Habi_tweet

About

Username
Habi_tweet
Joined
Visits
26
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
7
Badges
0
Posts
74
  • Here we go again: Apple's iPhone battery service terms igniting complaints from users

    mike54 said:
    Apple being so picky stems from the "suing and litigation" culture in the US, which thankfully, not as yet anyway, the rest of the world hasn't copied.
    Ok, so how will that work outside the US where the opposite might happen? Private customers have better rights outside the US and protection with dealing with big companies (active measures helping private customers). Is this a cultural thing that is hard to understand for some US companies (their leaders), since its pretty well known outside US how things are there and expectations differ? Its not always optimal to solve two problems with one policy, especially if the targets are so widespread. Here Apple has drawn the line closer to US policy and are in trouble (and have been for years) because its further from expectations "outside US" == eg. EU from a legal point of view.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Google faces $9 billion in damages after ripping off Java in Android

    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    I recently read that the court is expressing extreme skepticism over Oracle’s valuation of Java. It’s very likely that if Google does lose this, the amount of money involved will be far less that what Oracle is demanding.
    I dont think so. Google clearly understood the value of java. That will be proven on court and the damages will be mindblowing. They will be because of willfull infringment. Basically willfull infringers arent supposed to make a good deal out of the infringment (econimical awarding), the question really is would Android had sucseeded with a new language. Probably not. Hence  the economical aspects belong to Oracle.
    Wouldn't damages typically be based on fact rather than guessing? I doubt any monetary consideration at all will be given to a question about whether Android would have been successful or not today. But courts are fickle things. I suspect there will be a Round 4 unless one of the two finally says enough. 
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    I recently read that the court is expressing extreme skepticism over Oracle’s valuation of Java. It’s very likely that if Google does lose this, the amount of money involved will be far less that what Oracle is demanding.
    I dont think so. Google clearly understood the value of java. That will be proven on court and the damages will be mindblowing. They will be because of willfull infringment. Basically willfull infringers arent supposed to make a good deal out of the infringment (econimical awarding), the question really is would Android had sucseeded with a new language. Probably not. Hence  the economical aspects belong to Oracle.
    Wouldn't damages typically be based on fact rather than guessing? I doubt any monetary consideration at all will be given to a question about whether Android would have been successful or not today. But courts are fickle things. I suspect there will be a Round 4 unless one of the two finally says enough. 
    Show me a product that borrowed some very large portions from others and that didnt pay the others for their work and made a big hit economically. I dont think iknow any such cases where the company even when infringing didnt have to pony up the dough in the end. Now Google is terrified since they actually know the value of Android to their business. And it is a fact that Android would be no business at all if it had not secured those app developers.
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Google faces $9 billion in damages after ripping off Java in Android

    melgross said:
    I recently read that the court is expressing extreme skepticism over Oracle’s valuation of Java. It’s very likely that if Google does lose this, the amount of money involved will be far less that what Oracle is demanding.
    I dont think so. Google clearly understood the value of java. That will be proven on court and the damages will be mindblowing. They will be because of willfull infringment. Basically willfull infringers arent supposed to make a good deal out of the infringment (econimical awarding), the question really is would Android had sucseeded with a new language. Probably not. Hence  the economical aspects belong to Oracle.
    watto_cobrahabi000
  • Google faces $9 billion in damages after ripping off Java in Android

    Rayz2016 said:

    adm1 said:
    If they're on the hook for anything financial, it would be the standard licensing fee that they avoided paying initially. I can't see the 9B profit argument holding up in court.
    To get 9B, Oracle would have prove that they’d lost a significant chunk of revenue due to theft. Whether this is the case or not depends on how Java is licensed. If it’s a flat fee then no problem. If the charge as a percentage of the product that uses it, then yes, it could run into billions. The only problem is how does one quantify that. Android is free. What percentage of user data sales are attributed to it? What about Android searches? You can’t count those if they went through the Google search engine. 

    I dont think  you can really put a figure on this because the user data extraction, the massaging and the selling on – none of that is done by Java. That’s all Google’s code. So while  I think they’re as guilty as hell, I think $9B is stretching it. 


    I think it's irrelevant if the data extraction is done by Java. A significant chunk of their data comes from Android devices, which one could argue wouldn't exist at all in their current form without Java. Would Android have even taken off if they didn't have a user base of developers already familiar with Java to make it easy for them to start coding for Android?

    If Android devices are responsible for 10% of the data Google gets for their targeted ad business, then I think the value is easy to determine (Android contributes 10% of their ad revenue). I don't think Oracle is entitled to ALL of this, just a percentage. So if Oracle is awarded 5% of Android revenue, then they get 0.5% of Googles entire ad revenue. Which would have been a few billion over the last 8 years, but less than the $9 billion suggested in this article.
    Dont forget that its determined as willfull infringment damages usually are trippled compared to otherwise. Onthinknthe evidence is there for a willfull infringment outcome,
    watto_cobra
  • Google gives up on tablets: Android P marks an end to its ambitious efforts to take on App...



    This is the perfect opportunity for Samsung to take over the tablet market using Tizen. - Is that @Herbivore2 in the guise of GG1??? Just kidding. You restored normality with the very next sentence which is more important - I just don't think Samsung have shown in the past at being very good at software. I completely agree with this point, which is why Samsung cannot take over the <$300 market for themselves with Tizen. Android will continue to be the default OS for those tablets with <$300 price. Apple has pretty much taken over the majority of tablet market in >$300, with very little hope/scope for others to compete.


    The answer to your last question is fairly obvious - Google. Don't look any further than that (despite this article implying otherwise), because they do support Android in tablets and will continue to do so.

    This is an intresting point why didnt Apple try harder to lower the line and cater to market on phones like they did with the IPad/IPad pro. Samsung would have been squeezed out like a pimple and left the rest of the market to niché players. Apple tried to fix the situation with IPhone SE But it was years too Late and the app support was too good by then on Android platform (phones). IPad has always had a lower margin. And I’m not talking about the race to the bottom, just lowering the Bar and having two segments. Middle  and high. Apple created the space for Samsung. Samsung was just using the void to create Android. What would Android (phones) be today without Samsung? 
    muthuk_vanalingam