you and the other readers of this "Business Insider" garbage puff piece were confused by creatively worded nonsense.
Samsung didn't think them a joke judging by how important their own documents stated their importance (for copying and inclusion in Samsung products).
But, hey, it's just an opinion.
Glad you state it's "just an opinion" because it's certainly not fact. There are no Samsung documents which discuss the importance of copying any of the patents listed in this trial (heck, even Apple is not using them).
Samsung gets fined $120m after making billions of dollars selling iClones.
Yep... Samsung will just record that fine under "Miscellaneous Expenses" on their P&L. Samsung is just laughing at how they are playing the system, and getting away with it.
It's like getting cause robbing $1million from a bank, paying a fine of $1,000 and getting to keep the money.
Comments
Yes.
An appeal in civil court only has about a 20% chance of being reversed.
I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.
My clicking on an add in the U.S allows Google to make money and keep that YouTube server running with some kid learning about gravity from a YouTube video. Internet advertising the best from of socialism there is.
I'm lucky enough to watch YouTube on my iPad air. A $75 dollar android with a YouTube app, helps more if my fellow humans.
You seem to have turn this into apple makes more money than Google pissing contest. I appreciate both technology companies for what they do and how they do it.
Apple blew it by not going after Schmidt and Google directly. They are the real pirates here.
Name one product Google produced (let alone sold) that practiced the art described in Apple patents.
Samsung was sued here because Samsung was the infringer, not Google. The jury thought they were so smart in questioning this, but they were wrong.
I'm glad android is there for the poor folks that can't afford an iPhone. I was born in Haiti and most folks there can't afford iPhones, so cheap android phones with great quality like the moto g serves them great. I love my old pals back hone being able to use WhatsApp and Viber on those android phones to communicate. I love how literacy rates are increasing due to those cheap android phones. God forbid Google paid attention to those poor desperate souls even though they can't give Google any add money.
My clicking on an add in the U.S allows Google to make money and keep that YouTube server running with some kid learning about gravity from a YouTube video. Internet advertising the best from of socialism there is.
I'm lucky enough to watch YouTube on my iPad air. A $75 dollar android with a YouTube app, helps more if my fellow humans.
You seem to have turn this into apple makes more money than Google pissing contest. You are the definition of a rabid fanboy. I appreciate both technology companies for what they do and how they do it.
In what way has Apple ever threatened the ability of poor people to stream YouTube ad-videos?
Companies can do all the things you describe without stealing Apple tech, presenting it as their own and refusing to pay for it.
Samsung doesn't need to steal in order to produce low cost phones.
Funny when all the trolls come out from under the bridge. Even funnier to see them agreeing with and supporting each other, as if it adds any weight to their pathetic arguments.
Never said Apple threaten anything. You seem to have a distace for the poor buying android and are gleeful about Google not being able to monetize the poor because that means the death if their mobile advertising business.
I find Samsung to be a shameless company with few positive qualities. I actually wanted them to get punish more during the first trial. I just happen to have a different view on software patents, especially the crap ones apple used in this tral. I'm happy to see software patents being devalued, and hopefully a system is put in place that deals with software in a more nuanced way.
Damages are based both on a) lost sales by Apple and b) profits earned through infringement.
And if the infringement is willful, the judge can triple the damages awarded by the jury.
But, hey, it's just an opinion.
Name one product Google produced (let alone sold) that practiced the art described in Apple patents.
'Droid. Google stole Apple's iOS. No hardware patent involved.
That plan has failed because Android failed to attract a demographic similar to iOS. Sure there is some residual money in advertising to poor people, but the real money is on iOS.
That's why Google aimed its initial Nexus phones directly at iPhone and its Honeycomb tablets 20% above the price of iPad. It thought it had a shot of replicating iOS the way Windows ravaged Macs.
It failed. By 2013 it was trying to introduce free hardware; zero profit Nexus 7 & Moto X and Moto G devices that were priced so low it was losing hundreds of millions of dollars (just in the last six months!) on hardware.
Mobile ads aren't going to subsidize those losses, particularly because Google's mobile efforts are failing.
Google does earn ad revenues from both Android and iOS, but relative to its historical rates from PC web users, it makes nearly nothing.
Google must be hitting a lot of poor people if pundits are claiming the ad revenue gap will close in the next year or so (http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-revenue-android-2014-4#!Hu5er)
That's not how patent law works. Google doesn't make phones and they don't charge for Android software. $0 revenue times anything is still $0. Apple can't directly go after Google's ad revenue.
Google must be hitting a lot of poor people if pundits are claiming the ad revenue gap will close in the next year or so (http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-revenue-android-2014-4#!Hu5er)
If you read that garbage article, you'll find out what it actually says.
Hint: the click bait title has nothing to do with the nugget of garbage that Business Insider constructed the piece upon.
The short answer is that it some analytics firm is saying more ads will be shown to Android users. The fact that there is any "revenue ad gap" between the supposedly 80% of Android and iOS should tell you something is already wrong with their creative wordplay.
You can use iTunes U and apparently MIT have all their courses available online.
No need for Google Ad dollars at all.
How much does data cost in Haiti?
No point in wasting hundreds on a phone without a reliable network.
Why wouldn't these people get something in the sub $50 range from a Chinese OEM?
If you read that garbage article, you'll find out what it actually says.
Hint: the click bait title has nothing to do with the nugget of garbage that Business Insider constructed the piece upon.
The short answer is that it some analytics firm is saying more ads will be shown to Android users. The fact that there is any "revenue ad gap" between the supposedly 80% of Android and iOS should tell you something is already wrong with their creative wordplay.
No, according to that analytics firm more ads are *already* being shown to Android users.
"According to data from mobile ad company Opera Mediaworks, Android users are now for the first time a greater percentage of users seeing mobile ads than Apple users are."
The thrust of the article is about monetization, not just ad impressions:
"New data shows that in addition to overtaking Apple’s mobile market share, Android is also catching up in terms of its share of mobile revenue.
...While Apple is still ahead in the monetization of those users, its lead is shrinking there also...Opera CEO Mahi de Silva believes Android will catch Apple by the end of the year"
Because Apple was damaged.
No, according to that analytics firm more ads are *already* being shown to Android users.
"According to data from mobile ad company Opera Mediaworks, Android users are now for the first time a greater percentage of users seeing mobile ads than Apple users are."
The thrust of the article is about monetization, not just ad impressions:
"New data shows that in addition to overtaking Apple’s mobile market share, Android is also catching up in terms of its share of mobile revenue.
...While Apple is still ahead in the monetization of those users, its lead is shrinking there also...Opera CEO Mahi de Silva believes Android will catch Apple by the end of the year"
Where's the amounts? Ad monetization of apps is not where "mobile revenue" is coming from, unless you Opera and have no part of the world's largest market for consumer electronics hardware.
The bottom line is that you and the other readers of this "Business Insider" garbage puff piece were confused by creatively worded nonsense.
'Droid. Google stole Apple's iOS. No hardware patent involved.
Bzzzt! Android is just a hunk of bytes. It does nothing without hardware to run it on.
Samsung didn't think them a joke judging by how important their own documents stated their importance (for copying and inclusion in Samsung products).
But, hey, it's just an opinion.
Glad you state it's "just an opinion" because it's certainly not fact. There are no Samsung documents which discuss the importance of copying any of the patents listed in this trial (heck, even Apple is not using them).
Samsung gets fined $120m after making billions of dollars selling iClones.
Yep... Samsung will just record that fine under "Miscellaneous Expenses" on their P&L. Samsung is just laughing at how they are playing the system, and getting away with it.
It's like getting cause robbing $1million from a bank, paying a fine of $1,000 and getting to keep the money.