| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| How Apple and Microsoft intend to destroy Android |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-07-29 10:48:54 |
| Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair. |
|
| RE[2]: Whining by proxy |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-07-30 09:38:44 |
|
Google is an advertising company, thats where over 90% of their revenue comes from. Of course Google engages in other activities, many companies do, many including Google spends many millions on political lobbying or supporting cultural activities, does that make them a lobbyist or culture business - no. Any business is driven by the demands of core business, the stuff that all the money comes from. If you want to understand the behaviour of any company, Google, Microsoft, Apple, look at what their core products are, the ones that make most of their money. Google's USP, the way it adds value to it's core product of advertising is to collect information on people. Collecting information on what people do, what they write about in their emails, what they search for and browse, where the live, who their friends are, is absolutely core to Google's business. When Google sells advertising space on it's search page it doesn't just offer a blank space, it offers targeted ads that are shaped to the end user, that's what add the value to Google's product. It's easy to see in action, log in to your system and do a Google search for a common sort of term, then get a friend to do the same, you will see that not only are the ads served to each of you different based on Google's collected information about you but the actual search results are also different and are also based on what Google knows about you. You, the data about you, is Google's product, it's what it sells to it's actual paying customers. |
 - Score: 3 |
| RE[3]: Whining by proxy |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-07-30 09:43:48 |
|
Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy. Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[4]: Whining by proxy |
| By _txf_ on 2012-07-30 09:48:06 |
|
> Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy. Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world. Not to mention that iAd probably works in a very similar way to Adwords... |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: Whining by proxy |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-07-30 09:57:43 |
|
First of all I am not against Google's business model. I am just realistic about it's consequences. Google is free to pursue that business model as much as it wants and in any ways that are legal, as are other companies. Second Red Hat is tiny compared to Google so it's actions have tiny consequences compared to Google's. Thirdly because Red Hat's business is not based on collecting data about people to add value to advertising, as Google's is, they are not driven, as Google is, to see all areas of user data that are closed off from their data collections systems as threats to the value of their business. Thus Red Hat is not driven to try to pry open, route around, or subvert (and if necessary destroy) through the production of free alternatives the business models of any other companies that are generating significant user data that is closed to them. Why does Google invest in Youtube, Gmail, Google Docs, Google +, Android, etc etc? It's so they can guarantee access to data about people and what they doing. Minus that data Google has no business, And minus a big chunk of that user data, when for example another company creates something like Facebook or iOS, Google rightly understands that it's core product is devalued. Partial user data is much less valuable and attractive to Google's customers than complete data. None of what Google does is 'wrong'. It's just business and if it's legal then Google should be free to pursue any strategy they want. But for gods sake let's drop the relentless whining of self pity and the claims of faux martyrdom. The endless attempts, surprisingly successful, to enlist the support of those who think Google is a champion of something called 'open' against the evils of something called 'closed'. One can admire or support one business model against another without pretending that one business model is evil and one good, that's a juvenile way to look at the world of commerce. Thinking that it is somehow 'unfair' if other companies fight back against Google's competitive attacks is absurd. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[5]: Whining by proxy |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-07-30 10:06:15 |
|
> > Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy. Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world. Not to mention that iAd probably works in a very similar way to Adwords... ...and I totally forgot iCloud. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Mobile business? |
| By Hussein on 2012-07-30 10:42:23 |
| Hey Thom, dumbphones are not smartphones, smartphones are an evolution of personal computers and not phones. Apple and Microsoft have every right to go after Android. |
| - Score: 0 |
| RE[4]: Whining by proxy |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-07-30 10:51:17 |
|
> Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy. Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world. Thom calm down. I have never said Google is evil - I think using such terms is juvenile and unhelpful. I do think think that trying to rationally understand what drives companies in particular directions is worthwhile and I do think that arguing that a company is being treated 'unfairly' just because a competitor responds to it's competition is juvenile. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle are all essentially ethically the same, just getting on with the hard nosed business of making their business a success. As long as they do that in a legal way then good luck to all of them. I honestly don't know quite what you mean by "Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy". Do you mean does Apple collect data on what people buy through their iTunes accounts. Of course they do. Do Apple promote the size of their ecosystem by disseminating information about it's user population size in order to attract content providers and developers - yes - so what? Does Apple sell that data to third parties - not to my knowledge but I haven't really investigated that systematically so please feel free to post information about what Apple does with that data (that's an honest suggestion by the way and is not intended for rhetorical flourish). Have Apple resisted third parties who wanted to use their system to collect and then sell data about iTune users - yes - that was the nub of the issue Apple had with many publishers for example. Is collecting user data as central to Apple's business as it is to Google's - no - so if one were trying to analyse and understand what drove each company the role of user data in understanding Apple would carry far less weight than understanding the role of user date in Google. Is that a controversial thing to say in your view, it seems so obvious to me. You seem to want to constantly suggest that I think Google is 'evil' and Apple are 'good' but I simply don't think like that. I like Apple a great deal and based on nearly thirty year of using their products I have a great affection for them but I don't think they are ethically better than any other company nor do I think that Google is ethically inferior. There just have different business models which drives different strategies. Google's business model drives it to try to undermine the business model of other companies through offering free alternatives, Apple's model drives it to try to use superior purchasing power to monopolise and secure favourable supply chains for components, neither is good or bad, they are just logical. Thom - my motivation to post comments is mostly built on my affection for Apple, sorry if that irritates you, get over it. We all have different opinions - that's why we bother to debate stuff. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: Mobile business? |
| By _txf_ on 2012-07-30 10:52:06 |
|
> Hey Thom, dumbphones are not smartphones, smartphones are an evolution of personal computers and not phones. Apple and Microsoft have every right to go after Android. What is the distinction between a dumb phone and a smartphone that makes it applicable? There have been capable dumb phones. And it should be noted that most "dumb phones" had the ability to run applications when the iphone couldn't. What an utterly inane comment... Edited 2012-07-30 10:52 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[6]: Whining by proxy |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-07-30 11:10:28 |
|
> > > Which, of course, is magically different from Apple pimping its 400 million credit card numbers, associated user accounts, and which magazines, videos, books, applications, and music those users look at and buy. Totally different. Yessiree. Very different because Google is evil, and Apple is all that is good and pure in this world. Not to mention that iAd probably works in a very similar way to Adwords... ...and I totally forgot iCloud. Are you arguing that Apple collects data on the content of documents stored in iCloud on a per user basis in a similar way that Google collects data in say Gmail in order to commercialise that data in a similar way that Google does? If so then some evidence supporting that hypothesis would be useful. It seems to me utterly obvious that Apple and Google have different business models (neither of which is 'good' or 'bad') and that those different models mean that the function of cloud storage is different in each company. In the case of Apple it's core business is primarily, overwhelmingly in fact, as a device maker and all it's services and software offerings are intended to add value to the devices and make it inconvenient (but not impossible) to move to another company's device. Collecting data on user behaviour is a secondary and very minor aspect of what motivates Apple. iAd is a tiny part of Apple's business. Google's core business on the other hand is selling targeted advertising, targeting that is wholly based on user data, so collecting user data is very central to what Google does, it is a prime motivator and is crucial to it's business model. So what motivates Google to offer cloud storage and services is to collect user data and to ensure that users remain with an ecosystem which allows Google to collect that data. Is any of this news to anyone? I would be astonished if anyone found what I just said any way controversial. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[4]: Comment by marcp |
| By marcp on 2012-07-30 11:52:47 |
|
> One has nothing to do with the other. A company can be open and at the same time profit from data it collects from you. Companies are not open. Foundations can be open. Source code can be open. Open does not imply "free". Free [libre] does imply open by its nature. > No, it's about keeping your perceived advantages a secret. You don't have to agree with this (I think it's bogus most of the time) but this is the reasoning behind it. Closed source is all about the patents AND "keeping your perceived advantages a secret". > > Free Software is all about anti-patent system. No, it's about free and open access to the source code. You cannot be further from the truth. Free [Libre] software is about right to access, share, modify the code. It's about independence, liberty, collective work and transparency. There's much more to FREE [libre] software, than to open source software. > You can't see that it is possible for OSS to violate patents? It violates patents from the point of view of the people who created and misuse patent system. Good people disobey bad laws. Bad laws must be changed, NOT accepted. Bad laws are a direct suggestion for people to change it. > Maybe this "payment" is perfectly acceptable to me. > Exactly what of my civil liberties are violated by Google? Is it not up to the individual to decide how much they value their "privacy"? Maybe I don't give a shit if Google collects this data. Ok then. You may be a submissive conformist willing to give almost all of his rights and liberties away [or - to be more precise - being taken away from you, because you are not even realizing the fact that you are being silently robbed, I presume]. I accept it and I have nothing against you. It's your choice. |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |